THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 


LIBRARY 


f'  c 

cc 

Tf' 

A 

■y — 

n 

:c 

R 

rc 

X 

c 

^r*  ^  IV  ^ »  '^*'  ' ' '  '  “>  'V*  *<  •'  '  '  '*'•••,  4,»r  • 


V'  •  • 

V. 


-  -x-.^-.V 

■  M 


•X  •‘-  • 


*. 

■  '<  <  '’-•'^  \ 


•;  *  " ' 


ct : ,./.  • 


■  '.  V-  A'  :  ■■  •  '•>• 


'‘.  , .  '■-'.  •' 
;  .^  _  »•  *l 

■'  •'  T  ’. 


'■  •••<  '. 

»  *'  •  - 


V. 

......  ‘-T-  T.?  -■_ 


•-■‘W  ■'.••&> 

-Aj 


iSr' 


.  .’  /  ' 


•  -^  . .  .-•vxy'*'  '  ■  -  '■' 


t  r^«  r- _ r'' -*v'  -  ■  ' 


'<  ■:  i 

r  »• 


r?>>; 


v.y*  t 


>.-.  V, 


••  i'r  :!/• 


V  '  •  .  *  ..'  *  X'  - 

r.  ..•  •  •  -  y •'^  ^  - 


44  V  V.  • 


>r 


i  jk  •*  ' 

«i 


O'-^.  • 


'  -  /  * 


■  ■''  '■-  4'S  .■V^^  '  '.  ■  -!.>  4  .<-  '^' 


!- '.  s  ,y-:'\:  -.- .-.w.?  ■■-■ . 

-■:  ,■.■  '  ■  ■i-‘r.J:\  ■■-■■■:,-,  I  ■  ._  •  .  ■  •,  '.  V.'  -. 

[  .'U'^  ,v- 

. .,  4----  •  •  •  '  .  ^-  •;  •  ^  •  V  -  ^  .  *.•  ‘A  ^  ^ 


>  I  4. 

■*■•'  '•? 
.■•4' 


:■"  <*' .  ■ 


-•'  vr 


■‘'  ^  .'  .;•  *:-/  • 
•• ,  ' '  'i  . 


*-•. ".,-  *  .*«•: 


t  r  .  'V  * 


r^.  ‘  ;.  f 


t*.  •’-»*' 


■  -V  • 

*w.  •, 


»'  •i  ....  y  V.  ■ 


%  f 

4.>-  -  -  .’ 


•>  • 


'^.  i"’ -’i>  "  ■-■■'.•■■  „«*,...■:  -,.  ^4 


•■  ■•  V'- ■ '^- '■  •>r^''  '■'•  -'  ■  -  '.■  ■■-'•4 


-  4  ^ 


-  V.<S^  '  ■■^'  ■■'■  •  .'^^  '  -  V  ■  ■  •  ■■  " ^  ■■  ■ 


■  •  ■  ■.'•^' ■'.  v". *  ‘*'3'  '  *'  ‘  ■^.'5 

.*  V  •  .  '•.*<*  '  •.’ 


r?/-  ■•  '. 


f'.-  ,  ^ril^  ■  '  :  .  .f^-. •-■.••• 


•  *  •  -  ' 


-5r  ■  ■>,  ■  ■.  ■  .^. 

■4,  ‘•-  ■  .  V.-  :  . 


-  ^  -isi:  'v.  ■ , 


^  ■.'  -  ‘  r  i  •'  '  '‘  ' ' 


.. 


,..  ■  •  .  ■  '  •tSsfci'.’S 

'■=  1  *: '  •  \  ■  . 

*.■  >>  ■  , 


■’V* 


^  V  r  .  -  .•  \ 


^  •«  . .  .  *  ••-.,••• 

'  .'•'r’f  ;  ..t 

Sit  5.  '  /  '■  ,*‘V'.4  V*  *.  „■  '  -  ■ 

.  't '''  *•■  '■>!•  '■’*'.* ■  if’'*'*''  ■’.  .  ^ ^ 


•  ^  r' 


I 

I 


T 


f;' 


X 

a 

o 


X 

o 

a 


<  ^  X 


c_ 

c 

C/5 


a 

t-i 

C 

A 

O 

X 

ro 

O 

M 

• 

H 

O 

CO 

VD 

O 

w 

W 

X 

O 

s; 

> 

o 

• 

tJ 

o 

hh 

ro 

X 

> 

?a 

H 

w 

K| 

M 

s: 

01 

t* 

01 

V 

M 

01 


X 

> 

O  ni  h9  o  W  SSin 

w 

Z  X 

X  >  X  X  i-i 

tr* 

^  td 

01  Mhi 

H 

H 

It* 

•-3  tr* 

O 

o 

H 

O  *< 

H 

w 

> 

X  - 

O 

o 

s 

k:  01 

a 

s: 

td 

01 

01 

Jz: 

■ 

't 

3"  m 
o| 


(D  ^ 

J2.E 

z 

D 

=  2 

-■< 

Q) 

E  z 
o 


4 


‘•iDnfiHjr 


..  TH£ 
»»mmr  OF  a4/»«i 


V-  -  .  c  '  .r** 

'-'V -.- 

•si;  -  -.  ^  •■ 


.A.'*; 


1 


ir:-- 


,y- 


THE  ART  INSTITUTE, 

Where  the  Parliament  of  Religions  was  held. 


Third  Edition. 


NEELY’S  HISTORY  ^£-r 

m 

The  Pmiment  of  Religions 

AND 

RELIGIOUS  CONGRESSES 

9 

AT  THE 

W Grid’s  Columbiari  Exposition 


Com/piled  from  Original  Manuscripts  and  Stenographic  Reports. 


EDITED  BY 

A  CORPS  OF  ABLE  WRITERS. 


PROF.  WALTER  R.  HOUGHTON, 

Editor  in  Chief 
AUTHOK  OF 

*•  History  of  American  Politics,”  “  Conspectus  of  Federal  His¬ 
tory,”  “View  of  United  States  History,”'  “Growth 
of  Geographical  Science,”  “  Nineteen 
Centuries  of  Christianity  ” 

(in  preparation). 


TWO  VOLUMES  IN  ONE— FULLY  ILLUSTRATED 


F.  T.  NEELY, 
Publisher,  Chicago. 


COPYRIGHTED  BY 

FRANK  TENNYSON  NEELY, 
1893. 


All  Rights  Reserved, 


Cop3Tight  covers  the  principal  illustrations. 


PROF.  WALTER  RALEIGH  HOUGHTON. 


Of 


0 


if  ILlWC'^ 


Chicago,  III.,  October  28,  1893. 

The  speeches,  papers,  and  essays  reported  in  this 
volume  are  largely  from  my  stenographic  notes,  and 
from  manuscripts  secured  from  authors. 

In  some  instances  it  has  been  necessary  to  condense, 
but  the  essential  features  of  all  the  addresses  have  been 
carefully  retained,  making  a  thorough  and  comprehen¬ 
sive  report  of  the  great  World’s  Parliament  of  Religions. 

Having  faithfully  attended  the  various  sessions  of  the 
Parliament,  I  can  certify  to  the  accuracy,  completeness, 
and  authenticity  of  the  work. 

John  W.  Postgate. 


« 


NOT  THINGS,  BUT  MEN. 


The  World’s  (ongress  Auxiliary 

OP  THE 

WORLD’S  COLUMBIAN  EXPOSITION  OF  1893. 

NOT  MATTER,  BUT  MIND. 


President,  CHARLES  C.  BONNEY. 

Vice-President,  TH9S.  B.  BRYAN.  Treasurer,  LYMAN  J.  GAGE. 

Secretaries,  BENJAMIN  BUTTERWORTH,  CLARENCE  E.  YOUNG. 


The  Woman’s  Branch  of  the  Auxiliary; 

President  MRS.  POTTER  PALMER.  Vice-President,  MRS.  CHAS.  HENROTIN. 


The  World’s  I^eligious  Congresses 

OF  1893. 

Including  Churches,  Missions,  Sunday  Schools^ 
and  other  Religious  Organizations. 


GENERAL  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WORLD’S  CONGRESS  AUXILIARY 

ON  RELIGIOUS  CONGRESSES. 

Rev.  John  Henry  Barrows,  D.D.  (Presbyterian),  Chairman. 

Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  William  E.  McLaren,  D.D.,  D.C.L.  (Prot.  Episcopal). 
Rev.  Prof.  David  Swing  (Independent),  Vice-Chairman. 

Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  Secretary  (Unitarian). 

His  Grace  Archbishop  P.  A.  Eeehan  (Catholic). 

Rev.  Dr.  F.  A.  Noble  (Congregational).  Rev.  Dr.  A.  J.  Canfield  (Universalist). 
Rev.  Dr,  Wm.  M.  Lawrence  (Baptist).  Rev.  M.  C.  Ranseen  (Swedish  Luth.). 
Rev.  F.  M.  Bristol,  D.D.  (Methodist).  Rev.  J.  Berger  (German  Methodist) 
Rabbi  E.  G.  Hirsch  (Jew).  Mr,  J.  W.  Plummer  (Quaker). 

Rev.  J.  Z.  Torgersen  (Norwegian  Lutheran). 

Rev.  L.  P.  Mercer  (New  Jerusalem,  Swedenborgian). 

Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  C.  E.  Cheney  (Reformed  Episcopal). 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAET  I. 

Mission  of  the  Wokld’s  Congeess  Auxiliary  of  the 

World’s  Columbian  Exposition. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  WORLHS  CONGRESSES  OF  1893. 

Origin  of  the  Idea— Preliminary  Work— Organization  in  1890  —Plan 
Universally  Approved — President  Bonney’s  Sketch  of  the  Work  -  15 

CHAPTER  II. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

Appointment  of  General  Committee — Preliminary  Address  to  Relig¬ 
ious  Leaders  of  the  World — Grand  Consummation  of  the  Project 
in  Columbus  Hall,  Art  Institute,  Chicago,  September  11, 1893  -  22 


PAKT  II. 

Proceedings  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions. 


CHAPTER  I. 

FIRST  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  11th. 

Words  of  Greeting — Opening  Address — Address  of  Welcome — Official 
Welcome — Response  to  Addresses — On  Behalf  of  Women — Address 
— New  England  Puritan — Thanks  from  Greece — Prom  India  and 
China — Legend  of  Russia — Shinto  Bishop  of  Japan — Words  on 
Toleration  —  Greeting  from  France  —  From  Australasia  —  Good 
Wishes  of  Ceylon — Sweden  for  Christ — Word  from  Bombay — Sees 
Spirit  and  Matter — Most  Ancient  Order  of  Monks— Canada  as  a 
Link  in  the  Empire — Converted  Parsee  Woman  of  Bombay — 
Sympathy  from  England — In  Behalf  of  Africa  -  -  -  -  33 


2 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  II. 

SECOND  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  12th. 

Existence  and  Attributes  of  God— The  Infinite  Being — Rational  Demon¬ 
stration  of  the  Being  of  God — Evidence  of  a  Supreme  Being — 
Theistic  Teachings  of  Historic  Faiths — I'heology  of  Judaism — The 
Ancient  Religion  of  India  and  Primitive  Revelation — Religious 
Belief  of  the  Hindus — Argument  for  the  Divine  Being — Idealism 
the  New  Religion  -  -  -  - . 72 


CHAPTER  III. 

THIRD  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  13th. 

The  Nature  of  Man — Voice  from  New  India — Foundation  of  the  Ortho¬ 
dox  Greek  Church — Man  from  a  Catholic  Point  of  View — Human 
Brotherhood  as  Taught  by  the  Religions  Based  on  the  Bible — Much 
to  Admire  in  All  Men — Confucianism — The  Model  Man — Would 
Win  Converts  to  Buddhism — The  Real  Position  of  Japan  toward 
Christianity — Good  Will  and  Peace  Among  Men — Concessions  to 
Native  Religious  Ideas— Supreme  End  and  Office  of  Religion — 
Immortality — The  Soul  and  Its  Future  Life — Religious  System  of 
theParsees . 133 


CHAPTER  IV. 

FOURTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  14th. 

Necessity  of  Religion— Bishop  Keane’s  Introduction — Cardinal  Gib¬ 
bons’  Message — Religion  Essentially  Characteristic  of  Humanity — 
Divine  Basis  of  the  Co-operation  of  Men  and  Women — The  Relig¬ 
ious  Intent — Spiritual  Forces  in  Human  Progress — Orthodox  or 
Historical  Judaism — Certainties  of  Religion — History  of  Buddhism 
and  Its  Sects  in  Japan . -184 


CHAPTER  V. 

FIFTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  15th. 

Systems  of  Religion — What  the  Dead  Religions  Have  Bequeathed  to 
the  Living — The  Points  of  Contact  and  Contrast  between  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  Mohammedanism — Study  of  Comparative  Theology — 
Duty  of  God  to  Man  Inquired — Confucianism — Each  in  His  Own 
Little  Well — Service  of  the  Science  of  Religions  to  the  Cause  of 
Religious  Unity — The  Ancient  Egyptian  Religion — The  Genesis 
and  Development  of  Confucianism — The  Social  Office  of  Religious 
Feeling — The  Buddhism  of  Siam — The  Importance  of  a  Serious 
Study  of  All  Religions — Religions  of  the  World  .  -  -  -  22'i 

CHAPTER  VI. 

SIXTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  16th. 

Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  World — The  Truthfulness  of  the  Holy  Script¬ 
ures — The  Greatness  and  Influence  of  Moses — Christianity  as  Inter¬ 
preted  by  Literature — The  Catholic  Church  and  the  Bible — What 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  Have  Wrought  for  Mankind — The  Sacred 
Books  of  the  World  as  Literature^ — The  Character  and  Degree  of 
the  Inspiration  of  the  Christian  Scripture — Buddhism — Outlook 
for  Judaism . 292 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


3 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SEVENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  17th. 

Religion  in  Social  and  Married  Life — The  Work  of  Social  Reform  in 
India — The  Catholic  Church  and  the  Marriage  Bond — The  Influ¬ 
ence  of  Religion  on  Women — The  Divine  Element  in  the  Weekly 
Rest-Day — The  Religious  Training  of  Children  .  .  -  -  330 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

EIGHTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  18th. 

Great  Teachers  of  Religion — The  Sympathy  of  Religions — The  His¬ 
toric  Christ — A  New  Testament  Woman;  Or,  What  did  Phoebe 
Do? — Jewish  Contributions  to  Civilization — The  Law  of  Cause  and 
Effect  as  Taught  by  Buddha — Christianity  an  Historical  Religion 
— The  Need  of  a  Wider  Conception  of  Revelation — Christ  the 
Reason  of  the  Universe — The  Incarnation  Idea  in  History  and  in 
Jesus  Christ — The  Incarnation  of  God  in  Christ — The  World’s 
Debt  to  Buddha . .-  -  364 


CHAPTER  IX. 

NINTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  19th, 

Religion  Connected  with  Art  and  Science — A  Letter — Toleration — 
Greek  Philosophy  and  Christian  Religion — Man’s  Place  in  Nature 
— The  Religion  of  Science — Music,  Emotion,  and  Morals — What 
Constitutes  a  Religious  as  Distinguished  from  a  Moral  Life — How 
Can  Philosophy  Aid  the  Science  of  Religion? — Hinduism  as  a 
Religion — The  World’s  Debt  to  Buddha — The  Relation  of  the 
Sciences  to  Religion — History  and  Prospects  of  Exploration  in 
Bible  Lands . 410 


CHAPTER  X. 

TENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  20th. 

Working  Forces  in  Religion — Plea  for  Toleration— Christian  Evan¬ 
gelism  as  One  of  the  Working  Forces  in  Our  American  Christianity 
— Religious  State  of  Germany — The  Spirit  of  Islam— Christ,  the 
Savior  of  the  World — Reconciliation  Vital,  Not  Vicarious— The 
Essential  Oneness  of  Ethical  Ideas  among  All  Men — Religion  and 
Music — The  Relation  between  Religion  and  Conduct — Christianity 
in  Japan;  Its  Present  Condition  and  Future  Prospects — Religion 
in  Pekin — The  Redemption  of  Sinful  Man  through  Jesus  Christ — 
Stones  When  They  Need  Bread . -  -  452 


CHAPTER  XI. 

ELEVENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  21st. 

Connection  of  Religion  with  Social  Problems  -  Thanks  from  Arme¬ 
nians— Restoration  of  Holy  Places— Brotherhood  of  Christian 
Unity — Test  of  Works  Applied — Religion  and  the  Erring  and 


4 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Criminal  Classes— The  Relations  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to 
the  Poor  and  Destitute — Christianity  and  the  Social  Question— 

The  Women  of  India— Buddha — The  Influence  of  Social  Condition 
— Christianity  as  a  Social  Force — What  Judaism  Has  Done  For 
Woman— Individual  Effort  at  Reform  Not  Sufficient — Religion  and 
Labor  . . 507 


CHAPTER  XII. 

TWELFTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  22d. 

Civil  Society  — •  Religious  Debt  —  Foreign  Missions  —  Religion  and 
Wealth ^ — -What  the  Bible  Has  Wrought- — Religion  in  Hawaiian 
Lands — Crime  and  the  Remedy— Ethics  of  Christian  Science — 

The  Religion  of  the  North  American  Indians — Churches  and  City 
Problems — World’s  Religious  Debt  to  Asia — The  Catholic  Church 
and  the  Negro  Race— Christianity  and  the  Negro — Foreign  Mis¬ 
sionary  Methods — The  Mohammedan  Koran  and  Its  Doctrines  -  567 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THIRTEENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  23d. 

Love  of  Humanity  an  Outgrowth  of  Religion — Religion  and  the  Love 
of  Mankind — -The  Grounds  of  Sympathy  and  Fraternity  among 
Religious  Men — The  Essentials  of  Religion — International  Arbitra¬ 
tion — What  Can  Religion  Further  Do  To  Advance  the  Condition  of 
the  American  Negro? — The  Religious  Mission  of  the  English- 
Speaking  Nations — The  Spirit  and  Mission  of  the  Apostolic  Church 
of  Armenia — Greek  Church  Characteristics — International  Justice 
and  Amity— Universal  Brotherhood — A  Protest  Against  Erroneous 
Ideas — Some  Teachings  of  the  Koran — America’s  Duty  to  China — 
Woman  and  the  Pulpit — The  Voice  of  the  Mother  of  Religions  on 
the  Social  Question  .  . . 618 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

FOURTEENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  2m. 

•How  American  Civilization  Has  Been  Affected  by  Christianity — What 
Christianity  Has  Wrought  for  America  ■ —  Present  Outlook  of 
Religions — Government  Census  of  Churches . 669 


CHAPTER  XV. 

FIFTEENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  25th. 

A  Voice  from  Syria — Relations  between  the  Anglican  Church  and  the 
Church  of  the  First  Ages — Religious  Unity  and  Missions — The 
Reunion  of  Christendom— Interdenominational  Comity — Persist¬ 
ence  of  Bible  Orthodoxy — Ethics  and  History  of  the  Jains — Free 
Baptist  Church  History — Spiritual  Ideas  of  the  Bfahmo-Somaj — 

A  White  Life  for  Two — Worship  of  God  in  Man — Christianity  as 
Seen  by  a  Voyager  Around  the  World  699 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS, ^ 


5 


CEIAPTER  XVI 

SIXTEENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  26tk, 

Attitude  of  Christianity  to  Othei*  Religions — Possible  Results  of  the 
Parliament — Message  of  Christianity  to  Other  Religions — Religious 
Thought  in  France — Results  of  Protestant  Missions  in  Turkey — 
What  Buddhism  Has  Done  for  Japan- — Religious  Union  of  the 
Human  Race — The  Armenian  Church — World’s  Religious  Debt 
to  America — Contact  of  Christian  and  Hindu  Thought:  Points 
of  Likeness  and  Contrast — Future  of  Religion  in  Japan — Arbitra¬ 
tion  Instead  of  War — Synthetic  Religion — Buddhism  and  Chris¬ 
tianity — A  Voice  from  the  Young  Men  of  the  Orient  -  -  -  759 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

SEVENTEENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  27th. 

The  World’s  Parliament — The  Good  in  all  Faiths — Religion  and 
Music — Elements  of  Universal  Religion — Swedenborg  and  the 
Harmony  of  Religions — The  World’s  Salvation — The  Only  Possible 
Method  of  Religious  Unification — Christianity  and  Evolution — The 
Baptists  in  History — The  Ultimate  Religion — Christ  the  Unifier  of 
Mankind . 811 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Closing  Scenes  of  the  Parliament — Addresses  by  Dr.  Alfred  W. 
Momerie,  Rev.  P.  C.  Mozoomdar,  Mr.  Hirai,  Rt.  Rev.  Mr.  Shabita, 

H.  Dharmapala,  Swami  Vivekananda,  Vichand  Gandhi,  Prince 
Momolu  Masaquoi,  Dr.  Emil  Hirsch,  Rev.  Dr.  Prank  M.  Bristol, 
Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  Mrs.  Charles  Henrotin,  Rev.  Augusta 
Chapin,  Julia  Ward  Howe,  Bishop- Arnett,  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  J,  J.  Keane, 
Rev.  Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows,  President  Bonney  -  -  -  -  846 


PART  III. 

DENOMINATIONAL  AND  OTHER  CONGRESSES. 

Jewish  Church  Congress— Congress  of  Jewish  Women— Congresses  of 
the  Lutheran  Church — The  Congress  of  Wales — Columbian  Catho¬ 
lic  Congress — Other  Catholic  Congresses — Congregational  Church 
Congress— The  Catholic  Church  Presentation — Universalist  Con¬ 
gress — Congress  of  Disciples  of  Christ — New  Jerusalem  Church 
Congress — Seventh-Day  Baptist  Congress — Congress  of  Theoso- 
phists — Unitarian  Church  Congress — Advent  Christian  Church — 
United  Brethren  Church — Reformed  Episcopal  Church — Presby¬ 
terian  Church  —  Friends  Congress  —  Free  Religious  Association 
— Christian  Scientists — African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — 
Friends  Church  (Orthodox) — King’s  Daughters  and  Sons — German 
Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America — Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
— ^Reformed  Church  of  the  United  States — Swedish  Evangelical 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS, 


6 


MisBion  Covenant — Chicago  Tract  Society — Cumberland  Presby¬ 
terian  Church — Congress  of  Evolutionists — Ethical  Congress — 
Evangelical  Association  Congress — Congress  of  Missions — Sunday- 
Rest  Congress  —  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association  —  Young 
Women's  Christian  Association — Presentation  of  the  Buddhists — 
Evangelical  Alliance  Congress  —  Woman’s  Missions  —  Sunday- 
School  Presentation  —  Reformed  (Dutch)  Church  —  Christian 
Endeavor . 865 


PAKT  IV. 

BIOGRAPHIES,  ARTICLES  AND  OPINIONS, 

Charles  Carroll  Bonney — Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows — ^Very  Rev.  Dion- 
ysios  Latas — Building  a  Great  Religion  (Prof.  David  Swing) — The 
Wise  Men  of  the  East  (Mary  Atwater  Neely) — A  Limitless  Sweep 
of  Thought  (Madeleine  Vinton  Dahlgren) — Song  of  Prophecy 
(John  W.  Hutchinson) — Opinions  - . 971 


ILLTJSTRATIOKS. 


The  Art  Institute,  where  the  Parliament  of  Religions  was  held 

Prof.  Walter  Raleigh  Houghton . 

Dr.  Barrows . 

Clarence  E.  Young  -  . 

C.  C.  Bonney .  - 

Mrs.  Potter  Palmer,  President  Woman’s  Branch  of  the  Auxiliary  -  32 

Japanese  Group .  --37 

Harlow  N.  Higinbotham,  President  World’s  Columbian  Exposition  -  47 

Dr.  Carl  von  Bergen,  of  Stockholm,  Sweden . 61 

Very  Rev.  Augustine  F.  Hewitt,  C.  S.  P.,  New  York  -  ...  75 

Mf  'St  Rev.  Dionysios  Latas,  Archbishop  of  Zante,  Greece  -  -  130 

R^bbi  K.  Kohler,  New  York  ...  145 

Zonshiro  Noguchi,  J apanese  Buddhist . 155 

Kinza  Ringe  M.  Hirai,  Japanese  Buddhist . 169 

Cardinal  Gibbons . 185 

Eminent  Seventh-Day  Baptists . 357 

H.  Dharmapala,  Ceylon . 405 

Mohammed  Alexander  Russell  Webb . 461 

Swami  Vivekananda,  Hindu  Monk . 505 

East  Indian  Group:  Narasima  Chaira,  Lakeshnie  Narain,  Swami 

Vivekananda,  H.  Dharmapala,  Vichand  Ghandi  ....  535 

Group  of  Reporters,  etc. . 581 

Rev.  Geo.  T.  Candlin,  Tientsin,  West  China  .....  609 

Narasima  Chaira . 735 

Herant  M.  Kiretchjian,  Armenian  Orator,  Constantinople  -  -  805 

Mrs.  Charles  Henrotin,  Vice-President  Woman’s  Branch  of  the 

Auxiliary . -  857 

John  W.  Postgate,  in  Charge  Chicago  Herald  Report  ...  864 

Geo.  R.  Davis,  Director-General  World’s  Columbian  Exposition  -  865 

Rev.  L.  M.  Heilman,  D.  D.,  Chairman  Committee  of  Lutheran 

Congress . 875 

Archbishop  Ireland . 891 

Mary  Atwater  Neely  - . 979 

Bishop  C.  H.  Fowler,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  967 
T.  W.  Palmer,  President  World’s  Columbian  Commission  -  -  -  919 

Rev.  Prof.  David  Swing,  Vice-Chairman  General  Committee  -  -  975 

Rev.  Dr.  W.  F.  Black,  LL.  D.,  Chairman  Foreign  Committee  -  -  917 


KEV.  JOHN  HENRY  BARROWS,  D.  D., 


Chairman  General  Committee 


INTRODUCTION 


The  snows  of  winter  will  soon  wrap  the  beautiful  White  City 
in  an  unbroken  silence.  It  has  been  for  two  years  the  home  of 
all  the  arts,  its  forums  thronged  with  the  devotees  of  every 
science.  Though  change  and  the  needs  of  the  busy  Garden  City 
may  scatter  to  the  four  winds  these  deserted  altars  where  a 
world  has  worshiped  the  Great  Architect,  an  imperishable 
•  record  will  remain ! 

While  countless  lliousands,  taking  up  again  the  threads  of 
daily  life,  or  journeying  forth  to  the  uttermost  ends  of  the 
earth,  may,  in  the  heart,  memory,  and  delighted  “mind’s  eye,” 
preserve  for  years  the  visions  of  the  fairyland  of  our  century, 
were  it  not  for  the  genius  of  Literature  all  would  in  time  be  lost ! 

Of  all  the  arts,  useful  or  ornamental,  precious  beyond  any 
branch  of  God’s  great  embodied  wisdom  shown  to  us  as 
“  sciences  ”  here.  Literature  is  the  truest,  noblest  friend  of  man. 

The  art  preservative !  Long  after  kindling  eye  and  ringing 
voice  of  the  disciples  thronging  there  are  gone  forever,  when 
the  bounding  life  pulses  of  the  guiding  heroes  of  peace  who 
taught  the  world’s  lessons  by  the  lake  are  stilled,  on  white 
wings  soaring  down  through  the  corridors  of  Time,  the  immortal 
spirit  of  Literature  will  guard  and  spread  abroad  the  golden 
truths  garnered  in  our  century ! 

Painting,  architecture,  and  sculpture  are  limited  to  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  the  few!  Their  reign  is  transitory.  The  world  rings 
yet  with  the  wail  over  the  “  Lost  Arts  ”  throbbing  in  Wendell 
Phillips’  exquisite  monograph!  The  single  ode  of  Sappho, 
the  lost  books  of  Tacitus,  the  perished  wisdom  of  Hermes,  the 
world’s  desolation  when  the  Alexandrian  library  vanished  in 

flames,  the  gloom  of  the  dark  ages,  all  the  lost  lore  of  the 

7 


8 


INTRODUCTION, 


world’s  youth  are  sad  reminders  of  dark  eclipses  which  can  turn 
back  the  hands  on  the  dial  of  human  progress  no  more!  Never 
again  can  a  world  groping  toward  the  light  halt  hundreds  of 
years  in  the  wilderness  of  enforced  ignorance!  Literature? 
oblivious  of  time,  deathless  in  its  sway,  appealing  to  the  heart, 
mind,  soul,  and  swaying  every  sense,  is  the  immortal  guardian 
now  of  every  product  of  the  brain,  every  throb  of  the  human 
heart ! 

Her  brows,  decked  with  the  laurels  of  the  scribe,  historian, 
poet,  prophet,  and  thinker.  Her  right  and  left  hand  sup¬ 
porters  are  the  inventor  and  mechanic.  She  throws  open  the 
doors  of  the  past,  and  points  to  the  garnered  sheaves  of  the 
present!  The  harvest  of  the  human  mind  is  safe  now  forever! 
The  faithful  children  of  the  pen,  with  reverent  awe  before  the  * 
shades  of  Faust  and  Grutenberg,  look  to  the  American  disciples 
of  God -enlightened  Franklin  to  perpetuate  the  story  of  the 
marvels  of  the  world’s  greatest  congress! 

With  words  of  truth,  in  impartial  verity  of  record,  aided  by 
the  graphic  art,  the  visible  wonders  of  the  19th  century  shown 
at  the  White  City  will  be  herein  described 

By  the  aid  of  modern  machinery,  almost  sentient  in  its  perfec¬ 
tion,  with  the  help  of  the  phonograph,  stenography,  and  the 
myriad  duplicated  records  of  stereotyped  modern  printing, 
future  generations  shall  listen  almost  to  the  very  tones  of  those 
who  met  at  the  World’s  Columbian  Exposition  in  brotherly  love 
to  exchange  pearls  of  wisdom  for  the  gold  of  truth!  The 
wonderful  prophecy  of  the  Bible,  that  “  Brethren  should  meet 
and  dwell  in  amity,”  has  been  realized! 

It  is  no  marvel  that  in  the  great  convocation  of  one  week, 
with  thankful  hearts,  all  men  turned  before  bidding  adieu  to  the 
great  Source  of  all  Good.  While  from  the  science-haunted 
alleys  of  the  White  City,  “  Civilization,  on  her  luminous  wings, 
soared  phoenix-like  to  Jove,”  a  chastened  awe  led  all  to  look 
up  to  and  talk  of  Him  who  is  the  Author  of  all  Good ! 

Next  in  importance  to  the  study  of  the  Holy  Bible  with  its 
miraculously  preserved  records,  fraught  with  the  glad  tidings  of 


INTRODUCTION, 


9 


salvation,  a  very  present  help,  the  only  lamp  to  our  feet,  is  the 
unbiased  history  here  presented  of  the  only  unconstrained  gen¬ 
eral  exchange  of  religious  thought  which  the  world  has  ever  seen ! 

Dictated  by  no  sectarian  pens,  the  story  of  how  pure-hearted, 
bright-browed  men  and  women  paused  in  their  grand  chorus 
of  worship  and  gave  to  all,  each  of  his  best,  is  a  priceless  trust 
of  our  times! 

To  those  who  heard  not,  who  saw  not:  this  record,  never  to  be 
lost,  of  the  brotherly  commune  of  the  wise  and  good  is  cast 
abroad  for  the  good  of  the  human  race  1  It  is  the  story  of  a 
meeting  such  as  the  world  never  knew  before  1  Religion,  morality, 
social  science,  charity,  toleration,  benevolence,  exact  science,  and 
philosophy,  freely  praising  Him  whose  face  no  man  may  look 
upon.  The  spirit  of  love  was  abroad.  In  peace,  free  from  the 
domination  of  prince,  prelate,  tyrant,  or  schemer,  the  song  of  a 
world’s  worship  was  raised,  with  no  discordant  voice.  Marvelous 
as  it  seems,  the  farthermost  ends  of  the  earth  shall  ring  with  the 
good  news  that,  in  our  day,  laying  aside  the  sword,  all  men  from 
wandering  in  different  paths  have  learned  that  the  path  of  Life 
leads  to  Him  alone.  As  the  dome  rises  over  the  cold,  gray 
foundations  of  the  temple,  so  do  the  great  truths  of  man’s  inner 
life  and  future  destiny  rise  above  the  magic  of  mere  handicraft. 
It  is  fitting  that  the  music  of  the  soul  can  never  sink  into 
silence.  The  great  accepted  general  creeds  of  common  belief 
now  welded  in  one  golden  ingot  shall  be  treasured  forever. 

In  offering  to  the  student,  thinker,  and  moralist  these  pages, 
the  publisher  feels  that  the  gravity  of  the  great  task  has  been 
appreciated.  A  corps  of  experienced  scholars  and  editors,  under 
the  judicious  and  faithful  direction  of  Professor  Walter  R. 
Houghton,  has  sought  to  embrace  in  this  veracious  and  studied 
report  and  record  every  essential  truth  and  thought,  impartially 
representing  the  priceless  interchanged  wisdom  of  the  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  Religions! 

Filled  with  a  sense  of  duty  well  done,  in  the  consciousness  of 
earnestness  and  candor,  this  detailed  record  of  the  greatest 
modern  Religious  Congress  is  sent  out  to  an  inquiring 


10 


INTRODUCTION, 


generation.  It  would  have  been  beyond  the  power  of  the  wisest 
or  mightiest  ruler  of  the  earth  to  have  achieved  this  great  task 
fifty  years  ago.  In  rapidity,  perfection,  extent,  and  the  neces¬ 
sary  cheapness  of  record,  these  chronicles  are.  a  marvel  of 
later  literary  perfection! 

To  place  such  a  work  fairly  within  the  means  of  all,  to  effect 
its  distribution,  to  aid  its  future  translation,  and  its  victorious 
passage  over  the  storms  of  Time,  is  to  continue  from  a  religious 
standpoint  the  great  work  of  ‘‘Liberty  enlightening  the  world! 
Freedom,  tolerance,  liberty,  charity,  benevolence,  these  are  the 
white-winged  spirits  hovering  over  the  brethren  of  light  who 
spoke  the  words  of  love  and  truth  recorded  in  these  pages;  it  is 
a  noble  record;  an  honor  to  the  manhood  of  our  age;  a  pride 
and  credit  to  the  aspiring  reverence  of  human  faith ! 

May  this  record  teach,  even  to  the  careless,  that  “  God’s  great¬ 
ness  flows  around  our  incompleteness,  round  our  restlessness. 
His  rest.”  If  there  are  lost  bars  in  the  music  of  Life,  if  to  some, 
a  part  of  the  “  Sweet  Story  of  Old  ”  is  missing:  let  the  disturbed 
at  heart  look  for  it  in  these  pages.  There  is  no  soaring  dream 
of  future  perfection,  no  kindly  thrill  of  goodness,  no  yearning 
for  the  unseen,  no  prayer  for  light  and  truth,  which  may  not 
be  met  or  answered  in  these  triumphal  announcements  of  the 
faith  of  Humanity.  The  golden  chain  of  brotherhood  here 
forged  shall  endure  and  shall  lead  all  men  up  toward  that 
heaven  in  which  there  shall  be  no  more  sorrow,  and  the  shadows 
of  parting  shall  be  lifted  for  eternity. 


The  Publisher. 


PREFACE. 


This  volume  records  how  the  world  placed  on  exhibition  the 
wonders  of  faith  and  thought,  and  reveals  to  the  reader  man’s 
highest  intellectual  attainments  upon  the  greatest  themes  of 
our  day. 

The  preparation  for  this  exhibition  was  a  part  of  the  work 
performed  by  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary  of  the  World’s 
Columbian  Exposition.  An  explanation,  therefore,  of  this 
organization  has  been  given  in  the  first  part  of  the  book. 

The  second  chapter  closes  with  some  excellent  and  valuable 
observations  prepared  for  these  pages  by  Richard  Henry  Sav¬ 
age,  the  world’s  soldier,  scientist,  world-wide  traveler,  and 
most  successful  author. 

Throughout  the  proceedings  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions, 
women  maintained  a  conspicuous  position.  “  In  the  preliminary 
work,”  says  President  C.  C.  Bonney,  “  women  had  no  part.  It 
was  deemed  expedient  and  just  to  await  their  pleasure.  An 
application  to  unite  in  the  great  undertaking  was  soon  pre¬ 
sented,  and  was,  of  course,  heartily  welcomed.  The  woman’s 
branch  of  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary  was  accordingly 
organized,  to  have  especial  charge  of  the  interests  of  women  in 
the  World’s  Congresses  of  1893.”  The  part  which  women  took 
in  the  Parliament  of  Religions  was  under  the  direction  of  the 
woman’s  branch  of  the  auxiliary. 

Part  second  contains  a  record  of  the  daily  proceedings  of  the 
parliament,  furnished  by  an  expert  stenographic  reporter,  who 
attended  every  session,  and  had  access  to  the  original  manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  different  speakers. 

11 


12 


PREFACE. 


The  concise  account  of  the  many  denominational  and  inter¬ 
denominational  congresses,  held  in  the  Art  Palace,  serves  to 
impress  that  which  the  parliament  most  potently  has  shown, 
that  religion  is  now,  as  it  always  has  been,  the  chief  concern  of 
the  human  family. 

The  proceedings  of  each  day  of  the  parliament  were  not 
devoted  exclusively  to  the  general  subject,  though  a  central 
idea  was  followed  as  much  as  circumstance  would  allow.  Cer¬ 
tain  themes  received  consideration  at  different  times. 

To  render  available  at  once  the  material  of  any  subject  con¬ 
sidered,  an  ample  index  is  made  a  part  of  this  book. 

The  reader  of  these  pages  can  be  impressed  with  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  him  who  gave  a  new  world  to  Castile  and  Leon,  and 
observe  how  the  glowing  fancies  of  the  great  discoverer  have 
been,  in  many  ways,  more  than  realized.  Columbus  regarded 
that  part  of  the  earth  which  he  discovered  as  higher  and  nearer 
heaven  than  any  other  portion  of  the  world.  It  contained,  he 
thought,  the  primeval  abode  of  man,  where  a  pure  and  never- 
failing  pleasure  was  furnished  to  every  sense;  where  flowers 
were  ever  blooming,  and  “  the  waters,  limpid  and  delicate,  were 
swelling  up  in  crystal  fountains,  and  wandering  in  peaceful  and 
silver  streams.”  No  boisterous  winds  were  there,  no  melan¬ 
choly  or  darksome  weather,  but  all  was  bland  and  gentle  and 
serene. 

The  delightful  abode,  inaccessible  to  mortal  feet,  flourished 
in  a  heavenly  temperature  upon  an  eminence  above  the  vapors, 
clouds,  and  storms. 

The  material  delights  of  this  peaceful  abode  were  never 
experienced  by  the  great  discoverer.  The  nearest  approach  to 
its  reality,  but  from  a  standpoint  higher  than  the  material,  was 
found  in  the  Parliament  of  Keligions.  In  that  great  gath¬ 
ering  an  eminence  of  brotherhood  was  reached  which,  before, 
had  been  inaccessible;  and  all  was  gentle  in  an  atmosphere  of 
peace  above  clouds  of  war  and  storms  of  contention. 

The  reader,  too,  may  well  recall  the  poetic  flight  of  the 
black-robed  seer  of  Judea,  as  he  magnifies  the  work  of  God; 


PREFACE, 


13 


‘‘He  will  lift  up  an  ensign  to  the  nations  from  afar  and  will 
hiss  unto  them  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and,  behold,  they 
shall  come  with  speed  swiftly.” 

The  ensign  of  the  nations  is  the  lowly  Nazarene,  whose 
influence,  more  potent  now  than  at  any  preceding  period,  has 
rendered  the  parliament  a  possibility  and  a  fact.  The  record 
as  found  in  succeeding  pages  lifts  on  high  the  heaven-chosen 
ensign,  and  urges  on  the  day  when  every  nation,  kindred,  tribe, 
and  tongue  shall  rest  in  peace  beneath  its  protecting  folds 


CHARLES  C.  BONNEY, 
President  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary. 


>3 


)  h; 


PART  I. 

Peeparation  for  the  Parliament  of  Religions. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  WORLD’S  CONGRESSES  OF  1893. 

The  idea  of  a  series  of  congresses  for  the  consideration  of  the 
greatest  themes  in  which  mankind  is  interested,  and  so  compre¬ 
hensive  as  to  include  representatives  from  all  parts  of  the  earth, 
originated  with  Charles  Carroll  Bonney  in  the  summer  of  1889. 
In  the  early  days  of  autumn  he  presented  his  views  upon  the 
subject  to  a  few  thinking  friends,  among  whom  was  Walter 
Thomas  Mills,  editor  at  that  time  of  the  Statesman  magazine. 
The  editor  was  so  impressed  with  the  greatness  of  the  thought 
that  he  prevailed  upon  Mr.  Bonney  to  write  an  article  for  the 
Statesman^  setting  forth  his  ideas  upon  the  remarkable  con¬ 
ventions.  A  proof  sheet  of  the  article  was  taken  by  Mr.  Mills 
to  Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows,  Judge  L.  D.  Thoman,  Professor 
David  Swing,  E.  Nelson  Blake,  T.  B.  Bryan,  and  Dr.  P.  S. 
Henson.  The  statements  of  these  gentlemen,  favorable  to  the 
proposal,  were  published,  with  Mr.  Bonney ’s  article,  in  the 
Statesman  of  October,  the  same  year. 

The  viev/s  then  enunciated  were  so  well  matured  that  they 
contained  in  substance  the  propositions  subsequently  embodied 
in  the  formal  announcement  to  the  world.  “  The  coming  glory 
of  the  World’s  Fair  of  1898,”  says  Mr.  Bonney  in  the  article, 
“  should  not  be  the  exhibit  then  to  be  made  of  the  material 
triumphs,  industrial  achievements,  and  mechanical  victories  of 

man,  however  magnificent  that  display  may  be.  Something 

15 


16 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


higher  and  nobler  is  demanded  by  the  progressive  spirit  of  the 
present  age.  In  connection  with  that  important  event  of  the 
world,  all  government,  jurisprudence,  finance,  science,  litera¬ 
ture,  education,  and  religion  should  be  represented  in  a  con¬ 
gress  of  statesmen,  jurists,  financiers,  scientists,  literati,  teach¬ 
ers,  and  theologians,  greater  in  numbers  and  more  widely 
representative  of  all  peoples  and  nations  and  tongues  than  any 
assemblage  which  has  ever  yet  been  convened.” 

The  comments  of  the  press  upon  Mr.  Bonney’s  proposal 
brought  his  views  into  much  public  favor,  and  Lyman  J.  Gage, 
President  of  the  World’s  Columbian  Exposition,  took  a  decided 
position  in  support  of  the  series  of  congresses.  Having  secured 
the  approval  of  the  Directory,  Mr.  Gage,  in  October,  1889, 
appointed  a  committee,  of  which  Mr.  Bonney  was  made  chair¬ 
man,  to  take  the  preliminary  steps  for  the  realization  of  his 
ennobling  idea.  From  that  day,  till  the  congresses  were  a 
reality,  the  work  was  diligently  prosecuted.  The  committee  at 
first  consisted  of  seven  persons,  but  subsequently  the  number 
was  increased. 

It  soon  became  apparent  that  the  great  undertaking  could 
not  be  conducted  by  a  single  committee,  and  “it  was  accord¬ 
ingly  arranged  that  an  auxiliary  organization  should  be  formed. 
On  the  30th  of  October,  1890,  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary 
of  the  World’s  Columbian  Exposition  was  organized,  with 
authority  to  carry  on  to  full  effect  the  plans  for  the  World’s 
Congresses  of  1893.”  The  officers  of  this  body  were:  C.  C. 
Bonney,  chairman  and  chief  executive  manager;  T.  B.  Bryan, 
vice-president;  Lyman  J.  Gage,  treasurer;  Benjamin  Butter- 
worth,  secretary,  and  Clarence  E.  Young,  associate  secre¬ 
tary. 

The  World’s  Congresses  were  outlined  by  Mr.  Bonney,  and 
placed  in  charge  of  working  committees,  selected  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  their  fitness  for  particular  duties.  Of  these  working 
committees  there  were  more  than  two  hundred  organized. 
They  were  necessarily  local,  and  their  aggregate  membership, 
exceeding  sixteen  hundred  persons,  constituted  the  local  mem- 


THE  WORTHS  CONGRESSES  OF  1893, 


17 


bership  of  the  auxiliary.  The  committees  were  composed  of 
any  convenient  number  according  to  the  nature  of  the  case. 
“  The  nature  of  the  work  of  organization  required  a  committee 
so  located  that  it  could  meet  on  short  notice,  and  with  little 
expense  or  loss  of  time. 

A  series  of  world’s  congresses,  however,  could  not  be  prop¬ 
erly  organized  without  the  co-operation  of  the  representatives 
of  progress  in  all  parts  of  the  world.”  To  secure  this  co-opera¬ 
tion  there  was  adjoined  to  each  local  committee  a  non-resident 
but  active  branch  called  the  Advisory  Council  of  the  congress. 
Members  of  this  council  co-operated  through  correspondence. 
“  An  honorary  membership  was  also  created  to  act  as  a  general 
advisory  council  for  all  the  congresses.  The  members  of  the 
special  advisory  councils  ranked  as  honorary  members  of  the 
auxiliary.  “  Existing  societies  and  institutions  were  invited 
to  appoint  committees  of  co-operation  to  take  an  active  part  in 
the  organization  of  the  appropriate  congresses.”  The  auxil¬ 
iary  thus  constituted,  and  numbering  more  than  ten  thousand 
representatives  of  the  participating  countries,  accomplished  its 
great  work  with  remarkable  patience,  good  sense,  and  har¬ 
monious  action. 

The  work  of  organization  began  in  1890,  and  was  carried  on 
by  the  committees  until  the  opening  of  the  congresses  in  May 
of  1893.  An  extensive  correspondence  throughout  the  world 
was  required  and  a  period  of  three  years  was  necessary  to  effect 
all  arrangements.  Vigilance  was  exercised  by  Mr.  Bonney  in 
utilizing  the  press  for  extending  to  all  parts  of  the  earth  infor¬ 
mation  regarding  the  great  world’s  congresses.  The  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States  promptly  approved  the  comprehensive 
plan;  ^‘an  act  of  recognition  and  support  was  passed  by  the 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  and  approved  by  the 
chief  executive.”  After  the  organization  of  the  auxiliary,  the 
State  Department  sent  to  foreign  governments  an  official 
announcement  which  contains  the  following:  “Among  the 
great  themes  which  the  congresses  are  expected  to  consider  are 
the  following:  The  grounds  of  fraternal  union  in  the  language. 


18 


THt:  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


literature,  domestic  life,  religion,  science,  art,  and  civil  institu¬ 
tions  of  different  peoples ;  the  economic,  industrial,  and  financial 
problems  of  the  age;  educational  systems,  their  advantages  and 
their  defects,  and  the  means  by  which  they  may  best  be  adapted 
to  the  recent  enormous  increase  in  all  departments  of  knowl¬ 
edge;  the  practicability  of  a  common  language  for  use  in  the 
commercial  relations  in  tlie  civilized  world;  international  copy¬ 
right  and  the  laws  of  intellectual  property  and  commerce; 
immigration  and  naturalization  laws  and  the  proper  international 
privileges  of  alien  governments  and  their  subjects  or  citizens; 
the  most  efficient  and  advisable  means  of  preventing  or  decreas¬ 
ing  pauperism,  insanity,  and  crime,  and  of  increasing  productive 
ability,  prosperity,  and  virtue  throughout  the  world;  inter¬ 
national  law  as  a  bond  of  union  and  a  means  of  mutual  protec¬ 
tion,  and  how  it  may  best  be  enlarged,  perfected,  and  authorita¬ 
tively  expressed;  the  establishment  of  the  principles  of  judicial 
justice  as  the  supreme  law  of  international  relations  and  the 
general  substitution  of  arbitration  for  war  in  the  settlement  of 
international  controversies. ’  ’ 

The  plan  for  the  congresses  was  received  with  almost  uni¬ 
versal  approval  throughout  the  world.  Words  of  appreciation 
and  encouragement  were  returned  from  every  continent,  “  show¬ 
ing  that  the  time  for  such  a  movement  had  indeed  arrived.” 

The  letters  which  came  from  the  advisory  and  honorary 
members  of  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary  contained  such 
ardent  expressions  of  approval  that  from  them  might  be  com¬ 
pleted  such  an  “  anthrology  of  exalted  sentiments,  fraternal 
hopes,  and  offers  of  co-operation  as  would  gladden  the  heart  of 
every  lover  of  human  kind.” 

Some  who  responded  were  called  to  the  mightier  congress  of 
the  illustrious  dead  before  the  opening  hour  of  the  Columbian 
Exposition.  Among  them  was  Rutherford  B.  Hayes,  ex-Pres- 
ident  of  the  United  States,  who  had  accepted  the  presidency  of 
the  congresses  of  the  department  of  moral  and  social  reform ; 
James  G.  Blaine,  who,  through  the  American  State  Department, 
gave  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary  an  official  standing  in  all 


THE  MOULD'S  CONGRESSES  OF  1893. 


19 


the  countries  of  the  earth  with  which  our  own  has  diplo¬ 
matic  relations;  Henry  Edward  Manning,  Cardinal  Archbishop 
of  Westminster,  one  of  the  foremost  religious  leaders  of  his 
time;  Lord  Alfred  Tennyson,  the  laurel  crowned  poet  of  Eng¬ 
land,  who  wished  to  gladden  the  authors’  congress  with,  perhaps, 
his  last  earthly  song;  Bishop  Phillips  Brooks,  of  Boston,  fore¬ 
most  in  the  ranks  of  American  preachers;  John  Greenleaf 
Whittier,  the  muse  of  freedom  and  of  every  virtue;  George 
William  Curtis,  of  New  York;  and  Prof .  Emile  de  Laveleye, 
a  scientist  of  Belgium. 

So  many  living  representatives  of  progress  gave  their  active 
'  co-operation  that  only  an  allusion  to  them  can  be  made  in  this 
volume.  “Not  only  were  the  great  centers  of  learning  in 
Europe,  Asia,  and  Australia  represented  by  their  brightest 
minds,  but  the  governments  of  those  countries  were  officially 
represented,  and  no  more  significant  feature  of  the  event  can 
be  found  than  the  interest  and  sympathy  manifested  by  the 
crowned  heads  of  some  of  the  oldest  nations  in  the  world.” 

From  the  15th  of  May,  1893,  to  the  28th  of  October, 
there  were  held  twenty  general  department  congresses, 
embracing  woman’s  progress,  the  public  press,  medicine  and 
surgery,  temperance,  moral  and  social  reform,  commerce  and 
finance,  music,  literature,  education,  engineering,  art,  and 
architecture,  government  and  law  reform,  general  department, 
science  and  philosophy,  labor,  social  and  economic  science, 
religion,  Sunday  rest,  public  health,  and  agriculture.  Under 
these  general  heads  there  were  held  200  distinct  congresses,  at 
which  there  appeared  many  of  the  most  distinguished  men 
and  women  of  the  day.  So  numerous  were  these  congresses 
and  so  extensive  the  proceedings  that  their  programmes 
bound  in  one  volume  constitute  an  interesting  book  of  160 
pages. 

All  the  congresses  were  held  in  the  Memorial  Art  Palace, 
located  in  Chicago,  on  the  shore  of  Lake  Michigan.  In  the 
palace  are  two  large  auditoriums  called  the  Hall  of  Columbus 
and  the  Hall  of  Washington,  and  besides  these  are  numerous 


20 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


smaller  halls  of  various  dimensions.  These  spacious  divisions 
were  utilized  by  the  congresses  as  convenience  and  necessity 
required. 

The  women’s  congress  was  the  first  in  the  series  to  be  held. 
That  great  assemblage,  representing  women  of  many  lands, 
met  on  the  morning  of  Monday,  May  15th,  in  Columbus  Hall, 
and  their  sessions  continued  during  the  week.  President  Charles 
C.  Bonney,  delivering  the  opening  address,  says:  “The  day 
of  realization  has  come.  What  must  have  seemed  to  many  a 
splendid  but  impossible  dream  has  become  a  present  reality. 
We  enter  this  day  upon  the  actual  enjoyment  of  the  pleasures 
and  benefits  it  promised.  The  shining  blossoms  of  the  dream, 
have  changed  to  ripened  fruit  that  waits  our  taking. 

“We  turn  with  grateful  hearts  to  the  past,  for  it  is  the  high¬ 
way  which  has  led  us  to  this  hour.  We  look  with  pleasing 
anticipations  to  the  future,  for  its  beckoning  heights  glow  with 
the  dawn  of  a  fairer  day  of  peace  and  plenty  than  our  race  has 
hitherto  known. 

“The  19th  century,  richer  in  manifold  wonders  thah  any 
which  has  preceded  it  in  the  august  procession  of  the  ages, 
crowns  its  great  achievements  by  establishing  in  the  world  the 
sublime  idea  of  a  universal  fraternity  of  learning  and  virtue. 
This  idea,  long  cherished  by  the  illuminati  of  every  clime, 
descends  at  last  from  the  luminous  mountains  of  thought  to  the 
fertile  fields  of  action,  and  enters  upon  the  conquest  of  the 
world. 

“We  have  asked  the  leaders  of  all  countries  to  aid  us  in 
crowning  the  whole  glorious  work  by  the  formation  and  adop¬ 
tion  of  better  and  more  comprehensive  plans  than  have  hitherto 
been  made;  to  advance  the  progress,  prosperity,  unity,  peace, 
and  happiness  of  the  world,  and  to  secure  the  effectual  prose¬ 
cution  of  such  plans  by  the  organization  of  a  series  of  world¬ 
wide  fraternities,  through  whose  efforts  and  influence  the 
intellectual  and  moral  forces  of  mankind  may  be  dominant 
over  the  earth. 


THE  WORLD'S  CONGRESSES  OF  1893. 


21 


Henceforth,  the  ‘decisive  battles  of  the  world’  will  be 
fought  on  moral  fields  and  on  intellectual  heights.  The  artil¬ 
lery  of  argument  will  take  the  place  of  the  shot  and  shell  hurled 
by  the  mighty  guns  of  modern  war.  The  piercing  bayonet  of 
perception  and  the  conquering  sword  of  truth  will  take  the 
place  of  the  weapons  of  steel  which  soldier  and  captain  bear. 
The  fame  of  a  great  general  will  become  less  attractive  than  that 
of  a  great  statesman,  or  orator,  or  poet,  or  artist,  or  scientist, 
or  teacher.  The  laboratory  of  the  chemist,  the  workshop  of  the 
architect,  the  field  of  the  engineer  or  scientific  investigator,  the 
stu9.y  of  the  author,  and  the  institution  of  learning  will  more 
and  more  attract  the  rising  genius  of  mankind. 

“  The  army  of  peace  enters  upon  the  scene.  The  splendid 
procession  of  1893  marches  into  view.  At  its  head  a  golden 
banner  bears  the  golden  legend  of  woman’s  progress.  Behind 
it  walk  the  living  leaders  of  that  progress,  reflecting  renewed 
honors  upon  all  the  long  line  of  illustrious  women,  from  Zeno- 
bia.  Queen  of  Palmyra,  to  Victoria,  Queen  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  and  Empress  of  India.” 

The  second  in  the  series  of  congresses  was  the  Department  of 
the  Public  Press.  It  began  on  the  22d  of  May  and  embraced 
the  general  congress  of  the  public  press,  the  congress  of  the 
religious  press,  and  the  congress  of  trade  journals.  Following 
this  congress  came  the  others  of  the  series  in  unbroken  order 
till  the  great  feast  of  thought  was  ended. 

“  The  world  had  been  invited  to  meet  in  friendly  conference 
in  the  progressive  and  hospitable  city  of  the  West.  Leading 
thinkers  of  the  world  responded  to  its  fraternal  greeting  in  the 
same  friendly  spirit  in  which  it  was  tendered.  Minds  and 
hearts,  severed  by  distance  but  united  in  sympathy,  were  drawn 
together,  and  how  the  world  answered  to  the  bugle  call  of  uni¬ 
versal  brotherhood  is  now  the  proud  record  of  the  congresses 
that  have  closed.” 


CHAPTER  II. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

In  the  Hall  of  Columbus  at  the  convention  of  religions  from 
all  parts  of  the  earth,  Dr.  Alfred  Momerie,  a  distinguished 
thinker  of  England,  said:  “  I  have  seen  all  the  great  exhibitions 
of  Europe  during  the  last  fifteen  years,  and  I  can  safely  say 
that  the  World’s  Columbian  Exposition  is  greater  than  all  of 
them  put  together,  and  the  Parliament  of  Religions  is,  in  my 
opinion,  greater  than  the  exposition.” 

Under  the  department  of  religion,  the  denominational  and 
inter-denominational  congresses  that  were  held  in  Art  Palace 
numbered  forty-one.  “  But  among  these  wonderful  conventions 
of  men  and  women  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  the  World’s 
Parliament  of  Religions  will  stand  out  in  history  as  the  great¬ 
est  event  of  the  World’s  Columbian  year.  In  the  popular 
interest  attending  it,  in  the  breadth  of  its  scope,  in  the  gorgeous 
spectacle  it  presented,  and  in  the  deep  questions  of  universal 
interest  involved  in  its  discussions,  it  outranked  all  other  gath¬ 
erings  of  the  year.  Such  a  scene  was  never  witnessed  before 
in  the  world’s  history  as  that  presented  on  the  platform  of 
Columbus  Hall  on  the  morning  of  September  11th,  when  the 
parliament  convened.” 

The  convocation  is  without  parallel,  and  great  interest 
attaches  to  its  origin.  During  the  French  Revolution  there 
occurred,  at  Paris,  a  gathering  of  men  representing  great  relig¬ 
ious  faiths,  and  this  coming  together  has  been  recalled  as  a 
forerunner  of  the  council  on  the  shore  of  Lake  Michigan;  but 
the  rehearsal  of  faiths  in  the  capital  of  France,  whether  genu 
ine  or  in  disguise,  indicated  an  indifferent  gathering  of  Chris¬ 
tians  and  heathen  to  enjoy  a  feast  of  humanity,  not  an  earnest, 

22 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


23 


attempt  at  searching  diligently  for  the  highest  truth.  A  nearer 
approach  to  what  took  place  at  the  Parliament  of  Religions 
was  originated  several  years  ago  by  President  W.  F.  Warren, 
cf  the  Boston  University.  That  earnest  writer  describes,  in  an 
address,  an  imaginary  congress  of  religions,  located  in  Japan, 
and  suggests  “  The  Perfect  Religion  ”  as  a  subject  for  discus¬ 
sion.  The  address  furnished  suggestions  to  those  who  arranged 
for  the  congress  of  faiths  at  the  Columbian  Exposition.  These 
two  kindred  ideas,  the  gathering  at  Paris  and  the  vision  of 
President  Warren,  are  isolated  by  the  lapse  of  one  hundred 
years,  and  indicate  how  little  human  thought  has  been  directed 
toward  a  congress  of  all  the  faiths. 

The  Parliament  of  Religion::  is  the  crowning  glory  of  the 
great  Series  of  ecumenical  councils,  known  as  the  World’s 
Congresses  of  1893,  and  conducted  under  the  World’s  Con¬ 
gress  Auxiliary,  as  described  in  the  preceding  chapter.  The 
general  idea  of  the  parliament,  therefore,  was  first  in  the  mind 
of  Charles  Carroll  Bonney ;  but  the  details  thereof  were  referred 
to  a  most  efficient  committee.  President  Bonney,  in  the  spring 
of  1891,  appointed  the  General  Committee  on  Religious  Con¬ 
gresses  of  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary.  Rev.  John  Henry 
Barrows,  D.  D.,  pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Chicago,  was  made  chairman  of  the  committee.  His  associates 
were  the  Most  Rev.  P.  A.  Feehan,  Archbishop  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  a  favorite  among  his  people;  Rev.  David  Swing, 
pastor  of  the  Central  Church  of  Chicago,  an  independent  body 
of  Christians;  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  William  E.  McLaren,  D.  D., 

D.  C.  L.,  Protestant  Episcopal  Bishop  of  Chicago;  Rev.  Will¬ 
iam  M.  Lawrence,  D.  D.,  of  the  Second  Baptist  Church  of 
Chicago,  celebrated  as  a  successful  preacher;  Rev.  Dr.  F.  A. 
Noble,  of  Union  Park  Congregational  Church;  Rev.  Dr.  Frank 
M.  Bristol,  an  eloquent  preacher  of  the  Methodist  Church ;  Dr. 

E.  G.  Hirsch,  minister  of  the  Sinai  Temple  and  professor  of 
rabbinic  literature  in  the  University  of  Chicago;  Rev.  Jenkin 
Lloyd  Jones,  a  talented  Unitarian  writer;  Rev.  A.  J.  Canfield, 
pastor  of  St.  Paul’s  Universalist  Church,  Chicago;  Rt.  Rev. 


24 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Bishop  Charles  Edward  Cheney,  D.  D.,  a  founder  of  the 
Reformed  Episcopal  Church;  Rev.  L.  P.  Mercer,  of  the  New 
Church  (Swedenborgian)  ;  Mr.  J.  W.  Plummer,  of  the  Society  of 
Friends;  Rev.  J.  Berger,  of  the  German  Methodist  Church;  Rev. 
John  Z.  Torgersen,  a  member  of  the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church, 
and  the  Rev.  M.  Ranseen,  of  the  Swedish  Lutheran  Church. 

The  general  committee  sent  out  to  the  world  a  preliminary 
address  in  June  of  1891.  The  generous  spirit  which  moved 
the  committee  is  shown  by  the  following  words  of  the  address: 
“  Believing  that  God  is,  and  that  He  has  not  left  Himself  with¬ 
out  witness;  believing  that  the  influence  of  religion  tends  to 
advance  the  general  welfare,  and  is  the  most  vital  force  in  the 
social  order  of  every  people ;  and  convinced  that  of  a  truth  God 
is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  that  in  every  nation  he  that 
feareth  Him  and  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  of  Him,  we 
affectionately  invite  the  representatives  of  all  faiths  to  aid  us 
in  presenting  to  the  world,  at  the  Exposition  in  1893,  the  relig¬ 
ious  harmonies  and  unities  of  humanity,  and  also  in  showing 
forth  the  moral  and  spiritual  agencies  which  are  at  the  root  of 
luiman  progress.  It  is  proposed  to  consider  the  foundations  of 
religious  faiths,  to  review  the  triumphs  of  religion  in  all  ages, 
to  set  forth  the  present  state  of  religion  among  the  nations  and 
its  influence  over  literature,  art,  commerce,  government,  and  the 
family  life,  to  indicate  its  power  in  promoting  temperance  and 
social  purity,  and  its  harmony  with  true  science,  to  show  its 
dominance  in  the  higher  institutions  of  learning,  to  make  prom¬ 
inent  the  value  of  the  weekly  rest-day  on  religious  and  other 
ground,  and  to  contribute  to  those  forces  which  shall  bring 
about  the  unity  of  the  race  in  the  worship  of  God  and  the 
service  of  man.” 

The  preliminary  address  was  sent  to  religious  leaders  in 
many  countries,  and  evoked  replies  that  encouraged,  delighted, 
and  amazed  the  committee. 

The  invitation  of  Christianity  to  all  the  historic  faiths  had 
been  accepted,  and  the  fact  was  made  known  that  the  thinking 
world  was  prepared  to  welcome  the  Parliament  of  Religions., 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


25 


Earnest  co-operation  with  leaders  of  mankind  in  many  parts  of 
the  earth  enabled  the  committee  to  complete  their  arrange¬ 
ments;  representatives  arrived  from  all  quarters  of  the  earth, 
and  on  the  morning  of  September  11,  1893,  the  Parliament  of 
Religions  was  opened  in  Columbus  Hall. 

The  fruitless  discord  mingled  with  the  response  of  the  sympa¬ 
thetic  world  to  the  invitation  of  Christianity  will  receive  con¬ 
sideration  in  succeeding  pages.  Longer  would  we  dwell  upon 
that  other  sentiment,  lofty  and  ennobling,  which  harmonizes  with 
the  spirit  that  made  the  parliament  a  reality.  In  doing  so  we 
select  a  voice  from  him  whose  genius  shines  with  brilliancy  in 
the  literary  world,  whose  works  are  read  in  five  European 
tongues,  the  story  of  whose  success  within  two  short  years  is  a 
theme  of  wonder — a  voice  from  a  man  of  wo  rid- wide  experi¬ 
ence,  Richard  Henry  Savage,  the  author,  scientist,  soldier,  and 
traveler.  This  distinguished  writer,  embodying  the  sentiments 
that  hail  from  many  a  clime,  has  sent  to  the  publisher  the  fol¬ 
lowing  comprehensive,  poetic,  and  appropriate  words,  with 
which  we  close  this  chapter: 

This  is  a  century  of  marvels  !  Whatever  progress  may  be 
vouchsafed  by  the  Almighty  to  the  human  race,  it  is  incredible 
to  us  that  its  rate  should  ever  surpass  the  leaps  and  bounds  of 
the  19th  century. 

Soon  the  White  City  will  be  no  more!  Its  domes  and  palaces 
will  rise  no  longer  by  this  blue  lake,  near  that  great  Mecca  of 
applied  thought  in  this  memorable  year — Chicago  I 

In  itself  a  monumental  triumph  of  the  four  hundred  years 
since  the  daring  Genoese  landed  in  the  Bahamas,  Word  and 
Bible  in  hand,  the  great  city’s  purest  glory  will  cling  around 
the  site  of  the  vanished  fairy  palaces  of  the  World’s  Exposition 
of  1893. 

Bearing  the  palms  of  peace,  with  aspiring  brows,  the  children 
of  light  have  gathered  herein  amity,  tolerance,  and  brotherhood, 
following  the  star  of  empires,  which  paused  over  the  birth¬ 
place  of  the  gentle  Nazarene,  to  hallow  and  to  bless,  and  in  its: 
westward  course  has  finished  the  circuit  of  the  thinking  world. 


26 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


For  the  mild-eyed  children  of  Asia,  moving  eastward  to 
meet  the  imperial  rays  of  its  progress,  here  have  paused  by  the 
placid  shores  of  the  central  waters  of  that  continent  which 
Columbus  gave  to  the  Old  World  !  The  blameless  Goddess  of 
Justice  and  the  white-robed  angel  of  peace  have  left  their  bless¬ 
ings  on  the  great  assemblage  of  nations  whose  faith  and  works 
have  been  here  exhibited  in  friendly  rivalry !  Neither  fray  nor 
discord  has  stained  the  unbroken  record  of  a  dawning  brother¬ 
hood  ! 

While  the  memories  of  these  world  pilgrims  treasure  the 
scenes  which  here  delighted  the  eye,  while  these  pictures  of 
grace  and  beauty  linger  in  the  rapt  soul,  the  lessons  of  the 
great  World’s  Fair  will  be  unforgotten! 

Grim  time  may  sweep  away  to  the  unknown  sea  the  genera¬ 
tion  which  achieved  the  wondrous  friendly  Babel  of  our  day, 
and  it  is  to  the  twin  fairies  of  science  and  art,  a  world,  halting 
in  its  onward  path,  will  owe  the  treasured  records  of  this  grand 
human  pageant! 

Mere  cloudy  tradition  would  preserve  the  story  of  all  that 
brain,  mind,  heart,  and  deft  fingers  have  done  here  for  a  brief 
time  only  were  it  not  for  the  art  preservative! 

Thanks  to  Almighty  God!  The  century  which  opened  the 
mist- veiled  waters  of  the  New  World  to  the  European  explorer 
also  gave  to  the  human  race  the  printing  press! 

Sixty  years  before  Columbus  sailed  westward,  printing  was  a 
gift  of  the  All- Wise,  and  thirty  years  previous  to  the  voyage  of 
the  great  ^admiral,  the  Bible  first  appeared  in  print! 

Since  then  the  chequered  records  of  the  passing  years,  the 
flights  of  genius,  the  remotest  speculations  of  the  human  mind, 
and  all  the  handbooks  of  science,  art,  and  philosophy  have  been 
freely  spread  abroad  on  life’s  pathway,  so  that  “  he  who  runs 
may  read  ” ! 

Four  hundred  years  from  the  time  of  the  first  rude  attempts 
of  Faust  and  Gutenberg,  the  world  of  books  thrown  open  to  the 
voyager  in  life  dwarfs  in  comparison  the  dark  continents  found 
by  the  sailor!  And  to-day,  the  real  arbiter  of  human  opinion 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


'27 


is  the  press!  King,  potentate,  and  peer  go  down  before  a  touch 
of  the  pen  of  truth! 

It  is  to  this  human  recording  angel  that  a  vast,  friendly  mul¬ 
titude  confide  the  records  of  the  world’s  first  and  only  peaceful 
Parliament  of  Religions  ! 

Hundreds  of  thousands  have  gazed  at  the  marvels  of  science, 
the  triumphs  of  art,  the  varied  productions  of  man  and  wonders 
of  nature,  gathered  here  under  these  fairy  domes,  rising  as  if  by 
the  touch  of  Aladdin’s  lamp!  The  priceless  treasures  spread 
around  in  these  works  may  crumble  and  decay,  but  the  great 
waves  of  human  thought  hence  rolling  forth  will  beat  long 
upon  the  shores  of  time! 

Not  in  idle  curiosity,  led  on  by  no  mere  desire  of  amusement, 
did  the  earnest-browed  religious  thinkers  of  the  world  gather 
here  to  heap  up  a  pyramid  of  garnered  golden  grains  of  truth, 
in  honor  of  the  great  Giver  of  All  Good. 

In  their  temporary  camps  the  children  of  fetichism,  wide- 
eyed  and  speechless,  have  gazed  here  upon  this  multitude  of 
believers  bearing  palms,  trooping  hither  from  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth  and  the  islands  of  the  great  deep! 

In  unison,  the  children  of  revolution,  the  sons  of  philosophy, 
the  disciples  of  reason,  and  the  devotees  of  inexorable  science, 
have  raised  up  here  their  reverent  voices  to  the  Most  High, 
forgetting  all  differences  of  creed  and  varieties  of  belief  ! 

In  divers  tongues,  with  varied  vestments,  of  all  ages,  sexes, 
and  degrees  of  mental  polish  and  experiences,  this  chorus  of 
aspiring  worship  raised  thankfully  under  these  great^domes  has 
echoed  to  heaven  and  sent  a  warmer  heart-throb  of  brotherhood 
around  the  whole  world 

With  no  carnal  weapons  displayed,  leaving  aside  all  pride  of 
place  and  the  temptations  of  contention,  a  truly  remarkable 
body  of  men  and  women  has  for  the  first  time  in  the  world’s 
religious  history  met  by  a  common  accord,  under  the  silver 
band’  of  love  and  hope,  with  varied  forms  of  faith  and  a  patient 
charity,  to  look  into  each  other's  friendly  eyes  ;  to  depart, 
reflecting  each  other’s  aspiring,  soaring  thoughts! 


28 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


In  the  twenty  councils  of  the  Christian  church,  from  the 
year  325  A.  D.  to  the  great  ecumenical  council  of  1870,  no 
such  sight  has  been  vouchsafed  to  mortal  eyes! 

The  road  that  led  to  Nice  or  Eome  has  led  here  to  the  great 
heart  of  man.  For  once,  through  worthy  representation,  the 
five-hundred  creeds  of  the  thinking  world  have  met  in  an 
uncompelled  hosanna  of  thanks. 

The  gravity  of  the  scene,  the  brotherly  spirit  and  knitted 
friendship  here  exhibited,  have  called  forth  from  doubter, 
atheist,  infidel,  agnostic,  and  those  at  sea,  rudderless,  on  the 
waves  of  error,  a  respectful  and  merited  applause. 

If  some  came  not  to  worship,  none  dared  to  scoff,  and  few 
wandered  away  to  sneer! 

It  is  to  the  printed  record  of  this  great  Parliament  of 
Religions,  in  permanent  form,  that  the  student,  thinker,  mis¬ 
sionary,  preacher,  priest,  and  scholar  will  look  for  future  words 
of  cheer  and  for  lessons  of  priceless  value ! 

The  honest  exactness  of  the  report,  the  independence  of 
suggestion  or  control,  the  lack  of  any  insidious  undercurrent, 
or  taint  of  hypocrisy,  will  cause  thousands  of  thirsty  souls  to 
drink  of  these  waters  of  truth — to  every  man  according  to  his 
need. 

The  result  has  been  a  credit  to  the  self-control  of  these  chil¬ 
dren  of  the  19th  century — this  grand  assemblage,  meeting  in 
frank  kindness,  dealing  with  each  other  without  acrimony,  and 
parting  sorrowing  that  they  shall  look  upon  each  other’s  faces 
no  more.  Orthodoxy  and  liberalism,  clerk  and  layman,  prelate 
and  penitent,  acute  inquirer  and  submissive  devotee,  all  these 
representative  men,  classes,  and  ideas  have  met,  as  in  friendly 
watch,  saying:  “Brother!  give  me  of  thy  good  cheer!” 

Fourteen  hundred  millions  of  wanderers  here  below  have  sent 
to  the  parliament  whose  record  is  in  these  pages  the  most 
skillful  champions  of  the  varied  faiths!  Those  of  little  faith 
have  listened  to  the  claims  of  nearly  five  hundred  millions  of 
Buddhists,  Shintostes,  and  Confucians,  four  hundred  mill¬ 
ions  of  Christians,  over  a  hundred  millions  each  of  Brahman- 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


29 


ical  Hindoos  and  Mohammedans,  the  compact  phalanx  of  eight 
millions  of  Hebrews,  the  forlorn  hope  of  one  million  Parsees, 
and  have  gazed  on  scattered  tribes  representing  the  two  hundred 
and  twenty-five  millions  who  drone  in  darkness  under  fet¬ 
ich  ism. 

Years  of  thought  will  enable  no  man  to  draw  from  these 
pages  the  whole  lessons  of  humanity’s  great  problem!  The 
dark  pall  of  death  will  hang  still  unlifted  before  the  open  gate 
of  the  tomb!  The  clouds  of  unbelief  will  gather  still  around 
the  lonely  human  wanderer,  but  in  these  recorded  words  will 
be  found  tidings  of  great  cheer  to  all ! 

The  philosopher,  moralist,  natural  scientist,  socialist,  agnostic, 
protestant  of  every  grade,  and  the  orthodox  of  the  Roman  and 
Greek  churches  may  all  labor  with  a  new  inspiration  toward 
ihe  near  and  blessed  end  of  human  religious  persecution  and 
intolerance!  “  Credo  in  unum  Deum  ”  may  not  be  sung  by  all 
for  ages!  There  is  but  one  fold — its  sheep  may  be  widely  scat¬ 
tered,  but  this  momentous  concourse  will  send  to  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth  men  who,  variously  believing  in  the  Father¬ 
hood  of  God,  have  learned  here  new  lessons  in  the  brotherhood 
of  man! 

It  has  not  been  a  harvest  time!  It  has  been  only  a  sowing 
of  seed!  In  the  friendly  arena  of  the  White  City,  unguarded  by 
armies,  coerced  by  no  government,  under  no  dictation  of  man 
or  close  creed,  the  world’s  delegates  have  listened  in  peace  to 
each  other  under  the  safe  passport  of  the  flag  of  the  earth’s 
greatest  republic! 

It  is  only  in  a  land  where  church  and  state  are  classed  as 
independent  works  of  God  and  man,  where  a  free  and  untram¬ 
meled  press  spreads  the  light  of  truth  in  fearless  candor  in 
every  direction,  that  such  a  meeting  and  such  a  parting  could 
have  been  possible! 

The  practical  value  of  the  convocation  will  not  be  apparent 
for  years.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  mere  expression 
of  a  common  respect  and  friendship  has  limited  the  proposed 
work  in  hand. 


30 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


To  distant  climes,  bearing  their  burdens  of  trust,  care,  and 
thought,  the  pilgrims  have  now  returned.  While  the  success¬ 
ful  meeting  has  proved  much  as  to  tolerance,  it  will  be  through 
the  press,  pulpit,  and  schools  that  the  final  results  will  be 
proclaimed  later. 

Differences  of  belief  have  not  vanished;  they  have  been  only 
veiled  in  courtesy,  and  the  future  action  of  the  great  faiths  at 
home,  alone^  will  tell  of  any  appreciable  effect.  Whether  zealous 
Christianity  has  learned  aught  from  calm  Buddhism,  whether 
the  Confucian  has  added  any  truths  caught  from  science  or 
revelation  to  his  golden  wisdom,  whether  the  prying  mission¬ 
ary  has  made  peace  with  the  fanatic  Mohammedan,  time  alone 
will  show!  If  it  is  the  gospel  of  a  new  peace  or  a  sword  the 
years  alone  will  tell  1  The  optimist  must  remember  that  dif¬ 
ferences  of  race,  education,  and  law,  the  rights  of  churches  as  to 
property,  the  education  of  youth,  and  the  social  duties  of  home 
religionists  constrain  the  nations  of  the  earth  yet  to  a  wise  con¬ 
servatism  in  religious  changes. 

There  are  especially  interesting  features  of  this  great  record. 
The  Mohammedan,  Buddhist,  and  Confucian  have  put  Chris¬ 
tianity  on  its  defensive  in  some  matters  of  good  taste  and  polit¬ 
ical  interference.  Calm  scientists  have  manfully  quoted  the 
history  of  nature  as  traced  by  the  finger  of  time,  the  oppressed 
Hebrew  has  boldly  claimed  the  rights  of  racial  justice,  and  the 
unshaken  philosopher  has  also  had  his  say  1 

The  great  triumph  of  the  parliament  has  been  the  frank 
statements,  clearly  defining,  in  every  possible  shade  of  human 
thought,  the  various  faiths  now  holding  up  appealing  hands  to 
the  Father  of  all! 

It  is  to  the  printer,  to  the  press,  that  the  great  record  is 
given!  In  our  later  day,  the  pulpit  reluctantly  yields  to  the 
great  struggle  of  the  modern  human  mind  for  eclectic  educa¬ 
tion,  freedom  of  belief;  for  broader  lines,  for  less  dogma,  and 
more  mental  light!  There  is  no  one  man,  no  sect,  no  single 
school  which  can,  in  these  broadening  days  of  intelligence,  tie 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


31 


down  the  human  hearts  of  the  19th  century  to  any  bounden 
or  groveling  belief! 

By  the  grace  of  God  and  His  tolerance,  now  spread  abroad, 
in  the  remotest  corners  of  the  world,  the  earnest  reader,  in 
divers  tongues,  will  be  able  to  scan  the  glowing  page,  and  in 
the  silence  of  the  chamber  draw  out  lessons  to  lift  up  the  weary 
hearts  of  men!  The  hour  has  now  passed  for  the  debates  of 
schoolmen,  the  arrogance  of  creeds,  or  the  absurd  pretensions 
of  earthly  rulers  to  narrow  or  shackle  the  soaring  flight  of 
the  human  mind! 

May  the  record  of  these  pages  be  imperishable  and  in  long 
years  to  come  the  wise,  tender,  and  eloquent  words  of  the  honest 
and  outspoken  advocates  of  every  creed  herein  set  down  be 
fruitful  in  leading  toward  the  kindly  light  and  in  spreading 
abroad  peace  and  good  will  on  earth  to  men! 

The  echoes  of  the  mingled  songs  of  praise  of  these  pilgrims 
of  light  should  ring  out  clearly  on  the  wintry  sky  of  the  Old 
World! — the  Old  World  of  Intolerance,  Narrowness,  Bigotry, 
and  Persecution! 

These  peaceful  songs  snould  echo,  in  union,  only  thankful 
praise  to  that  ‘‘  God  from  whom  all  blessings  flow!  ” 

When  enlightened  humanity  can  learn  how  near  in  heart  all 
brothers  really  are  on  the  world’s  highway  it  will  treasure 
these  recorded  pages  as  prophetic  of  the  time  when  wars,  the 
legacy  of  Cain,  will  be  no  more! 


MRS.  POTTER  PALMER, 


President  Woman’s  Branch  of  the  Auxiliary. 


I 


PART  II. 


Proceedings  of  the  World’s  Parliament  of  Eeligions, 

September  11  to  27,  1893. 


CHAPTER  I. 


FIRST  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  11th. 


WORDS  OF  GREETING. 

The  assembling  of  the  World’s  Parliament  of  Religions  in 
the  forenoon  of  September  11,  1893,  was  proclaimed  in  due 
form  by  ten  strokes  on  the  new  Liberty  Bell,  upon  which  is 
inscribed  the  words  of  Him  who  is  the  ensign  of  the  people  : 

A  new  commandment  I  give  unto  you  that  ye  love  one  ano¬ 
ther.”  The  ten  strokes  represented  the  ten  chief  religions  of 
the  world,  each  of  which  had  a  prominent  place  in  the  remark¬ 
able  gathering  of  the  nations.  Prior  to  the  opening  hour,  the 
doors  of  the  Art  Palace  were  besieged  by  multitudes  eager  to 
secure  seats  in  the  auditorium  or  gallery  of  the  great  Hall  of 
Columbus,  in  which  they  were  to  assemble.  Dr.  J.  H.  Barrows 
and  other  committeemen  were  early  in  the  building  to  give 
information,  and  the  office  of  President  Bonney  was  turned 
into  a  reception-room,  where  representatives,  both  men  and 
women,  arrayed  in  picturesque  attire,  formed  a  medley  most 
pleasing  to  every  observer.  An  audience  of  about  four  thou¬ 
sand  people  had  assembled  before  the  time  announced  for  the 
opening  of  the  exercises,  and  awaited  in  silence  the  appearance 
of  the  interesting  speakers,. 


34 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  mass  of  people  was  so  wonderfully  quiet  that  the  flut¬ 
tering  of  wings  was  heard  when  a  tiny  bird  flew  through  an 
open  window  and  over  the  vacant  platform.  The  organist 
played  “Jerusalem  the  Golden”  in  the  interval  of  waiting,  and 
the  triumphant  strains  fitly  expressed  the  feeling  of  many 
intensely  expectant  hearts. 

At  the  appointed  hour  for  the  commencement  of  proceedings, 
the  crowds  in  the  right-hand  aisle  of  the  auditorium  parted  in 
quiet  step,  and  two  and  two  the  royal  delegates  of  the  one 
Great  King,  escorted  by  the  managers  of  the  parliament,  came 
slowly  into  view.  Heading  the  procession,  and  arm  in  arm,  were 
President  Bonney  and  Cardinal  Gibbons,  following  whom  came 
Mrs.  Potter  Palmer  and  Mrs.  Charles  Henrotin.  Next  in  order 
moved  a  stately  column,  composed  of  men  of  many  tongues,  of 
many  lands,  of  many  races;  disciples  of  Christ,  of  Mohammed, 
of  Buddha,  of  Brahma,  of  Confucius,  in  the  name  of  a  common 
God  for  the  glorification  of  the  Eternal  Father.  The  sight  was 
most  remarkable.  There  were  strange  robes,  turbans  and  tunics, 
crosses  and  crescents,  flowing  hair  and  tonsured  heads.  The 
representatives  marched  down  the  center  aisle,  and  amid  the  cheer 
that  welled  up  from  the  hearts  of  4,000  men  and  women,  took 
their  seats  in  triple  rows  upon  the  platform,  beneath  the  waving 
flags  of  many  nations.  In  the  center  of  the  company,  and 
seated  in  the  huge  chair  of  curiously  wrought  iron,  was  His 
Eminence  James  (Cardinal)  Gibbons,  magnificent  in  his  robes 
of  red;  on  the  right  sat  the  priests  of  the  Celestial  Empire  in 
their  long  flowing  garments  of  white;  on  the  left  were  the 
patriarchs  of  the  old  Greek  Church,  wearing  strangely  formed 
hats,  somber  cassocks  of  black,  and  leaning  on  ivory  sticks 
carved  with  figures  representing  ancient  rites.  Peculiar  modes 
of  dress  were  indicative  of  different  religions.  The  Chinese 
secretary  of  legation  wore  the  robes  of  a  mandarin;  the  high 
priest  of  the  state  religion  of  Japan  was  arrayed  in  flowing 
robes,  presenting  the  colors  of  the  rainbow.  Buddhist  monks 
were  attired  in  garments  of  white  and  yellow;  an  orange  turban 
and  robe  made  the  Brahman  conspicuous;  the  Greek  Arch- 


WORDS  OF  GREKTINU. 


f)isliop  of  Zante,  from  whose  high  head-gear  there  fell  to  the 
waist  a  black  veil,  was  brilliant  in  purple  robe  and  black 
cassock,  and  glittering  as  to  his  breast  in  chains  of  gold. 
Dharmapala,  the  reformed  Buddhist,  was '  recognized  in  his 
woolen  garments;  and,  in  black  clothes,  hardly  to  be  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  European  dress,  was  Mozoomdar,  author  of 
the  “  Oriental  Christ,”  a  most  touching  history  of  a  soul 
struggling  homeward  to  God.  In  a  golden  bond  of  friend¬ 
ship,  the  oldest  of  the  religions  of  the  world  greeted  the 
youngest  of  the  religions.  “  From  faraway  India,  from  the 
snow-locked  crests  of  the  Himalayas,  from  the  valleys  of 
the  Tigris  and  Euphrates,  the  representatives  of  a  race  and 
country,  old  and  decrepid  with  age,  clasped  hands  with  a  race 
now  in  the  first  flutter  of  youth,  and  blossoming  manhood.” 
It  was  a  grand  intermingling  of  religions,  a  salutatory  of  an 
unprecedented  era  of  good  will  among  men;  an  event  that  will 
linger  in  the  minds  of  men  through  coming  ages;  a  gathering 
under  the  star  of  Christianity,  whose  steady  beaming  draws 
wise  men  of  the  East  to  the  unfading  brightness  and  growing 
splendor  of  the  Prince  of  Peace. 

The  historic  assembly  was  called  to  older  by  President  C. 
C.  Bonney,  and  suddenly,  from  the  great  organ  in  the  gallery, 
broke  forth  to  the  strains  of  “Old  Hundred,”  the  inspiring 
measures 

From  all  that  dwell  beneath  the  skies 

Let  the  Creator’s  praise  arise. 

And  the  vast  audience  arose  and  filled  the  hall  with  the  music 
of  humanity’s  thanksgiving.  After  the  song  had  died  away,  a 
moment  of  silence,  which  the  uplifted  hand  of  Cardinal  Gibbons 
sustained,  then  his  voice  began :  “  Our  Father  who  art  in 
heaven,”  and  was  lost  in  the  rush  of  voices  which  followed  in 
the  well-known  universal  prayer.  The  supreme  moment  of  the 
19th  century  was  reached.  Asia,  Africa,  Europe,  America, 
and  the  isles  of  the  sea,  together  called  him  Father.  This 
harmonious  use  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer  by  Jews,  Mohammedans, 


36 


THE  PaRLIAMEITT  of  RELidlONS, 

Buddhists,  Brahmans,  and  all  divisions  of  Christians,  seemed  a 
rainbow  of  promise  pointing  to  the  time  when  the  will  of  God 
will  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  done  in  heaven.”. 

'Ihe  presiding  officer  of  the  day  was  Dr.  John  Henry 
Barrows  of  Chicago,  to  whose  prudence,  judgment,  liberality, 
and  untiring  efforts  the  success  of  the  parliament  is  due.  Few 
prouder  moments  need  he  wish  than  that  wherein  he  beheld 
the  realization  of  his  labors  and  the  fulfillment  of  his  most 
sanguine  dreams — the  bringing  together  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

When  the  distinguished  and  remarkable  company  had  taken 
their  seats,  it  was  found  that  the  following  were  upon  the 
platform  : 

Bishop  D.  A.  Payne,  A.  M.  E.  Church  of  Wilberforce,  Ohio; 
Siddhu  Ram,  appeal  writer,  Mooltan,  Punjab,  East  Indies; 
Carl  von  Bergen,  Ph.  D.,  president  of  the  Swedish  Society  for 
Physical  Research,  Stockholm,  Sweden;  Birchand  Raghavji 
Gandhi,  B.  A.,  honorary  secretary  to  the  Jain  Association  of 
India,  Bombay;  Rt.  Rev.  Banrui  Yatsubucha  and  Professor  G. 
N.  Chakravarti,  Swami  Vivekananda,  a  monk  of  the  orthodox 
Brahminical  religion;  Rev.  B.  B.  Nagarkar,  minister,  Brahmo 
Somaj  of  Bombay,  India;  Rev.  P.  C.  Mozoomdar,  minister  and 
leader  of  the  Brahmo  Somaj  of  India,  Calcutta;  Jinda  Ram,  a 
lawyer,  president  of  the  temperance  society  Vedic,  Muzaffar- 
garh,  India;  Rev.  P.  G.  Phiambolis;  Occonomus,  a  priest  of  the 
Greek  Church;  Most  Rev.  Dionysius  Latas,  archbishop  of  Zante, 
Greece;  Homer  Peratis,  arch-deacon  of  the  Greek  Church; 
Relichi  Shibata,  president  of  one  of  the  Shinte  Soots,  Tokio, 
Japan;  Zikuzen  Ashiku,  representative  from  the  Tendai  Sect, 
Omi,  Japan;  Banrim  Yatsubuchi,  president  of  Hoju  Buddhist 
Society,  Kamamolo,  Japan;  Soen  Skaka,  archbishop  of  the  Zen 
of  the  Buddhist  sect,  Kamakura,  Japan;  Horin  Toki,  professor 
of  Shingne  Sect  and  its  bishop,  Sanuki,  Japan;  Noguchi  and 
Nomura,  interpreters,  Tokio,  Japan;  H.  Dharmapala,  general 
secretary  Maha  Bodhi  Society,  Calcutta;  Professor  G.  N.  Chak¬ 
ravarti,  Allahabad,  India;  Dr.  F.  A.  Noble,  Prince  Serge  Wolkon- 
sky,  of  Russia;  D.  G.  Grandon,  secretary  of  the  Free  Religions 
Society  of  Boston;  Rev.  J.  H.  Macomber,  chaplain  United  States 
of  America,  Angel  Island,  Cal.;  Yunkway  China;  Mise  Jeanne 
Serabji  K.  Langraiia;  G.  Benet  Maury,  professor  a  la  fauilte 
de  theologie,  Paris;  Prince  Memulu  Massoquoi,  of  Liberia; 


tirioa,  ^  v 


/ 


s 


■C  - 


I 


✓ 


THE  lIBRAF.y 
OF  THE 

UHiVFRSITy  RF  IIJ.IH81S 


/ 


?r 


V  / 


/ 


<1^'' 


WORDS  OF  GREETING. 


37 


Bishop  J enner,  Anglican  Free  Church ;  Rev.  Augusta  Chapin, 
D.  D.  Chicago;  Mrs.  Potter  Palmer,  Mrs.  Charles  Henrotin, 
Cardinal  Gibbons,  Archbishop  Feehan,  Archbishop  Ryan, 
Archbishop  Redwood,  of  New  Zealand;  President  C.  C.  Bonney, 
Dr.  Adolf  Brodbeck,  Count  Bernstorlf,  Z.  Zmjgrowdski,  John 
W.  Hoyt,  Bishop  Keane,  H.  N.  Higinbotham,  W.  J.  Onahan, 
Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  Bishop  D.  W.  Arnett,  Bishop  Handy, 
Principal  Grant,  of  Canada;  Rev.  Alfred  William  Memorie, 
D.  D.,  Rev.  Maurice  Phillips,  of  Madras,  India;  Professor  N. 
Valentine,  Dr.  William  T.  Harris,  Dr.  Ernest  Faber,  Rev. 
George  T.  Candin,  Professor  Kosaki,  Bishop  Cotter,  of  Win¬ 
ona;  Hon.  Pung  Quang  Yu,  Chinese  Legation. 

At  the  close  of  the  universal  prayer.  President  Bonney  arose, 
spoke  earnest  words  of  greeting,  and  declared  the  first  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  Religions  opened. 

OPENING  ADDRESS. 

C.  C.  BONNEY. 

At  10:30  o’clock  C.  C.  Bonney  called  the  vast  assemblage 
to  order  and  requested  the  audience  to  remain  standing  while 
Cardinal  Gibbons  led  in  the  universal  prayer.  The  cardinal 
recited  the  Lord’s  Prayer  in  impressive  tones.  Mr.  Bonney 
then  stepped  forward  amid  loud  cheers  and  delivered  the 
following  address  of  welcome: 

Worshipers  of  God  and  Lovers  of  Man: — Let  us  rejoice  that  we 
have  lived  to  see  this  glorious  day;  let  us  give  thanks  to  the  Eternal  God, 
whose  mercy  endureth  forever,  that  we  are  ijermitted  to  take  part  in  the 
solemn  and  majestic  event  of  a  World's  Congress  of  Religions.  The  impor¬ 
tance  of  this  event  can  not  be  overestimated.  Its  influence  on  the  future 
relations  of  the  various  races  of  men  can  not  be  too  highly  esteemed. 

If  this  congress  shall  faithfully  execute  the  duties  with  which  it  has 
been  charged  it  will  become  a  joy  of  the  whole  earth,  and  stand  in  human 
history  like  a  new  Mount  Zion,  crowned  with  glory,  and  marking  the  actual 
beginning  of  a  new  epoch  of  brotherhood  and  peace. 

For  when  the  religious  faiths  of  the  wmrld  recognize  each  other  as 
brothers,  children  of  one  Father,  whom  all  profess  to  love  and  serve,  then, 
and  not  till  then,  will  the  nations  of  the  earth  yield  the  spirit  of  concord, 
and  learn  war  no  more. 

It  is  inspiring  to  think  that  in  every  part  of  the  world  many  of  the 
worthiest  of  mankind,  who  would  gladly  join  us  here  if  that  were  in  their 
power,  this  day  lift  their  hearts  to  the  Supreme  Being  in  earnest  prayer  for 
the  harmony  and  success  of  this  congress.  To  them  our  own  hearts  speak 
in  love  and  sympathy  of  this  imxjressive  and  prophetic  scene. 

In  this  congress  the  word  “  religion”  means  the  love  and  worship  of  God 
and  the  love  and  service  of  man.  We  believe  the  scripture  that  “  of  a 
truth  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth 


38 


THE  PARLIAME'NT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


God  and  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  of  Him.’*  We  come  together  in 
mutual  confidence  and  respect,  without  the  least  surrender  or  compromise 
of  anything  which  we  respectively  believe  to  be  truth  or  duty,  with  the 
hope  that  mutual  acquaintance  and  a  free  and  sincere  interchange  of  views 
on  the  great  questions  of  eternal  life  and  human  conduct  will  be  mutually 
beneficial. 

As  the  finite  can  never  fully  comprehend  the  infinite,  not  perfectly 
express  its  own  view  of  the  divine,  it  necessarily  follows  that  individual 
ox)inions  of  the  divine  nature  and  attributes  will  differ.  But,  properly 
understood,  these  varieties  of  view  are  not  causes  of  discord  and  strife,  but 
rather  incentives  to  deeper  interest  and  examination.  Necessarily  God 
reveals  himself  differently  to  a  child  than  to  a  man;  to  a  philosopher  than 
to  one  who  can  not  read.  Each  must  see  God  with  the  eyes  of  his  own 
soul.  Each  one  must  behold  him  through  the  colored  glass  of  his  own 
nature.  Each  one  must  receive  him  according  to  his  own  capacity  of 
reception.  The  fraternal  union  of  the  religions  of  the  world  will  come 
when  each  seeks  truly  to  know  how  God  has  revealed  himself  in  the  other, 
and  remembers  the  inexorable  law  that  with  what  judgment  it  judges  it 
shall  itself  be  judged. 

The  religious  faiths  of  the  world  have  most  seriously  misunderstood  and 
misjudged  each  other  from  the  use  of  words  in  meanings  radically  different 
from  those  which  they  were  intended  to  bear,  and  from  a  disregard  of  the  dis¬ 
tinctions  between  appearances  and  facts;  between  signs  and  symbols  and 
the  things  signified  and  represented  Such  errors  it  is  hoped  that  this 
congress  will  do  much  to  correct  and  to  render  hereafter  impossible. 

He  who  believes  that  God  has  revealed  himself  more  fully  in  his  religion 
than  in  any  other,  can  not  do  otherwise  than  desire  to  bring  that  religion  to 
the  knowledge  of  all  men,  with  an  abiding  conviction  that  the  God  who  gave 
it  will  preserve,  protect,  and  advance  it  in  every  expedient  way.  And  hence 
he  will  welcome  every  just  opportunity  to  come  into  fraternal  relations  with 
men  of  other  creeds,  that  they  may  see  in  his  upright  life  the  evidence  of 
the  truth  and  beauty  of  his  faith  and  be  thereby  led  to  learn  it,  and  be 
helped  heavenward  by  it.  When  ic  pleased  God  to  give  me  the  idea  of  the 
World’s  Congress  of  1893,  there  came  with  that  idea  a  profound  conviction 
that  their  crowning  glory  should  be  a  fraternal  conference  of  the  world’s 
religions.  Accordingly,  the  original  announcement  of  the  World’s  Congress 
scheme,  which  was  sent  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  all  other 
nations,  contained  among  other  great  themes  to  be  considered,  “  The  grounds 
for  fraternal  union  in  the  religions  of  different  people.” 

At  first  the  proposal  of  a  World’s  Congress  of  Religions  seemed  impracti¬ 
cable.  It  was  said  that  the  religions  had  never  met  but  in  conflict,  and 
that  a  different  result  could  not  be  expected  now.  A  committee  of  organi¬ 
zation  was,  nevertheless,  apixnnted  to  make  the  necessary  arrangements. 
This  committee  was  composed  of  representatives  of  sixteen  religious 
bodies.  Rev.  Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows  was  made  chairman.  How  zealously 
and  efficiently  he  has  performed  the  great  work  committed  to  his  hands 
this  congress  is  a  sufficient  witness. 

The  preliminary  address  of  the  committee,  prepared  by  him  and  sent 
throughout  the  world,  elicited  the  most  gratifying  responses,  and  proved 
that  the  proposed  congress  was  not  only  practicable,  but  also  that  it  was 
most  earnestly  demanded  by  the  needs  of  the  present  age.  The  religious 
leaders  of  many  lands,  hungering  and  thirsting  for  a  larger  righteousness, 
gave  the  proposal  their  benedictions,  and  promised  the  congress  their  active 
co-operation  and  support. 

To  most  of  the  departments  of  the  World’s  Congress’  work  a  single  week 
of  the  exposition  season  was  assigned.  To  a  few  of  the  most  important  a 
longer  time,  not  exceeding  two  weeks,  was  given.  In  the  beginning  it  was 
supposed  that  one  or  two  weeks  would  suffice  for  the  department  of  religion, 


OPENING  ADDRESS. 


39 


but  so  great  has  been  the  interest,  and  so  many  have  been  the  applications 
in  this  department,  that  the  plans  for  it  have  repeatedly  been  rearranged, 
and  it  now  extends  from  September  4  to  October  15,  and  several  of  the 
religious  congresses  have,  nevertheless,  found  it  necessary  to  meet  outside 
of  these  limits. 

The  programme  for  the  religious  congresses  of  1893  constitutes  what 
may  with  perfect  propriety  be  designated  as  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
publications  of  the  century.  The  programme  of  this  general  Parliament  of 
Religions  directly  represents  England,  Scotland,  Sv/eden,Switzerland,Prance, 
Germany,  Russia,  Turkey,  Greece,  Egypt,  Syria,  India,  Japan,  China,  Cey¬ 
lon,  New  Zealand,  Brazil,  Canada,  and  the  American  States,  and,  indirectly, 
includes  many  other  countries.  This  remarkable  programme  presents, 
among  other  great  themes  to  be  considered  in  this  congress,  Theism,  Juda¬ 
ism,  Mohammedanism,  Hinduism,  Buddhism,  Taoism,  Confucianism,  Shin¬ 
toism,  Zoroastrianism,  Catholicism,  the  Greek  Church,  Protestantism  in 
many  forms,  and  also  refers  to  the  nature  and  influence  of  other  religious 
systems. 

This  programme  also  announces  for  presentation  the  great  subjects  of 
revelation,  immortality,  the  incarnation  of  God,  the  universal  elements  in 
religion,  the  ethical  unity  of  different  religious  systems,  the  relations  of 
religion  to  morals,  marriage,  education,  science,  philosophy,  evolution,  music, 
labor,  government,  peace  and  war,  and  many  other  themes  of  absorbing 
interest.  The  distinguished  leaders  of  human  progress,  by  whom  these 
great  topics  will  be  presented,  constitute  an  unparalleled  galaxy  of  eminent 
names,  but  we  may  not  pause  to  call  the  illustrious  roll. 

For  the  execution  of  this  part  of  the  general  programme  seventeen  days 
have  been  assigned.  During  substantially  the  same  period  the  second  part 
of  the  programme  will  be  executed  in  the  adjoining  Hall  of  Washington. 
This  will  consist  of  what  are  termed  presentations  of  their  distinctive  faith 
and  achievements  by  the  different  churches.  These  presentations  will  be 
made  to  the  world,  as  represented  in  the  World’s  Religious  Congresses  of 
1893.  All  persons  interested  are  cordially  invited  to  attend. 

The  third  part  of  the  general  programme  for  the  congresses  of  this 
department  consists  of  separate  and  independent  congresses  of  the  different 
religious  denominations  for  the  purpose  of  more  fully  setting  forth  their 
doctrines  and  the  service  they  have  rendered  to  mankind.  These  special 
congresses  will  be  held,  for  the  most  part,  in  the  smaller  halls  of  this  mem¬ 
orial  building.  A  few  of  them  have,  for  special  reasons,  already  been  held. 
It  is  the  special  object  of  these  denominational  congresses  to  afford  oppor¬ 
tunities  for  further  information  to  all  who  may  desire  it.  The  leaders  of 
these  several  churches  most  cordially  desire  the  attendance  of  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  other  religions.  The  denominational  congresses  will  each 
be  held  during  the.  week  in  which  the  presentation  of  the  denomination 
will  occur. 

The  fourth  and  final  part  of  the  programme  of  the  department  of  relig¬ 
ion  will  consist  of  congresses  of  various  kindred  organizations.  These  con¬ 
gresses  will  be  held  between  the  close  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions  and 
October  15.  and  will  include  missions,  ethics,  Sunday  rest,  the  evangelical 
alliance,  and  other  similar  associations.  The  congress  on  evolution  should, 
in  regularity,  have  been  held  in  the  department  of  science,  but  circum¬ 
stances  prevented,  and  it  has  been  given  a  place  in  this  department  by  the 
courtesy  of  the  committee  of  organization. 

To  this  more  than  imperial  feast,  I  bid  you  welcome. 

We  meet  on  the  mountain  height  of  absolute  respect  for  the  religious 
convictions  of  each  other;  and  an  earnest  desire  for  a  better  knowledge  of 
the  consolations  which  other  forms  of  faith  than  our  own  offer  to  their 
devotees.  The  very  basis  of  our  convocation  is  the  idea  that  the  representa¬ 
tives  of  each  religion  sincerely  believe  that  it  is  the  truest  and  the  best  of 


40 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


all;  and  that  they  will,  therefore,  hear  with  perfect  candor  and  without  fear 
the  coiiYictions  of  other  sincere  souls  on  the  great  questions  of  the  immortal 
life. 

Let  one  other  point  be  clearly  stated.  While  the  members  of  this  con¬ 
gress  meet,  as  men,  on  a  common  ground  of  perfect  equality,  the  ecclesiastical 
rank  of  each,  in  his  own  church,  is  at  the  same  time  gladly  recognized  and 
respected,  as  the  just  acknowledgement  of  his  services  and  attainments. 
But  no  attemi)t  is  here  made  to  treat  all  religions  as  of  equal  merit.  Any 
such  idea  is  expressly  disclaimed.  In  this  congress,  each  system  of  religion 
stands  by  itself  in  its  own  perfect  integrity,  uncompromised,  in  any  degree, 
by  its  relation  to  any  other.  In  the  language  of  the  preliminary  publica¬ 
tion  in  the  department  of  religion,  we  seek  in  this  congress  “  to  unite  all 
religion  against  all  irreligion;  to  make  the  golden  rule  the  basis  of  this 
union;  and  to  present  to  the  world  the  substantial  unity  of  many  religions 
in  the  good  deeds  of  the  religious  life.”  Without  controversy,  or  any 
attempt  to  pronounce  judgment  upon  any  matter  of  faith  or  worship  or 
religious  opinion,  we  seek  a  better  knowledge  of  the  religious  condition  of 
all  mankind,  with  an  earnest  desire  to  be  useful  to  each  other  and  to  all 
others  who  love  truth  and  righteousness. 

This  day  the  sun  of  a  new  era  of  religious  peace  and  progress  rises  over 
the  world,  dispelling  the  dark  clouds  of  sectarian  strife.  This  day  a  new 
flower  blooms  in  the  gardens  of  religious  thought,  filling  the  air  with  its 
exquisite  perfume.  This  day  a  new  fraternity  is  born  into  the  world  of 
human  progress,  to  aid  in  the  upbuilding  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the 
hearts  of  men.  Era  and  flower  and  fraternity  bear  one  name.  It  is  a  name 
which  will  gladden  the  hearts  of  those  who  worship  God  and  love  man  in 
every  clime.  Those  who  hear  its  music  joyfully  echo  it  back  to  sun  and 
flower.  It  is  the  brotherhood  of  religions. 

In  this  name  I  welcome  the  first  Parliament  of  the  Religions  of  the  World. 


ADDRESS  OF  WELCOME. 

DR.  J.  H.  BARROWS,  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  President  and  Friends;  If  my  heart  did  not  overflow  with  cordial 
welcome  at  this  hour,  which  promises  to  be  a  great  moment  in  history,  it 
would  be  because  1  had  lost  the  spirit  of  manhood  and  had  been  forsaken 
by  the  spirit  of  God.  The  whitest  snow  on  the  sacred  mount  of  Japan,  the 
clearest  water  springing  from  the  sacred  fountains  of  India,  are  not  more  pure 
and  bright  than  the  joy  of  my  heart  and  of  many  hearts  here  that  this  day 
has  dawned  in  the  annals  of  time,  and  that,  from  the  farthest  isles  of  Asia; 
from  India,  mother  of  religions;  from  Europe,  the  great  teacher  of  civiliza¬ 
tion;  from  the  shores  on  which  breaks  the  “long  wash  of  Australasian 
seas;”  that  from  neighboring  lands,  and  from  all  parts  of  this  republic 
which  we  love  to  contemplate  as  the  land  of  earth’s  brightest  future,  you 
have  come  here  at  our  invitation  in  the  expectation  that  the  world’s  first 
Parliament  of  Religions  must  prove  an  event  of  race-wide  and  perpetual 
significance. 

For  more  than  two  years  the  general  committee,  which  I  have  the  honor 
to  represent,  working  together  in  unbroken  harmony,  and  presenting  the 
picture  of  prophecy  of  a  united  Christendom,  have  carried  on  their  arduous 
and  sometimes  appalling  task  in  happy  anticipation  of  this  golden  hour. 
Your  coming  has  constantly  been  in  our  thoughts,  and  hopes,  and  fervent 
prayers.  I  rejoice  that  your  long  voyages  and  journeys  are  over,  and  that 
here,  in  this  young  capital  of  our  Western  civilization,  you  find  men  eager 
for  truth,  sympathetic  with  the  spirit  of  universal  human  brotherhood,  and 
loyal,  I  believe,  to  the  highest  they  know,  glad  and  grateful  to  Almighty 
God  that  they  see  your  faces  and  are  here  to  hear  your  words. 


ADDRESS  OF  WELCOME 


41 


Welcome,  most  welcome,  O  wise  men  of  the  East  and  of  the  West.  May 
the  star  which  has  led  you  hither  be  like  unto  that  luminary  which  guided 
the  men  of  old,  and  may  this  meeting  by  the  inland  sea  of  a  new  continent 
bs  blessed  of  heaven  to  the  redemption  of  men  from  error  and  from  sin  and 
despair.  I  wish  you  to  understand  that  this  great  undertaking,  which  has 
aimed  to  house  under  one  friendly  roof  in  brotherly  council  the  represent¬ 
atives  of  God’s  aspiring  and  believing  children  everywhere,  has  been 
conceived  and  carried  on  through  strenuous  and  patient  toil,  with  an 
unfaltering  heart,  with  a  devout  faith  in  God,  and  with  most  signal  and 
special  evidences  of  His  divine  guidance  and  favor. 

Long  ago  I  should  have  surrendered  the  task  intrusted  to  me  before  the 
colossal  difficulties  looming  ever  in  the  way  had  I  not  committed  my  work 
to  the  gracious  care  of  that  God  who  loves  all  his  children,  whose  thoughts 
are  long,  long  thoughts,  who  is  patient  and  merciful  as  well  as  just,  and  who 
cares  infinitely  more  for  the  souls  of  his  erring  children  than  for  any  creed 
or  philosophy  of  human  devising.  If  anything  great  and  worthy  is  to  be 
the  outcome  of  this  parliament,  the  glory  is  wholly  due  to  Him  who  inspired 
it,  and  who  in  the  Scriptures,  which  most  of  us  cherish  as  the  word  of  God, 
has  taught  the  blessed  truths  of  divine  fatherhood  and  human  brotherhood. 

I  should  not  use  the  word  “  if  ”  in  speaking  of  the  outcome  of  this  Con¬ 
gress  of  Religions,  since,  were  it  decreed  that  our  sessions  should  end  this 
day,  the  truthful  historian  would  say  that  the  idea  which  has  inspired  and 
led  this  movement,  the  idea  whose  beauty  and  force  has  drawn  you  through 
these  many  thousand  miles  of  travel,  that  this  idea  has  been  so  hashed 
before  the  eyes  of  men  that  they  will  not  forget  it,  and  that  our  meeting 
this  morning  has  become  a  new,  great  fact  in  the  historic  evolution  of  the 
race,  which  will  not  be  obliterated. 

What,  it  seems  to  me,  should  have  blunted  some  of  the  arrows  of  criticism 
shot  at  the  promoters  of  this  movement  is  this  other  fact,  that  it  is  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  that  Christian  faith  which  we  believe  has  in  it  such  elements 
and  divine  forces  that  it  is  fitted  to  the  needs  of  all  men  who  have  planned 
and  provided  this  first  school  of  comparative  religions,  wherein  devout  men  of 
all  faiths  may  speak  for  themselves  without  hindrance,  without  criticism, 
and  without  compromise,  and  tell  what  they  believe,  and  why  they  believe 
it.  I  appeal  to  the  representatives  of  the  non-Christian  faiths,  and  ask  you 
if  Christianity  suffers  in  your  eyes  from  having  called  this  Parliament  of 
Religions?  Do  you  believe  that  its  beneficent  work  in  the  world  will  be  one 
whit  lessened? 

On  the  contrary;  you  agree  with  the  great  mass  of  Christian  scholars  in 
America  in  believing  that  Christendom  may  proudly  hold  up  this  Congress 
of  the  Faiths  as  a  torch  of  truth  and  of  love  which  may  prove  the  morning 
star  of  the  20th  century.  There  is  a  true  and  noble  sfense  in  which  America 
is  a  Christian  nation,  since  Christianity  is  recognized  by  the  supreme  court, 
by  the  courts  of  the  several  states,  by  executive  officers,  by  general  national 
acceptance  and  observance,  as  the  prevailing  religion  of  our  people.  This 
does  not  mean,  of  course,  that  the  church  and  state  are  united.  In 
America  they  are  separated,  and  in  this  land  the  widest  spiritual  and  intel¬ 
lectual  freedom  is  realized.  Justice  Ameer  Ali  of  Calcutta,  whose  absence 
we  lament  to-day,  has  expressed  the  opinion  that  only  in  this  Western 
Republic  would  such  a  congress  as  this  have  been  undertaken  and 
achieved. 

I  do^  not  forget — I  am  glad  to  remember — that  devout  Jews,  lovers  of 
humanity,  have  co-operated  with  us  in  this  parliament;  tliat  these  men  and 
women  representing  the  most  wonderful  of  all  races  and  the  most  persistent 
of  all  religions,  who  have  come  with  good  cause  to  appreciate  the  spiritual 
freedom  of  the  United  States  of  America — that  these  friends,  some  of  whom 
are  willing  to  call  themselves  Old  Testament  Christians,  as  I  am  willing  to 
call  myself  a  New  Testament  Jew,  have  zealously  and  powerfully  co-oper- 


42 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


ated  in  this  good  work.  But  the  world  calls  us,  and  we  call  ourselves,  a 
Christian  people.  We  believe  in  the  gospels  and  in  him  whom  they  set  forth 
as  “  The  Light  of  the  World,”  and  Christian  America,  which  owes  so  much 
to  Columbus  and  Luther,  to  the  pilgrim  fathers  and  to  John  Wesley,  which 
owes  so  much  to  the  Christian  church  and  Christian  college  and  the 
Christian  school,  welcomes  to-day  the  earnest  disciples  of  other  faiths  and 
the  men  of  all  faiths,  who,  from  many  lands,  have  hocked  to  this  jubilee  of 
civilization. 

Cherishing  the  light  which  God  has  given  us,  and  eager  to  send  this 
light  everywhere,  we  do  not  believe  that  God,  the  eternal  spirit,  has  left 
himself  without  witness  in  non-Christian  nations.  There  is  a  divine  light 
enlightening  every  man. 

One  accent  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  heedless  world  has  never  lost. 

Professor  Max  Muller,  of  Oxford,  who  has  been  a  friend  of  our  move¬ 
ment,  and  has  sent  a  contribution  to  this  parliament,  has  gathered  together 
in  his  last  volume  .a  collection  of  prayers — Egyptian,  Acadian,  Babylonian, 
Vedic,  Avestic,  Chinese,  Mohammedan,  and  modern  Hindu,  which  make  it 
perfectly  clear  that  the  sun  which  shone  over  Bethlehlem  and  Calvary  has 
cast  some  celestial  illumination  and  called  forth  some  devout  and  holy  aspir¬ 
ations  by  the  Nile  and  the  Ganges,  in  the  deserts  of  Arabia,  and  by  the 
waves  of  the  Yellow  Rea. 

It  is  perfectly  evident  t  all  illuminated  minds  that  we  should  cherish 
loving  thoughts  of  all  people,  and  humane  views  of  all  the  great  and  lasting 
religions,  and  that  whoever  would  advance  the  cause  of  his  own  faith  must 
first  discover  and  gratefully  acknowledge  the  truths  contained  in  other 
faiths. 

This  parliament  is  likely  to  prove  a  blessing  to  many  Christians  by  mark¬ 
ing  the  time  when  they  shall  cease  thinking  that  the  verities  and  virtues  of 
other  religions  discredit  the  claims  of  Christianity  or  bar  its  progress.  It  is 
our  desire  and  hope  to  broaden  and  purify  the  mental  and  spiritual  vision  of 
men.  Believing  that  nations  and  faiths  are  separated  in  part  by  ignorance 
and  prejudice,  why  shall  not  this  parliament  help  to  remove  the  one  and 
soften  the  other?  Why  should  not  Christians  be  glad  to  learn  what  God 
has  wrought  through  Buddha  and  Zoroaster  —  through  the  Sage  of  China 
and  the  prophets  of  India  and  the  projihet  of  Islam? 

We  are  met  together  to-day  as  men,  children  of  God,  sharers  with  all 
men  in  weakness  and  guilt  and  need,  sharers  with  devout  souls  everywhere 
in  aspiration  and  hope  and  longing.  We  are  met  as  religious  men,  believing 
even  here  in  this  capital  of  material  wonders,  in  the  presence  of  an  exposi¬ 
tion  which  displays  the  unparalleled  marvels  of  steam  and  electricity,  that 
there  is  a  spiritual  root  to  all  human  progress.  We  are  met  in  a  school  of 
comparative  theology,  which,  I  hope,  will  prove  more  spiritual  and  ethical 
than  theological;  we  are  met,  I  believe,  in  the  temper  of  love,  determined  to 
bury,  at  least  for  the  time,  our  sharp  hostilities,  anxious  to  find  out  wherein 
we  agree,  eager  to  learn  what  constitutes  the  strength  of  other  faiths  and 
the  weakness  of  our  own;  and  we  are  met  as  conscientious  and  truth-seek¬ 
ing  men,  in  a  council  where  no  one  is  asked  to  surrender  or  abate  his 
individual  convictions,  and  where,  I  will  add,  no  one  would  be  worthy  of  a 
place  if  he  did. 

We  are  met  in  a  great  conference,  men  and  women  of  different  minds, 
where  the  speaker  will  not  be  ambitious  for  short-lived,  verbal  victories 
over  others,  where  gentleness,  courtesy,  wisdom,  and  moderation  will  pre¬ 
vail  far  more  than  heated  argumentation.  I  am  confident  that  you  appre¬ 
ciate  the  peculiar  limitations  which  constitute  the  peculiar  glory  of  this 
assembly.  We  are  not  here  as  Baptists  and  Buddhists,  Catholics  and  Con- 
fucians,  Parsees  and  Presbyterian  Protestants,  Methodists  and  Moslems;  we 


ADDRESS  OF  WELCOME. 


43 


are  here  as  members  of  a  Parliament  of  Religions,  over  which  flies  no  sectarian 
flag, which  is  to  be  stampeded  by  no  sectarian  war-cries,  but  where  for  the  first 
time  in  a  large  council  is  lifted  up  the  banner  of  love,  fellowship,  brother¬ 
hood.  We  all  feel  that  there  is  a  spirit  which  should  always  pervade  these 
meetings,  and  if  anyone  should  offend  against  this  spirit  let  him  not  be 
rebuked  publicly  or  personally;  your  silence  will  be  a  graver  and  severer 
rebuke. 

We  are  not  here  to  criticise  one  another,  but  each  to  speak  out  positively 
and  frankly  his  own  convictions  regarding  his  own  faith.  The  great  world 
outside  will  review  our  work;  the  next  century  will  review  it.  It  is  our  high 
and  noble  business  to  make  that  work  the  best  possible. 

There  will  be  social  gatherings  in  the  course  of  this  parliament  in  which 
we  shall  be  able  to  get  at  each  other  more  closely;  there  will  be  review 
sections  in  the  smaller  halls  where,  in  a  friendly  way,  through  question  and 
answer  and  suggestion,  the  great  themes  to  be  treated  in  the  Hall  of 
Columbus  will  be  considered  and  various  lights  thrown  upon  them;  but  in 
this  central  hall  of  the  parliament  the  general  programme  will  be  carried 
out,  and  I  trust  always  in  the  spirit  which  glows  in  your  hearts  at  this 
hour. 

It  is  a  great  and  wonderful  programme  that  is  to  be  spread  before  you; 
it  is  not  all  that  I  could  wish  or  had  planned  for,  but  it  is  too  large  for  any 
one  mind  to  receive  it  in  its  fullness  during  the  seventeen  days  of  our  ses¬ 
sions.  Careful  and  scholarly  essays  have  been  prepared  and  sent  in  by 
great  men  of  the  old  world  and  the  new,  which  are  worthy  of  the  most 
serious  and  grateful  attention,  and  I  am  confident  that  each  one  of  us  may 
gain  enough  to  make  this  parliament  an  epoch  of  his  life.  You  will  be  glad 
with  me  that,  since  this  is  a  world  of  sin  and  sorrow  as  well  as  speculation, 
our  attention  is  for  several  days  to  be  given  to  those  greatest  practical 
themes  which  press  upon  good  men  everywhere.  How  can  we  make  this 
suffering  and  needy  world  less  a  home  of  grief  and  strife,  and,  far  more,  a 
commonwealth  of  love,  a  kingdom  of  Heaven  ?  How  can  we  abridge  the 
chasms  of  alienation  which  have  kept  good  men  from  co-operating  ?  How 
can  we  bring  into  closer  fellowship  those  who  believe  in  Christ  as  the  savior 
of  the  world  ?  And  how  can  we  bring  about  a  better  understanding  among 
the  men  of  all  faiths  ?  I  believe  that  great  light  will  be  thrown  upon  these 
problems  in  the  coming  days. 

Outside  of  this  central  parliament,  and  yet  a  part  of  it,  are  the  con¬ 
gresses  of  the  various  religious  bodies  in  the  Hall  of  Washington  and 
elsewhere.  And  they  will  greatly  help  to  complete  the  picture  of  the  spir¬ 
itual  forces  now  at  work  among  men,  and  to  bring  to  a  gainsaying  and 
gold-worshiping  generation  a  sense  of  those  diviner  forces  which  are  moving 
on  humanity. 

I  can  not  tell  you,  with  any  completeness,  how  vast  and  various  are  my 
obligations  to  those  who  have  helped  me  in  this  colossal  undertaking.  Let 
me,  however,  give  my  heartiest  thanks  to  the  devout  women  who,  from  the 
beginning,  have  championed  the  idea  of  this  parliament  and  worked  for  its 
realization;  to  the  President  of  the  Columbian  Exposition  and  his  associ¬ 
ates;  to  the  President  of  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary,  whose  patient  and 
Titanic  labors  will  one  day  be  appreciated  at  their  full  value;  to  the  Christian 
and  secular  press  of  our  country,  which  has  been  so  friendly  and  helpful 
from  the  start;  to  the  more  than  3,000  men  and  women  upon  our  advisory 
council  in  many  lands;  to  the  scores  of  missionaries  who  have  been  far¬ 
sighted  and  broad-minded  enough  to  realize  the  supreme  value  of  this  par¬ 
liament;  to  President  Miller,  of  the  Christian  College  at  Madras,  who  has 
used  his  pen  and  voice  in  our  behalf;  to  the  Buddhist  scholars  of  Japan, 
who  have  written  and  spoken  in  favor  of  this  congress  of  the  faiths;  to 
Mr.  Dharmapala,  of  Ceylon,  who  has  left  important  work  in  connection 
with  his  society  in  Southern  India  to  make  this  long  journey  to  the  heart 
of  America;  to  Mr.  Mozoomdar  and  all  others  who  have  come  to  us  from 


44 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  most  populous  portion  of  England’s  great  empire,  which  has  been  well 
called  “  the  hugest  standing  Parliament  of  Religions  in  the  world;  ”  to  the 
Imperial  Government  of  China,  that  has  commissioned  a  learned  and  able 
Confucian  to  speak  for  one  of  the  faiths  of  his  nation;  to  scores  of  the 
Bishops  of  the  Anglican,  Methodist,  United  Brethren,  African  Methodist, 
and  other  churches;  to  business  men  in  our  own  city,  who  have  generously 
helped  me  in  times  of  special  need,  and  to  the  dignitaries  of  the  great 
Catholic  Church  of  our  country,  who,  through  the  learned  and  broad¬ 
minded  rector  of  the  Catholic  University  at  Washington,  have  brought  to 
us  a  degree  of  co-operation  and  fellowship  for  which  I  can  never  be  too 
grateful. 

All  these  I  welcome  to-day;  or,  if  some  of  them  be  not  here,  I  send  to 
them,  and  to  a  multitude  of  others  whom  I  have  not  named,  my  affection¬ 
ate  gratitude  and  fraternal  salutation.  And  to  the  representatives  of  the 
orthodox  Greek  church,  of  the  Russian  church,  of  the  Armenian  church,  of 
the  Bulgarian  and  other  churches  I  extend  the  most  cordial  welcome  and 
salutation.  I  believe  that  you  will  all  feel  at  home  with  us;  I  believe  that 
your  coming  will  enlighten  us.  We  shall  hear  about  the  faith  of  the  Parsees 
in  the  words  of  those  who  hold  that  ancient  doctrine;  we  shall  hear  of  the 
faith  of  the  Jains  of  India  in  the  words  of  one  who  belonged  to  that  com¬ 
munity,  which  is  far  older  than  Christianity.  Our  minds  and  our  hearts 
are  to  be  widened  as  we  take  in  more  fully  the  various  works  of  divine 
jjrovidence. 

Welcome,  one  and  all,  thrice  welcome  to  the  world’s  first  Parliament  ol 
Religions.  Welcome  to  the  men  and  women  of  Israel,  the  standing  miracle 
of  nations  and  religions.  Welcome  to  the  disciples  of  Prince  Siddartha,  the 
many  millions  who  cherish  in  their  heart  Lord  Buddha  as  the  Light  of 
Asia.  Welcome  to  the  high  priest  of  the  national  religion  of  Japan.  This 
city  has  every  reason  to  be  grateful  to  the  enlightened  ruler  of  the  sunrise 
kingdom.  Welcome  to  the  men  of  India  and  all  faiths!  Welcome  to  all 
the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  may  God’s  blessing  abide  in  our  council  and 
entend  to  the  twelve  hundred  millions  of  human  beings  the  representatives 
of  whose  faiths  I  address  at  this  moment. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  spirits  of  just  and  good  men  hover  over  this 
assembly.  I  believe  that  the  spirit  of  Paul  is  here,  the  zealous  missionary 
of  Christ,  whose  courtesy,  wisdom,  and  unbounded  tact  were  manifest  when 
he  preached  Jesus  and  the  resurrection  beneath  the  shadows  of  the  Par¬ 
thenon.  I  believe  the  spirit  of  the  wise  and  humane  Buddha  is  here,  and 
of  Socrates,  the  searcher  after  truth,  and  of  Jeremy  Taylor,  and  John  Mil- 
ton,  and  Roger  Williams,  and  Lessing,  the  great  apostles  of  toleration.  I 
believe  that  the  spirit  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  who  sought  for  a  church 
founded  on  love  for  God  and  man,  is  not  far  from  us,  and  the  spirit  of 
Tennyson,  and  Whittier,  and  Phillips  Brooks,  who  looked  forward  to  this 
parliament  as  a  realization  of  a  noble  idea. 

When,  a  few  years  ago,  I  met  for  the  tirst  time  the  delegates  who  have 
come  to  us  from  Japan,  and  shortly  after  the  delegates  who  have  come  to  us 
from  India,  I  feel  that  the  arms  of  human  brotherhood  had  reached  almost 
around  the  globe.  But  there  is  something  stronger  than  human  love  and 
fellowship,  and  what  gives  us  the  most  hope  and  happiness  to-day  is  our 
confidence  that 

The  whole  round  world  is  every  way 

Bound  by  gold  chains  about  the  feet  of  God. 


OFFICIAL  WELCOME. 

ARCHBISHOP  FEEHAN  OF  CHICAGO. 

On  this  most  interesting  occasion,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  a  privilege  has 
been  granted  to  me — that  of  giving  greeting  in  the  name  of  the  Catholic 
Church  to  the  members  of  this  Parliament  of  Religion.  Surely  we  all 


RESPONSE  TO  ADDRESSES, 


46 


regard  it  as  a  time  and  a  day  of  the  highest  interest,  for  we  have  here  the 
commencement  of  an  assembly  unique  in  the  history  of  the  world.  One  of 
the  representatives  from  the  ancient  East  has  mentioned  that  his  king  in 
early  days  held  a  meeting  something  like  this,  but  certainly  the  modern 
and  historical  world  has  had  no  such  thing.  Men  have  come  from  distant 
lands,  from  many  shores.  They  represent  many  types  of  race.  They  rep¬ 
resent  many  forms  of  faith;  some  from  the  distant  East,  representing  its 
remote  antiquity;  some  from  the  islands  and  continents  of  the  West.  In 
all  there  is  a  great  diversity  of  opinion,  but  in  all  there  is  a  great,  high 
motive. 

Of  all  the  things  that  our  city  has  seen  and  heard  during  these  pass¬ 
ing  months  the  highest  and  the  greatest  is  now  to  be  presented  to  it.  For 
earnest  men,  learned  and  eloquent  men  of  different  faiths,  have  come  to 
speak  and  to  tell  us  of  those  things  that  of  all  are  of  the  highest  and 
deepest  interest  to  us  all.  W"e  are  interested  in  material  things;  we  are 
interested  in  beautiful  things.  We  admire  the  wonders  of  that  new  city 
that  has  sprung  up  at  the  southern  end  of  our  great  City  of  Chicago;  but 
when  learned  men,  men  representing  the  thought  of  the  world  on  religion, 
come  to  tell  us  of  God  and  of  His  truth,  and  of  life  and  of  death,  and  of 
immortality  and  of  justice,  and  of  goodness  and  of  charity,  then  we  listen 
to  what  will  surpass,  infinitely,  whatever  the  most  learned  or  most  able 
men  can  tell  us  of  material  things. 

Those  men  that  have  come  together  will  tell  of  their  systems  of  faith, 
without,  as  has  been  well  said  by  Dr.  Barrows,  one  atom  of  surrender  of 
what  each  one  believes  to  be  the  truth  for  him.  No  doubt  it  will  be  of 
exceeding  interest,  but  whatever  may  be  said  in  the  end,  when  all  is 
spoken,  there  will  be  at  least  one  great  result;  because  no  matter  how  we 
may  differ  in  faith  or  religion,  there  is  one  thing  that  is  common  to  us  all, 
and  that  is  a  common  humanity.  And  those  men  representing  the  races 
and  the  faiths  of  the  world,  meeting  together  and  talking  together  and 
seeing  one  another,  will  have  for  each  other  in  the  end  a  sincere  respect 
and  reverence  and  a  cordial  and  fraternal  feeling  of  friendship.  As 
the  privilege  which  I  prize  very  much  has  been  given  to  me  I  bid  them  all, 
in  my  own  name,  and  of  that  I  represent,  a  most  cordial  welcome. 

RESPONSE  TO  ADDRESSES. 

CAKDINAL  GIBBONS. 

Your  honored  president  has  informed  you,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  if 
I  were  to  consult  the  interests  of  my  health  I  should  perhaps  be  in  bed  this 
morning,  but  as  I  was  announced  to  say  a  word  in  response,  to  the  kind 
speeches  that  have  been  offered  up  to  us,  I  could  not  fail  to  present  myself 
at  least,  and  to  show  my  interest  in  your  great  undertaking. 

I  would  be  wanting  in  my  duty  as  a  minister  of  the  Catholic  Church  if 
I  did  not  say  that  it  is  our  desire  to  present  the  claims  of  the  Catholic 
Church  to  the  observation  and,  if  possible,  to  the  acceptance  of  every  right- 
minded  man  that  will  listen  to  us.  But  we  appeal  only  to  the  tribunal  of 
conscience  and  of  intellect.  I  feel  that  in  possessing  my  faith  I  possess  a 
treasure  compared  with  which  all  treasures  of  this  world  are  but  dross,  and, 
instead  of  hiding  those  treasures  in  my  own  coverts,  I  would  like  to  share 
them  with  others,  especially  as  I  am  none  the  poorer  in  making  others  the 
richer.  But  though  we  do  not  agree  in  matters  of  faith,  as  the  Most 
Reverend  Archbishop  of  Chicago  has  said,  thanks  be  to  God  there  is  one 
platform  on  which  we  all  stand  united.  It  is  the  platform  of  charity,  of 
humanity,  and  of  benevolence.  And  as  ministers  of  Christ  we  thank 
him  for  our  great  model  in  this  particular.  Our  blessed  Redeemer  came 
upon  this  earth  to  break  down  the  wall  of  partition  that  separated 


46 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


race  from  race  and  people  from  people  and  tribe  from  tribe,  and  has  made 
us  one  people,  one  family,  recognizing  God  as  our  common  father,  and  Jesus 
Christ  as  our  brother. 

We  have  a  beautiful  lesson  given  to  us  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ— 
that  beautiful  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan  which  we  all  ought  to  follow. 
We  know  that  the  good  Samaritan  rendered  assistance  to  a  dying  man  and 
bandaged  his  wounds.  The  Samaritan  was  his  enemy  in  religion  and  in 
faith,  his  enemy  in  nationality,  and  his  enemy  even  in  social  life.  That  is 
the  model  that  we  all  ought  to  follow. 

I  trust  that  we  will  all  leave  this  hall  animated  by  a  greater  love  for  one 
another,  for  love  knows  no  distinction  of  faith.  Christ  the  Lord  is  our 
model,  I  say.  We  can  not,  like  our  divine  Savior,  give  sight  to  the  blind 
and  hearing  to  the  deaf,  and  walking  to  the  lame  and  strength  to  the  par¬ 
alyzed  limbs;  we  can  not  work  the  miracles  which  Christ  wrought;  but 
there  are  other  miracles  far  more  beneficial  to  ourselves  that  we  are  all  in 
the  measure  of  our  lives  capable  of  working,  and  those  are  the  miracles  of 
charity,  of  mercy,  and  of  love  to  our  fellowman. 

Let  no  man  say  that  he  can  not  serve  his  brother.  Let  no  man  say,  “Am 
I  my  brother’s  keeper  ?”  That  was  the  language  of  Cain,  and  I  say  to  you 
all  here  to-day,  no  matter  what  may  be  your  faith,  that  you  are  and  you 
ought  to  be  your  brother’s  keeper.  What  would  become  of  us  Christianii 
to-day  if  Christ  the  Lord  had  said,  “Am  I  my  brother’s  keeper?”  Wo 
would  be  all  walking  in  darkness  and  in  the  shadow  of  death,  and  if  to-day 
we  enjoy  in  this  great  and  beneficent  land  of  ours  blessings  beyond  compar¬ 
ison,  we  owe  it  to  Christ,  who  redeemed  us  all.  Therefore,  let  us 
thank  God  for  the  blessings  He  has  bestowed  upon  us.  Never  do  we 
perform  an  act  so  pleasing  to  God  as  when  we  extend  the  right  hand  of  fel¬ 
lowship  and  of  practical  love  to  a  suffering  member.  Never  do  we  approach 
nearer  to  our  model  than  when  we  cause  the  sunlight  of  Heaven  to  beam 
upon  a  darkened  soul;  never  do  we  prove  ourselves  more  worthy  to  be  called 
the  children  of  God  our  Father  than  when  we  cause  the  flowers  of  joy  and 
of  gladness  to  grow  up  in  the  hearts  that  were  dark  and  dreary  and  barren 
and  desolate  before. 

For,  as  the  apostle  has  well  said,  “  Religion  pure  and  undefiled  before 
God  and  the  Father  is  this:  To  visit  the  orphan  and  the  fatherless  and 
the  widow  in  their  tribulations,  and  to  keep  one’s  self  unspotted  from  this 
world.” 


ON  BEHALF  OF  WOMEN. 

REV.  AUGUSTA  G.  CHAPIN,  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  WOMAN’S  COMMITTEE 

OF  ORGANIZATION  OF  THIS  CONGRESS. 

I  am  strangely  moved  as  I  stand  upon  this  platform  and  attempt  to 
realize  what  it  means  that  you  all  are  here  from  so  many  lands,  represent¬ 
ing  so  many  and  widely  differing  phases  of  religious  thought  and  life,  and 
what  it  means  that  I  am  here  in  the  midst  of  this  unique  assemblage  to 
represent  womanhood  and  woman’s  part  in  it  all.  The  parliament  which 
assembles  in  Chicago  this  morning  is  the  grandest  and  most  significant 
convocation  ever  gathered  in  the  name  of  religion  on  the  face  of  this  earth. 

There  have  been  and  are  yet  to  be  within  these  walls  congresses  for  the 
discussion  of  a  multitude  of  themes,  each  attracting  the  attention  of  a 
select  and  limited  company.  But  this  great  Parliament  of  Religions  appeals 
to  all  the  people  of  the  civilized  world,  for  all  who  wear  the  garb  of  human¬ 
ity  have  inherited  from  the  infinite  fatherly  and  motherly  One,  whose 
children  we  are,  the  same  high  spiritual  nature;  we  have  all  of  us,  whether 
wise  or  unwise,  rich  or  poor,  of  whatever  nationality  or  religion,  the  same 
supreme  interests,  and  the  same  great  problems  of  infinitude,  of  life  and  of 
destiny  press  upon  us  all  for  solution. 


HARLOW  N.  HIGINBOTHAM, 
President  World’s  Columbian  Exposition. 


V  -• 


/. 


ADDRESS, 


47 


The  old  world,  which  has  rolled  on  through  countless  stages  and  phases 
of  physical  progress,  until  it  is  an  ideal  home  for  the  human  family,  has, 
through  a  process  of  evolution  of  growth,  reached  an  era  of  intellectual  and 
spiritual  attainment  where  there  is  malice  toward  none  and  charity  for  all, 
where  without  prejudice,  without  fear  and  with  perfect  fidelity  to  personal 
convictions,  we  may  clasp  hands  across  the  chasm  of  our  indifferences  and 
cheer  each  other  in  all  that  is  good  and  true. 

The  world’s  first  Parliament  of  Religions  could  not  have  been  called 
sooner  and  have  gathered  the  religionists  of  all  these  lands  together.  We 
had  to  wait  for  the  hour  to  strike,  until  the  steamship,  the  railway,  and  the 
telegraph  had  brought  men  together,  leveled  their  walls  of  separation  and 
made  them  acquainted  with  each  other — until  scholars  had  broken  the  way 
through  the  pathless  wilderness  of  ignorance,  superstition,  and  falsehood, 
and  compelled  them  to  respect  each  others’  honesty,  devotion,  and  intelli¬ 
gence.  A  hundred  years  ago  the  world  was  not  ready  for  this  parliament. 
Fifty  years  ago  it  could  not  have  been  convened,  and  had  it  been  called  but 
a  single  generation  ago  one-half  of  the  religious  world  could  not  have  been 
directly  represented. 

Woman  could  not  have  had  a  part  in  it  in  her  own  right  for  two  reasons; 
one  that  her  presence  would  not  have  been  thought  of  or  tolerated,  and  the 
other  was  that  she  herself  was  still  too  weak,  too  timid,  and  too  unschooled 
to  avail  herself  of  such  an  opportunity  had  it  been  offered.  Few  indeed 
were  they  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  who  talked  about  the  divine  brother¬ 
hood  and  human  brotherhood,  and  fewer  still  were  they  who  realized  the 
practical  religious  power  of  these  great  conceptions.  Now  few  are  found 
to  question  them. 

I  am  not  an  old  woman,  yet  my  memory  runs  easily  back  to  the  time  when, 
in  all  the  modern  world,  there  was  not  one  well  equipped  college  or  univer¬ 
sity  open  to  women  students,  and  when,  in  all  the  modern  world,  no  woman 
had  been  ordained  or  even  acknowledged  as  a  preacher  outside  the  denomi¬ 
nation  of  Friends.  Now  doors  are  thrown  open  in  our  own  and  many 
other  lands.  Women  are  becoming  masters  of  the  languages  in  which  the 
great  sacred  literatures  of  the  world  are  written.  They  are  winning  the 
highest  honors  that  the  great  universities  have  to  bestow,  and  already  in  the 
field  of  religion  hundreds  have  been  ordained  and  thousands  are  freely  speak¬ 
ing  and  teaching  this  new  gospel  of  freedom  and  gentleness  that  has  come 
to  bless  mankind. 

We  are  still  at  the  dawn  of  this  new  era.  Its  grand  possibilities  are  all 
before  us,  and  its  heights  are  ours  to  reach.  We  are  assembled  in  this  great 
parliament  to  look  for  the  first  time  in  each  others’  faces  and  to  speak  to 
each  other  our  best  and  truest  words.  I  can  only  add  my  heartfelt  word  of 
greeting  to  those  you  have  already  heard.  I  welcome  you,  brothers  of  every 
name  and  land,  who  have  wrought  so  long  and  so  well  in  accordance  with 
the  wisdom  high  heaven  has  given  to  you ;  and  I  welcome  you,  sisters,  who 
have  come  with  beating  hearts  and  earnest  purpose  to  this  great  feast,  to 
participate  not  only  in  this  parliament  but  in  the  great  congresses  asso¬ 
ciated  with  it.  Isabella  the  Catholic  had  not  only  the  perception  of  a  new 
world  but  of  an  enlightened  and  emancipated  womanhood,  which  should 
strengthen  religion  and  bless  mankind.  I  welcome  you  to  the  fulfillment 
of  her  prophetic  vision. 


ADDRESS. 

H.  N.  HIGINBOTHAM,  PEESIDENT  OF  THE  WOELD’S  COLUMBIAN 

EXPOSITION  COMPANY. 

It  affords  me  infinite  pleasure  to  welcome  the  distinguished  gentlenien 
who  compose  this  august  body.  It  is  a ,  matter  of  satisfaction  and  pride 
that  the  relations  existing  between  the  peoples  and  the  nations  of  the  earth 


48 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


are  of  such  a  friendly  nature  as  to  make  this  gathering  possible.  I  have 
long  cherished  the  hope  that  nothing  would  intervene  to  prevent  the  frui 
tion  of  the  labors  of  your  honored  chairman. 

I  apprehend  that  the  fruitage  of  this  parliament  will  richly  compensate 
him  and  the  world  and  jjrove  the  wisdom  of  his  work.  It  is  a  source  of 
satisfaction  that,  to  the  residents  of  a  new  city  in  a  far  country,  should  be 
accorded  this  great  privilege  and  high  honor.  The  meeting  of  so  many  illus¬ 
trious  and  learned  men  under  such  circumstances,  evidences  the  kindly 
spirit  and  feeling  that  exists  throughout  the  world.  To  me  this  is  the 
proudest  of  the  works  of  our  exposition.  There  is  no  man,  high  or  low, 
learned  or  unlearned,  who  will  not  watch  with  increasing  interest,  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  this  parliament.  Whatever  may  be  the  differences  in  the 
religions  you  represent,  there  is  a  sense  in  which  we  are  all  alike.  There 
is  a  common  plane  on  which  we  are  all  brothers.  We  owe  our  being  to 
conditions  that  are  exactly  the  same.  Our  journey  through  this  world 
is  by  the  same  route.  We  have  in  common  the  same  senses,  hopes,  ambi¬ 
tions,  joys,  and  sorrows,  and  these,  to  my  mind,  argue  strongly  and  almost 
conclusively  a  common  destiny. 

To  me  there  is  much  satisfaction  and  pleasure  in  the  fact  that  we  are 
brought  face  to  face  with  men  that  come  to  us  bearing  the  ripest  wisdom 
of  the  ages.  They  come  in  the  friendliest  spirit  that,  I  trust,  will  be  aug¬ 
mented  by  their  intercourse  with  us  and  each  other.  I  hope  that  your 
parliament  will  prove  to  be  a  golden  milestone  on  the  highway  of  civiliza¬ 
tion— a  golden  stairway  leading  up  to  the  tableland  of  a  higher,  grander, 
and  more  perfect  condition,  where  peace  will  reign  and  the  engines  of  war 
be  known  no  more  forever. 

NEW  ENGLAND  PURITAN. 

REV.  ALEXANDER  MCKENZIE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

I  suppose  that  everybody  who  speaks  here  this  morning  stands  for 
some  thing.  The  very  slight  claim  I  have  to  be  here,  rests  on  the  fact  that 
I  am  one  of  the  original  settlers.  I  am  here  representing  the  New  England 
Puritan,  the  man  who  has  made  this  gathering  possible.  The  Puritan 
came  early  to  this  country,  with  a  very  distinct  work  to  do,  and  he  gave 
himself  distinctly  to  that  work,  and  succeeded  in  doing  it.  There  are 
some  who  criticise  the  Puritan,  and  say  that  if  he  had  been  a  different 
man  than  he  was  he  would  not  have  been  the  man  he  was. 

I  venture  to  say  that  if  the  Puritan  had  not  been  precisely  the  man  he 
was,  this  gathering  would  never  have  been  heard  of.  The  little  contribu¬ 
tion  that  he  makes  this  morning,  in  the  way  of  welcome  to  these  guests 
from  all  parts  of  the  world,  is  to  congratulate  them  on  the  opportunity 
given  them  of  seeing  something  of  the  work  his  hands  have  established. 
We  are  able  to  show  our  friends  from  other  countries,  not  that  we  have 
something  better  than  what  they  have,  but  that  we  have  that  which  they 
can  see  nowhere  else  in  the  world.  It  would  be  idle  to  present  trophies  of 
old  countries  to  men  from  India  and  Japan.  We  can  not  show  an  old 
history  or  stately  architecture.  We  can  not  point  to  the  castles  and 
abbeys  of  England,  but  we  can  show  a  new  country  which  means  to  be  old. 
We  can  show  buildings  as  tall  as  any  in  the  world,  and  we  c^m  show  the 
displacement  of  buildings  that  are  a  few  score  years  old  l)y  the  stately  and 
elegant  structures  of  our  time.  But  there  is  another  thing  we  can  show, 
if  our  brethren  from  abroad  will  take  pains  to  notice  it.  I  am  not  exag¬ 
gerating  when  I  say  that  we  can  show  what  can  be  shown  nowhere  else 
in  the  world,  and  that  is,  a  great  republic,  and  a  republic  in  the  process 
of  making  by  the  forces  of  Christianity. 

We  can  show  the  whole  nation,  wo  can  show  its  beginning,  we  can  show 


NEW  ENGLAND  PURITAN. 


49 


the  men  who  began  to  make  it;  at  any  rate,  we  can  show  their  pictures,  the 
letters  they  wrote,  and  the  cradles  their  children  were  rocked  in.  The  begin¬ 
ning  of  this  republic  was  purely  religious.  The  men  who  came  to  start  it 
came  from  religious  motives.  Their  religion  may  not  have  been  exactly 
what  other  people  liked,  but  they  worked  with  a  distinctive  religious  pur¬ 
pose.  They  came  here  to  carry  out  the  work  of  God.  They  worked  with 
energy  and  perseverance  and  steadfastness  to  that  end.  They  started  on 
Plymouth  Rock  a  parliament  of  religion.  They  had  presently  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts  a  parliament  of  two  somewhat  varying  religions.  Then,  when  the 
Dutch  went  to  New  York,  there  were  three  elements  of  religion  in  the 
country.  So  it  has  been  going  on  ever  since,  and  if  to-day  there  is  any 
religion  in  the  world  which  has  not  its  representative  in  this  country,  I  wish 
somebody  would  guess  what  it  is.  ^  ^ 

There  is  one  thing  very  remarkable  in  the  working  out  of  the  Puritan 
idea;  it  has  never  gone  backward,  there  has  been  no  recession,  no  losing 
ground  from  the  time  the  Mayflower  took  its  way  from  old  Plymouth  into 
new  Plymouth.  There  have  been  little  variances  from  time  to  time,  but 
they  have  tended  to  cement  the  great  idea  of  building  up  this  republic.  At 
first  they  were  colonies.  Presently  they  shook  off  their  allegiance  to  the 
old  country  and  became  a  country  of  their  own,  but  fettered  and  held  with 
slavery,  which  is  inconsistent  in  any  republic.  Presently  came  the  revolu¬ 
tion,  which  bound  them  together  as  a  nation,  and  then  came  the  civil  war, 
which  shook  slavery  off  from  the  republic,  and  we  stood  a  free  and  inde¬ 
pendent  nation  before  the  world.  Our  work  advanced  without  receding, 
and  is  still  going  on. 

I  say  that  this  is  the  first  republic  of  the  world.  You  may  ask  if  I  am 
not  ignorant  of  history.  I  believe  there  were  other  republics.  I  have 
heard  of  the  Roman  republic;  I  have  heard  of  the  French  republic,  and 
the  republics  of  Central  America.  But  these  were  not  republics  in  our 
sense.  They  w^ere  simply  the  change  in  form  of  government  of  their  own 
people.  A  republic  like  this  is  peculiar  in  this  respect,  that  we  have 
here  twenty-five  different  nations  to  make  into  one,  twenty-five  different 
languages,  twenty-five  different  religions,  with  great  diversities,  and 
some  no-religions  which  have  more  diversity  than  the  religions. 

Now,  with  all  this  diversity  of  taste,  diversity  of  religion,  and  desire  and 
purpose,  we  had  to  make  one  nation  where  the  people  shall  think  together, 
shall  worship  together,  shall  rally  under  the  same  flag,  and  shall  believe  in 
the  same  principles  and  same  institutions.  Since  the  morning  of  crea¬ 
tion  there  has  never  been  given  to  any  people  in  the  world  so  great  a  task 
as  to  make  out  of  twenty-five  nations  a  republic  along  the  old  Christian 
lines.  We  begun  our  work  with  the  church  and  school. 

I  have  no  sympathy  with  the  discussion  which  has  been  frequently 
heard  as  to  whether  we  should  have  the  school  or  the  church.  You 
might  as  well  ask,  in  bringing  up  children^  whether  they  should  have 
clothes  or  bread.  Why,  in  the  name  of  reason,  should  they  not  have  both? 
The  pilgrim  fathers  came  with  the  church  and  came  with  the  school. 
They  were  not  boys  when  they  came  or  wild  adventurers.  They  were 
scholars  from  the  universities  of  England.  They  brought  books  with  them 
and  made  books,  and  they  founded  what  they  called  a  university.  They 
believed  that  no  religion  has  any  right  to  live  which  does  not  make  men 
more  intelligent,  and  they  believed  that  there  is  no  intelligence  worth  hav¬ 
ing  that  does  not  reach  out  to  the  highest  pinnacle  of  knowledge.  To-day 
we  are  simply  continuing  the  process  they  began. 

Men  sometimes  find  fault  and  say  that  we  are  a  material  nation.  I 
think  we  should  give  thanks  that  we  are  materialists,  that  we  are  blessed 
with  railroads,  steamships,  banks,  bankers,  and  many  kinds  of  money, 
providing  they  are  good.  It  would  be  no  use  attempting  to  maintain 
institutions  of  religion  or  schoolhouses  without  material  and  financial 


50 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

resources.  It  is  rather  a  reproach  to  us  if  we  can  not  advance  the  institu¬ 
tions  of  religion  and  learning  as  fast  as  men  advance  railroads.  I  wish 
our  friends  would  take  pains  to  notice  what  we  are  doing  here.  I 
should  like  them  to  see  the  line  churches  of  this  and  other  great  cities; 
I  should  like  them  to  go  into  the  country  communities  and  see  our  mission¬ 
ary  churches  and  country  schools.  I  wish  they  would  let  me  be  their  guide. 
1  would  take  them  to  the  place  on  our  own  Atlantic  seaboard,  where  they 
can  see  men  manufacturing  a  republic — taking  the  black  material  of 
humanity  and  building  it  up  into  noble  men  and  women  ;  taking  the  red 
material,  wild  with  every  savage  instinct,  and  making  it  into  respectable 
men. 

I  do  not  think  America  has  anything  better  or  more  hopeful  to  show 
than  the  work  of  General  Armstrong  at  Hampton.  We  have  not  built 
cathedrals  yet,  but  we  have  built  log  schoolhouses,  and  if  you  visit  them 
you  will  see  in  the  cracks  between  the  logs  the  eternal  light  streaming  in. 
And  for  the  work  we  are  doing  a  log  schoolhouse  is  better  than  a  cathedral. 


THANKS  FROM  GREECE, 

MOST  KEV.  DIONYSIOS  LATAS,  THE  AKCHBISHOP  OE  ZANTE, 
GEEECE,  A  EEPKESENTATIVE  OE  THE  GEEEK  CHUECH. 

Reverend  Ministers.,  Most  Honorable  Gentlemen.,  the  Superiors  of  this 
Congress.,  and  Honorable  Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  I  consider  myself  very 
happy  in  having  set  my  feet  on  this  platform  to  take  part  in  the  congress 
of  the  different  nations  and  peoples.  I  thank  the  great  American  nation, 
and  especially  the  superiors  of  this  congress,  for  the  high  manner  in  which 
they  have  honored  me  by  inviting  me  to  take  part,  and  I  thank  the  min¬ 
isters  of  divinity  of  the  different  nations  and  peoples  which,  for  the  first 
time,  will  write  in  the  books  of  the  history  of  the  world. 

I  thank  them  still  more  because  this  invitation  gave  me  the  opportunity 
to  satisfy  a  desire  which  I  have  had  for  a  long  time  to  visit  this  famous  and 
most  glorious  country.  I  sat  a  long  time  at  Athens,  the  capital  of  Greece, 
and  there  had  the  opportunity  to  become  acquainted  with  many  American 
gentlemen,  ministers,  professors,  and  others  who  came  there  for  the  sake  of 
learning  the  new  Greek,  and  travelers  who  visited  that  classic  place,  the  place 
of  the  antiquities.  By  conversing  with  those  gentlemen,  I  heard  and  learned 
many  things  about  America,  and  I  admired  from  afar  the  greatness  of  the 
country.  My  desire  has  always  been  to  visit  and  see  this  nation,  and  now, 
thanks  to  Almighty  God,  I  am  here  in  America,  within  the  precincts  of  the 
city  which  is  showing  the  great  progress  and  the  wonderful  achievements 
of  the  human  mind.  My  voice,  as  representing  the  little  kingdom  of  Greece, 
may  appear  of  little  importance  as  compared  with  the  voices  of  you  who 
represent  great  and  powerful  states,  extensive  cities,  and  numerous  nations, 
but  the  influence  of  the  church  to  which  I  belong,  is  extensive  and  my 
part  is  great.  But  my  thanks  to  the  superiors  of  this  congress  and  my 
blessings  and  prayers  to  Almighty  God  must  not  be  measured  by  extent 
and  quantity  but  by  true  sympathy  and  quality.  I  repeat  my  thanks  to 
the  superiors  of  this  congress,  the  president,  Charles  Bonney,  and  Dr. 
Barrows. 

The  archbishop  then  turned  to  the  dignitaries  on  the  plat¬ 
form  and  said: 

Reverend  ministers  of  the  eloquent  name  of  God,  the  creator  of  your 
earth  and  mine,  I  salute  you  on  the  one  hand  as  my  brothers  in  Jesus 
Christ,  from  whom,  according  to  our  faith,  all  good  has  originated  in  this 
world.  I  salute  you  in  the  name  of  the  divinely  inspired  gospel,  which. 


FROM  INDIA  AND  CHINA, 


5l 

according  to  our  faith,  is  the  salvation  of  the  soul  of  man  and  the  happiness 
of  man  in  this  world. 

All  men  have  a  common  creator,  without  any  distinction  between  the 
rich  and  the  poor,  the  ruler  and  the  ruled;  all  men  have  a  common  creator 
without  any  distinction  of  clime  or  race,  without  distinction  of  nationality 
or  ancestry,  of  name  or  nobility;  all  men  have  a  common  creator,  and  con¬ 
sequently  a  common  father  in  God. 

I  raise  up  my  hands  and  I  bless  with  heartfelt  love  the  great  country 
and  the  happy,  glorious  people  of  the  United  States. 

‘‘This  indeed  is  glorious,”  cried  Mr.  Bonney,  as  the  arch¬ 
bishop  resumed  his  seat,  a  sentiment  which  was  greeted  with 
prolonged  cheering. 

FROM  INDIA  AND  CHINA. 

P.  C.  MOZOOMDAR  OF  INDIA. 

P.  C.  Mozoomdar,  of  India,  was  loudly  cheered  upon  rising 
to  make  the  following  address: 

Leaders  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions^  Men  and  Women  of  America: 
The  recognition,  sympathy,  and  welcome  you  have  given  to  India  to-day  are 
gratifying  to  thousands  of  liberal  Hindu  religious  thinkers,  whose  repre¬ 
sentatives  I  see  around  me,  and,  on  behalf  of  my  countrymen,  I  cordially 
thank  you.  India  claims  her  place  in  the  brotherhood  of  mankind,  not 
only  because  of  her  great  antiquity,  but  equally  for  what  has  taken  place 
there  in  recent  times.  Modern  India  has  sprung  from  ancient  India  by  a 
law  of  evolution,  a  process  of  continuity  which  explains  some  of  the  most 
difficult  problems  of  our  national  life.  In  prehistoric  times  our  forefathers 
worshiped  the  great  living  spirit,  God,  and,  after  many  strange  vicissitudes, 
we  Indian  theists,  led  by  the  light  of  ages,  worship  the  same  living  spirit, 
God,  and  none  other. 

Perhaps  in  other  ancient  lands  this  law  of  continuity  has  not  been  so 
well  kept.  Egypt  aspired  to  build  up  the  vast  eternal  in  her  elaborate  sym¬ 
bolism  and  mighty  architecture.  Where  is  Egypt  to-day  ?  Passed  away 
as  a  mystic  dream  in  her  pyramids,  catacombs,  and  sphynx  of  the  desert. 

Greece  tried  to  embody  her  genius  of  wisdom  and  beauty  in  her  wonder¬ 
ful  creations  of  marble,  in  her  all-embracing  philosophy;  but  where  is 
ancient  Greece  to-day  ?  She  lies  buried  under  her  exquisite  monuments, 
and  sleeps  the  sleep  from  which  there  is  no  waking. 

The  Roman  cohorts  under  whose  victorious  tramp  the  earth  shook  to  its 
center,  the  Roman  theaters,  laws,  and  institutions — where  are  they  ?  Hid¬ 
den  behind  the  oblivious  centuries,  or,  if  they  flit  across  the  mind,  only 
point  a  moral  or  adorn  a  tale. 

The  Hebrews,  the  chosen  of  Jehovah,  with  their  long  line  of  law  and 
prophets,  how  are  they  ?  Wanderers  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  driven  by 
king  and  kaiser,  the  objects  of  persecution  to  the  cruel  or  objects  of  sym¬ 
pathy  to  the  kind.  Mount  Moriah  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Musselman,  Zion  is 
silent,  and  over  the  ruins  of  Solomon’s  Temple  a  few  men  beat  their  breasts 
and  wet  their  white  beards  with  their  tears. 

But  India,  the  ancient  among  ancients,  the  elder  of  the  elders,^  lives 
to-day  with  her  old  civilization,  her  old  laws,  and  her  profound  religion. 
The  old  mother  of  the  nations  and  religions  is  still  a  power  in  the  world; 
she  has  often  risen  from  apparent  death,  and  in  the  future  will  arise  again. 
When  the  Vedic  faith  declined  in  India,  the  esoteric  religion  of  the  Vedan- 
tas  arose;  then  the  everlasting  philosophy  of  the  Darasanas.  When  these 


52 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


declined  again  the  Light  of  Asia  arose,  and  established  a  standard  of  moral 
perfection  which  will  yet  teach  the  world  a  long  time.  When  Buddhism 
had  its  downfall,  the  Shaiva  and  Vaish  Rava  revived,  and  continued  in  the 
land  down  to  the  invasion  of  the  Mohammedans.  The  Greeks  and  Scyth¬ 
ians,  the  Turks  and  Tartars,  the  Monguls  and  Musselmen,  rolled  over  her 
country  like  torrents  of  destruction.  Our  independence,  our  greatness,'  our 
prestige — all  had  gone,  but  nothing  could  take  away  our  religious  vitality. 

We  are  Hindus  still  and  shall  always  be.  Now  sits  Christianity  on  the 
throne  of  India,  with  the  gospel  of  peace  on  one  hand  and  the  scepter  of 
civilization  on  the  other.  Now,  it  is  not  the  time  to  despair  and  die.  Behold 
the  aspirations  of  modern  India — intellectual,  social,  political — all  awak¬ 
ened;  our  religious  instincts  stirred  to  the  roots.  If  that  had  not  been  the 
case  do  you  think  Hindus,  Jains,  Buddhists,  and  others  would  have  trav¬ 
ersed  these  14,000  miles  to  pay  the  tribute  of  their  sympathy  before  this 
august  Parliament  of  Religions? 

No  individual,  no  denomination,  can  more  fully  sympathize  or  more 
heartily  join  your  conference  than  we  men  of  the  Brahmo  Somaj,  whose 
religion  is  the  harmony  of  all  religions,  and  whose  congregation  is  the 
brotherhood  of  all  nations. 

Such,  being  our  aspirations  and  sympathies,  dear  brethren,  accept  them . 
Let  me  thank  you  again  for  this  welcome  in  the  name  of  my  countrymen, 
and  wish  every  prosperity  and  success  to  your  labors. 

HON.  PUNG  QUANG  YU,  SECRETAEY  OF  THE  CHINESE  LEGATION 

IN  WASHINGTON 

Began  to  read  the  address,  but  was  unable  to  make  himself 
heard.  He,  therefore,  turned  the  manuscript  over  to  Dr. 
Barrows,  who  read,  in  ringing  tones,  the  following: 

On  behalf  of  the  imperial  government  of  China,  I  take  great  pleasure 
in  responding  to  the  cordial  words  which  the  chairman  of  the  general  com¬ 
mittee  and  others  have  spoken  to-day.  This  is  a  great  moment  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  nations  and  religions.  For  the  first  time  men  of  various  faiths  meet 
in  one  great  hall  to  report  what  they  believe  and  the  grounds  for  their 
belief.  The  great  Sage  of  China,  who  is  honored  not  only  by  the  millions 
of  our  own  land,  but  throughout  the  world,  believed  that  duty  was  summed 
up  in  reciprocity,  and  I  think  that  the  word  reciprocity  finds  a  new  mean¬ 
ing  and  glory  in  the  proceedings  of  this  historic  parliament.  I  am  glad 
that  the  great  empire  of  China  has  accepted  the  invitation  of  those  who 
have  called  this  parliament  and  is  to  be  represented  in  this  great  school  of 
comparative  religion.  Only  the  happiest  results  will  come,  I  am  sure,  from 
our  meeting  together  in  the  spirit  of  friendliness.  Each  may  learn  from 
the  other  some  lessons,  I  trust,  of  charity  and  good  will,  and  discover  what 
is  excellent  in  other  faiths  than  his  own.  In  behalf  of  my  government  and 
people  I  extend  to  the  representatives  gathered  in  this  great  hall  the  friend¬ 
liest  salutations,  and  to  those  who  have  spoken  I  give  my  most  cordial 
thanks. 


LEGEND  OF  RUSSIA. 

PRINCE  SERGE  WOLKONSKY  OF  RUSSIA. 

Those  who,  during  the  last  week,  have  had  the  opportunity  of  attending 
not  only  the  congresses  of  one  single  church,  but  who  could  witness  differ¬ 
ent  congresses  of  different  churches  and  congregations  must  have  been 
struck  with  a  noticeable  fact.  They  went  to  the  Catholic  congress  and 


LEGEND  OF  RUSSIA. 


53 


heard  beautiful  words  of  charity  and  love.  Splendid  orators  invoked  the 
blessings  of  heaven  upon  the  children  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  in  elo¬ 
quent  terms  the  listeners  were  entreated  to  love  their  human  brothers,  in 
the  name  of  the  Catholic  Church.  They  went  to  the  Lutheran  congress 
and  heard  splendid  words  of  humanity,  and  brotherhood,  orators  inspired 
with  love  and  the  blessing  of  God  invoked  on  the  children  of  the  Lutheran 
church.  Those  who  were  present  were  taught  to  love  their  human  broth¬ 
ers,  in  the  name  of  the  Lutheran  church.  They  went  to  other  more  limited 
congresses,  and  everywhere  they  heard  these  same  great  words,  proclaim¬ 
ing  these  same  great  ideas  and  inspiring  these  same  great  feelings.  They 
saw  a  Catholic  archbishop  who  went  to  a  Jewish  congress  and  with  fiery 
eloquence  brought  feelings  of  brotherhood  to  his  Hebraic  sisters.  Not  in 
one  of  these  congresses  did  a  speaker  forget  that  he  belonged  to  humanity, 
and  that  his  own  church  or  congregation  was  but  a  starting  point,  a  center 
for  a  further  radiation. 

This  is  the  noticeable  fact  that  must  have  struck  everybody,  and 
everybody  must  have  asked  himself  at  the  end  of  the  week:  “Why  don’t 
they  come  together,  all  these  people  who  all  speak  the  same  language? 
Why  do  not  all  these  splendid  orators  unite  their  voices  in  one  single 
chorus,  and,  if  they  preach  the  same  ideas,  why  don’t  they  proclaim  them 
in  the  name  of  the  same  and  single  truth  that  inspires  them  all?”  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  idea  of  those  who,  in  comjwsing  the  programmes  of 
the  religious  congresses,  decided  that  the  general  religious  congress  should 
follow  the  minor  ones.  To-night,  in  fact,  we  see  the  representatives  of 
different  churches  gathered  together,  and  actuated  with  one  common 
desire  of  union. 

Being  called  to  welcome  it  on  the  day  of  its  opening,  I  will  take  the 
liberty  of  relating  to  you  a  popular  legend  of  my  country.  The  story  may 
appear  rather  too  humorous  for  the  occasion,  but  one  of  our  national  writers 
says:  “Humor  is  an  invisible  tear  through  a  visible  smile,”  and  we  think 
that  human  tears,  human  sorrow  and  pain  are  sacred  enough  to  be  brought 
even  before  a  religious  congress. 

There  was  an  old  woman,  who  for  many  centuries  suffered  tortures  in 
the  fiames  of  hell,  for  she  had  been  a  great  sinner  during  her  earthly  life. 
One  day  she  saw  far  away  in  the  distance  an  angel  taking  his  flight 
through  the  blue  skies;  and  with  the  whole  strength  of  her  voice  she  called 
to  him.  The  call  must  have  been  desperate,  for  the  angel  stopped  in  his 
flight  and  coming  down  to  her  asked  her  what  she  wanted. 

“  When  you  reach  the  throne  of  God,”  she  said,  “  tell  him  that  a  miser¬ 
able  creature  has  suffered  more  than  she  can  bear,  and,  that  she  asks  the 
Lord  to  be  delivered  from  these  tortures.” 

The  angel  promised  to  do  so  and  flew  away.  When  he  had  transmitted 
the  message  God  said: 

“  Ask  her  whether  she  has  done  any  good  to  anyone  during  her  life.’’ 

The  old  woman  strained  her  memory  in  search  of  a  good  action  during 
her  sinful  past,  and  all  at  once:  “I’ve  got  one,”  she  joyfully  exclaimed: 
“  one  day  I  gave  a  carrot  to  a  hungry  beggar.” 

The  angel  reported  the  answer. 

“  Take  a  carrot,”  said  God  to  the  angel,  “  and  stretch  it  out  to  her. 
Let  her  grasp  it,  and  if  the  plant  is  strong  enough  to  draw  her  out  from 
hell  she  shall  be  saved.” 

This  the  angel  did.  The  poor  old  woman  clung  to  the  carrot.  The  angel 
began  to  pull,  and  lo!  she  began  to  rise!  But  when  her  body  was  half  out 
of  the  fiames  she  felt  another  weight  at  her  feet.  Another  sinner  was 
clinging  to  her,  She  kicked,  but  it  did  not  help.  The  sinner  would  not  let 
go  his  hold,  and  the  angel,  continuing  to  pull,  was  lifting  them  both.  But, 
oh!  another  sinner  clung  to  them,  and  then  a  third,  and  more  and  always 
more — a  chain  of  miserable  creatures  hung  at  the  old  woman’s  feet.  The 


54 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


angel  never  ceased  pulling.  It  did  not  seem  to  be  any  heavier  than  the 
small  carrot  could  support,  and  they  all  were  lifted  in  the  air.  But  the  old 
woman  suddenly  took  fright.  Too  many  people  were  availing  themselves  of 
her  last  chance  of  salvation,  and,  kicking  and  pushing  those  who  were 
clinging  to  her,  she  exclaimed:  “Leave  me  alone;  hands  off;  the  carrot  is 
mine.” 

No  sooner  had  she  pronounced  this  word  “  mine  ”  than  the  tiny  stem 
broke,  and  they  all  fell  back  to  hell,  and  forever. 

In  its  poetical  artlessness  and  popular  simplicity  this  legend  is  too  elo¬ 
quent  to  need  interpretation.  If  any  individual,  any  community,  any  con¬ 
gregation,  any  church,  possesses  a  portion  of  truth  and  of  good,  let  that 
truth  shine  for  everybody;  let  that  good  become  the  property  of  everyone. 
The  substitution  of  the  word  “mine”  by  the  wwd  “ours,”  and  that  of 
“  ours  ’  by  the  word  “  everyone’s  ”  —  this  is  what  will  secure  a  fruitful  result 
to  our  collective  efforts  as  well  as  to  our  individual  activities. 

This  is  why  we  welcome  and  greet  the  opening  of  this  congress,  where, 
in  a  combined  effort  of  the  representatives  of  all  churches,  all  that  is  great 
and  good  and  true  in  each  of  them  is  brought  together,  in  the  name  of 
the  same  God  and  for  the  sake  of  the  same  man. 

We  congratulate  the  president,  the  members  and  all  the  listeners  of  this 
congress  upon  the  tendency  of  union  that  has  gathered  them  on  the  soil  of 
the  country  whose  allegorical  eagle,  spreading  her  mighty  wings  over  the 
stars  and  stripes,  holds  in  her  talons  these  splendid  words:  “  E  Pluribus 
Unum.” 


SHINTO  BISHOP  OF  JAPAN. 

RIGHT  REV.  RENCHI  SHIBATA,  REPRESENTATIVE  OF  THE  SHINTO 
FAITH,  THE  STATE  RELIGION  OF  JAPAN. 

The  bishop  appeared  in  his  full  pontificals  and  salaamed 
profoundly  toward  the  audience  and  to  the  right  and  left  w^hen 
he  came  forward.  Mr.  Bonney,  in  his  words  of  introduction, 
alluded  to  the  rapidity  with  which  Japan  had  advanced  in 
civilization,  and  the  peculiar  kindness  felt  by  the  people  of 
this  country  toward  the  people  of  the  empire  of  the  mikado. 

The  address  was  read  by  Dr.  Barrows. 

I  can  not  help  doing  honor  to  the  Congress  of  Religions  held  here  in 
Chicago  as  the  result  of  the  partial  effort  of  those  philanthropic  brothers 
who  have  undertaken  this,  the  greatest  meeting  ever  held.  It  was  fourteen 
years  ago  that  I  expressed,  in  my  own  country,  the  hope  that  there  should 
be  a  friendly  meeting  between  the  world’s  religionists,  and  now  I  realize 
my  hope  with  great  joy  in  being  able  to  attend  these  phenomenal  meetings. 

In  the  history  of  the  past  we  read  of  repeated  and  tierce  conflicts 
between  different  religious  creeds  which  sometimes  ended  in  war.  But 
that  time  has  passed  away  and  things  have  changed  with  advancing  civil¬ 
ization.  It. is  a  great  blessing,  not  only  to  the  religions  themselves,  but  also 
to  human  affairs,  that  the  different  religionists  can  thus  gather  in  a  friendly 
way  and  exchange  their  thoughts  and  opinions  on  the  important  problems 
of  the  age. 

I  trust  that  these  repeated  meetings  will  gradually  increase  the  fraternal 
relations  between  the  different  religionists  in  investigating  the  truths  of 
the  universe,  and  be  instrumental  in  uniting  all  religions  of  the  world,  and 


WORDS  ON  TOLERATION. 


55 


in  bringing  all  hostile  nations  into  peaceful  relations  by  leading  them  unto 
the  way  of  perfect  justice. 

When  he  had  finished  reading,  Dr.  Barrows  introduced  three 
Buddhist  priests  from  Japan,  namely,  Zitzuzen  Ashitsu,  Shaku 
Soyen,  and  Horin  Tokia.  The  priests  arose  and  remained 

standing  while  Z.  Noguchi,  their  interpreter,  said:  ' 

I  thank  you  on  behalf  of  the  Japanese  Buddhist  priests  for  the  wel¬ 
come  you  have  given  us  and  for  the  kind  invitation  to  participate  in  the 
proceedings  of  this  congress. 

Dr.  Barrows  said  that  the  Buddhists  were  bishops  in  their 
land,  and  had  been  touched  with  the  kind  greetings  and  hos¬ 
pitalities  they  had  received  since  arriving  in  America. 


WORDS  ON  TOLERATION. 

COUNT  BEKENSTOKFF  OF  GEKMANY. 

I  am  happy  to  be  able,  as  a  German,  to  return  words  of  thanks  for  the 
kind  welcome  that  has  just  been  expressed  to  the  visitors  from  different 
nations.  I  can  hardly  say  that  I  speak  on  behalf  of  Germany.  Not  coun¬ 
tries  as  such,  nor  even  churches  as  such,  can  take  part  in  a  conference  like 
this.  I  fully  understand  that  men,  who  in  high  offices  represent  the  church, 
hesitated  to  accept  the  invitation,  which,  as  private  persons,  they  would 
perhaps  gladly  have  followed.  I  think  the  gentlemen  who  have  come  to 
attend  this  parliament,  yet  unique  in  the  history  of  the  world,  come  as 
individuals,  not  binding,  by  their  presence,  the  religious  or  national  bodies 
to  which  they  belong;  but  this  does  not  in  the  least  diminish  the  value  of 
their  presence  here.  They  come  as  men  engaged  in  the  religious  work  of 
their  country,  and  are  representative  men  as  such,  even  if  no  religious  body 
has  given  them  full  powers. 

I  also  come  only  as  an  individual,  but  in  the  hope  that  I  may,  perhaps, 
help  a  little  to  further  the  great  object  which  you,  who  so  kindly  invited 
us,  have  in  view.  It  is  a  great  pleasure  to  me  to  be  once  more  in  this  great 
country,  which  I  visited  for  the  first  time  in  1873.  One  week  spent  here 
twenty  years  ago  has  remained  deeply  rooted  in  my  memory. 

Let  me  begin  by  stating  my  great  pleasure,  and  I  know  that  I  am  not 
alone  with  this  feeling  in  my  country,  that  for  the  first  time  religion  should 
be  officially  connected  with  a  world’s  exhibition.  Religion,  the  most  vital 
question  for  every  human  being,  is  generally  laid  aside  at  such  gatherings, 
and  men  are  too  apt  to  forget  the  claims  of  God  in  the  bustle  of  life.  Here 
is  a  free  country,  where  the  church  is  not  supported  by  the  government, 
and  yet  where  the  churches  have  more  influence  on  public  life  than  any¬ 
where  else.  It  has  been  recognized  that  such  a  large  influx  of  men  should 
not  meet  without  paying  attention  to  the  question  of  all  questions.  This 
parliament  is,  therefore,  a  testimony,  and  one  whose  voice  will,  I  trust,  be 
heard  all  over  the  earth,  that  men  live  not  by  bread  alone,  but  that  the  care 
for  the  immortal  soul  is  the  paramount  question  for  every  man,  the  ques¬ 
tion  which  ought  to  be  treated  before  all  others  when  men  of  all  nations 
meet. 

The  basis  of  this  congress  is  common  humanity.  Though  the  term 
humanity  has  often  been  used  to  designate  the  purely  human  apart  from 
all  claims  of  divinity,  I  hesitate  not,  as  an  evangelical  Christian,  to  accept 
this  thesis.  It  is  the  Bible  which  teaches  us  that  the  human  race  is  all 


56 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


descended  from  one  couple,  and  that  they  are,  therefore,  one  family.  Let 
us  not  forget  this;  but  the  Bible  also  teaches  that  man  is  created  after  the 
image  of  God.  Therefore,  man  as  such,  quite  apart  from  the  circumstances 
which  made  him  be  born  among  some  historic  religion,  is  meant  to  come 
into  connection  with  God.  I  have  heard  preachers  who  spoke  at  the  anni¬ 
versary  of  a  reformation  say  that  children  who  were  baptized  end  what 
obligations  this  fact  lays  upon  them.  I  could  not  help  thinking  that  if 
children  were  not  baptized,  would  not  the  duty  to  lead  them  to  Christ  be 
quite  the  same?  He  said  every  child  is  a  member  of  the  great  human 
family.  Has  the  offspring  of  that  race,  created  after  the  image  of  God,  the 
right  to  be  brought  into  contact  with  truth? 

If  this  was  not  the  case  the  precept  which  states  in  the  Old  Testament, 
“  Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,”  would  have  been  impossible.  It  is  based 
on  the  principle  that  every  man,  as  such,  through  his  religious  convictions, 
has  a  claim  on  our  help;  yea,  more,  on  our  love  Even  the  Jews,  who  were 
separated  from  all  other  nations  of  the  world,  had  this  taught  to  them. 
The  abuse  of  this  truth,  made  by  men  of  no  religion,  can  not  abrogate  the 
truth  itself.  If  this  parliament  helps  to  bring  forth  this  truth  in  the  right 
light,  if  it  shows  that  we  can  profess  common  humanity  wdthout  putting 
the  human  in  opposition  to  the  divine,  it  will  do  a  great  w^ork  for  the 
progress  of  civilization.  The  word  “  neighbor  ”  in  that  precept  that  we 
are  to  love  our  neighbor  as  ourself  seems  very  narrow  at  first  sight.  It 
seems  as  if  it  only  meant  the  person  who  lives  next  door  to  us,  but  in 
truth  it  is  very  comprehensive.  The  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan  shows 
that  the  suffering  one  is  our  neighbor  in  so  far  as  he  requires  our  help. 
Every  man  is  our  neighbor.  Every  man  practically  becomes  so  by  being 
brought  near  to  us. 

Now  the  World’s  Fair,  by  bringing  together  a  number  of  men  from  all 
nations,  makes  neighborhood  practical  for  many  peox)le  who  never  met  before. 
Altogether  the  progress  of  civilization,  the  facilities  offered  for  locomotion 
in  this  century  of  steam  and  electricity,  make  many  men  closer  neighbors 
than  they  were  before,  and  if  all  the  representatives  of  foreign  nations  who 
come  here  for  the  Fair  are  told  by  this  jjarliament  that  every  man  has  a 
claim  on  the  love  of  every  other  for  the  sake  of  the  common  humanity,  it  is 
a  lesson  which  certainly  deserves  not  to  be  lost.  We  alreadv  feel  that  for¬ 
eigners  coming  here  can  learn  much,  esjjecially  from  the  great  voluntary 
Christian  efforts  of  Americans. 

This  parliament  teaches  us  that  other  great  lesson.  Not  that — some 
one  might  say,  and  I  have  heard  the  objections  expressed  before — this  idea 
of  humanity  will  tend  to  make  religion  indifferent  to  us.  I  will  openly  con¬ 
fess  that  I  also  for  a  time  felt  the  strength  of  this  objection,  but  I  trust 
that  nobody  is  here  who  thinks  light  of  his  own  religion, 

I,  for  myself,  declare  that  I  am  here  as  an  individual  evangelical  Chris¬ 
tian,  and  that  I  should  never  have  set  my  foot  in  this  parliament  if  I  thought 
that  it  sign^'fied  anything  like  a  consent  that  all  religions  are  equal  and  that 
it  is  only  necessary  to  be  sincere  and  upright.  I  can  consent  to  nothing  of 
this  kind.  I  believe  only  the  Bible  to  be  true  and  Protestant  Christianity 
the  only  true  religion.  I  wish  no  compromise  of  any  kind. 

We  can  not  deny  that  we  who  meet  in  this  parliament  are  separated  by 
great  and  imi)ortant  principles.  We  admit  that  these  differences  can  not 
be  bridged  over,  but  we  meet,  believing  everybody  has  the  right  to  his 
faith.  You  invite  everybody  to  come  here  as  a  sincere  defender  of  his  own 
faith.  I,  for  my  part,  stand  befc^re  you  with  -the  same  wdsh  that  prompted 
Paul  when  he  stood  before  the  representative  of  the  Roman  congress  and 
Agrippa,  the  Jewish  king.  I  would  to  God  that  all  that  hear  me  to-day 
were  both  almost  and  altogether  such  as  I  am.  I  can  not  accept  these 
bonds.  I  thank  God  that  I  am  free,  except  for  all  these  faults  and  defi¬ 
ciencies  which  are  in  me  and  which  prevent  me  embracing  my  creed  as  I 
should  like  to  do. 


GREETING  FROM  FRANCE. 


57 


But  what  do  we  then  meet  for  if  we  can  not  show  tolerance.  Well, 
the  word  tolerance  is  used  in  a  very  different  way.  If  the  words  of  the 
great  King  Frederick,  of  Prussia,  “  In  my  country  everybody  can  go  to 
heaven  after  his  own  fashion,”  are  used  as  a  maxim  of  statesmanship,  we 
can  not  approve  of  it  too  highly.  What  bloodshed,  what  cruelty  would 
have  been  spared  in  the  history  of  the  world  if  it  had  been  adopted.  But 
if  it  is  the  expression  of  the  religious  indifference  prevalent  during  this 
last  century  and  at  the  court  of  the  monarch  who  was  the  friend  of 
Voltaire  then  we  must  not  accept  it. 

St  Paul,  in  his  epistle  tc  the  Galatians,  rejects  every  other  doctrine, 
even  if  it  were  taught  by  an  angel  from  heaven.  We  Christians  are 
servants  of  our  master,  the  living  Savior.  We  have  no  right  to  com¬ 
promise  the  truth  He  intrusted  to  us,  either  to  think  lightly  of  it,  or  with¬ 
hold  the  message  He  has  given  us  for  humanity.  But  we  meet  together, 
each  one  wishing  to  gain  the  others  to  his  own  creed.  Will  this  not  be 
a  parliament  of  war  instead  of  peace?  Will  it  bring  us  further  from 
instead  of  nearer  to  each  other?  I  think  not  if  we  hold  fast  our  truths 
that  these  great  vital  doctrines  can  only  be  defended  and  propagated  by 
spiritual  means.  An  honest  fight  with  spiritual  weapons  need  not  estrange 
the  combatants;  on  the  contrary,  it  often  brings  them  nearer. 

I  think  this  conference  will  have  done  enough  to  engrave  its  memory 
forever  on  the  leaves  of  history  if  this  great  principle  found  general 
adoption.  Our  light  is  dawning  in  every  heart,  and  the  19th  century 
has  brought  us  much  progress  in  this  respect;  yet  we  risk  to  enter  the 
20th  century  before  the  great  principle  of  religious  liberty  has  found 
universal  acceptance.  I  am  proud  that  in  Prussia  the  ideas  of  religious 
liberty  are  so  far  advanced.  The  present  Bohemian  churches  in  our 
capital  are  a  horrible  memorial  of  how  the  Protestants  of  Bohemia  and 
Austria  found  refuge  in  our  country.  Many  blessings  have  come  from 
these  immigrants.  The  Jews  are  also  fully  emancipated  with  us,  as  the  law 
gives  all  religious  liberty.  In  Roman  Catholic  countries,  like  Spain,  every 
obstacle  is  put  in  the  way  of  Protestants.  In  Turkey,  and  equally  in 
Russia,  we  hear  of  sad  persecutions.  The  principle  of  religious  liberty  is 
based  on  the  grand  foundation  that  God  wants  the  voluntary  observance 
of  free  men. 


GREETING  FROM  FRANCE. 

PEOFESSOR  G.  BONET  MAURY. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  It  is  for  me  a  great  honor  to  have  to  answer 
for  France,  my  country,  to  the  welcome  greetings  which  have  been  just 
now  expressed  by  our  president,  Mr.  Bonney,  and  by  the  energetic  chairman 
of  the  organizing  committee  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions,  Rev.  J.  H.  Bar- 
rows,  and  others.  That  honor  fell  due  to  more  prominent  leaders  of  relig¬ 
ious  thought  in  our  country,  such  as  Albert  Reville,  the  learned  professor 
of  the  history  of  religions  at  our  College  de  Prance  (Paris),  or  Baron  de 
Shickler,  the  generous  president  of  our  “  Societe  d’Histoire  du  Protestant- 
isme  Francais.”  Unhappily  they  were  prevented  from  coming  here,  and 
therefore  I  ought  to  speak — not  as  a  delegate  of  the  French  Government,  or 
of  such  a  one  or  such  another  church — but  as  a  Christian  Frenchman  and 
a  liberal  Protestant. 

I  consider  it  as  my  first  duty  to  this  Columbus  Hall  to  say  to  you 
American  friends,  “Hail,  Columbia!  Hail,  the  land  of  George  Washington 
and  Abraham  Lincoln!  The  glorious  country  in  the  New  World,  which 
was  the  first  cradle  of  liberty  for  men  of  every  religion,  of  every  nation,  of 
every  color!  Hail  to  the  land  of  Channing  and  Longfellow,  of  Emerson  and 
Parker,  of  Fulton  and  Graham  Bell,  those  heralds  of  poetical  and  Christian 


58 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


ideals.  We,  republican  and  Protestant  Frenchmen,  are  much  obliged  to 
them  all,  not  only  as  business  men,  but  as  Christians.  It  was  from  those 
heaven-born  heroes,  from  those  spiritual  prophets  that  our  great  citizens, 
Lafayette,  Mirabeau,  Tocqueville,  and  Laboulaye,  Ath.  Coquerel,  Sr., 
and  Reville,  have  taken  example  to  introduce  in  France  the  capital  prin¬ 
ciples  of  self-government,  of  religious  liberty,  and  of  ecclesiastical  tolera¬ 
tion. 

But  the  republic  of  the  United  States  has  not  degenerated  from  its 
illustrious  founders;  it  is  a  fertile  ground,  unceasingly  bringing  forth 
new  inventions  or  pregnant  ideas.  I  ought  afterward  to  pay  to  the  organiz¬ 
ing  committee  of  this  Parliament  of  Religions  a  tribute  of  admiration  for  its 
colossal  efforts  and  to  present  it  my  heartiest  wishes  for  its  success.  It  is, 
indeed,  the  first  time  since  the  days  of  the  conqueror  Akbar,  who  reigned 
in  East  India  at  the  end  of  the  26th  century,  that  an  attempt  is  made  to 
bring  the  representative  men  of  the  various,  and,  alas  !  often  adverse  relig¬ 
ions  of  mankind  into  a  pacific  intercourse.  The  great  Mongol  emperor 
had  proclaimed  full  toleration  of  all  religions  among  his  numerous  sub¬ 
jects,  and,  consequently,  he  ordered  to  be  built  near  his  palace  in  Agra  a 
splendid  hall,  with  large  rooms,  where  Brahmins,  rabbis,  and  court  mission¬ 
aries  found  opportunities  of  debating  with  each  other  on  religious  matters. 

There  is  also  at  Paris  a  similar  institution  in  our  religious  branch  of  the 
“  Ecole  fratique  des  hauter  etude.”  You  might  have  seen  for  six  years  in 
the  old  Sorbama’s  house,  just  now  pulled  down,  Roman  Catholios  and 
Protestant  ministers,  Hebrew  and  Buddhist  scholars  commenting  on  the 
sacred  books  of  old  India  and  Egypt,  Greece  and  Palestine,  or  telling  the 
history  of  the  various  branches  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Well  now,  gentlemen,  you  have  resumed  the  same  work  as  the  conqueror 
Akbar,  and  more  recently  the  French  Republic.  You  have  convoked  here, 
in  that  tremendous  city  which  is  itself  a  wonder  of  human  industry  and, 
as  it  were,  a  modern  Phoenix  springing  again  from  its  ashes,  representa¬ 
tive  men  of  all  great  religions  of  the  earth,  in  order  to  discuss,  on  courteous 
and  pacific  terms,  the  eternal  problem  of  divinity,  which  is  the  torment, 
but  also  the  sign  of  sovereignty  of  man  over  all  animal  beings.  I  present 
you  the  hearty  messages  of  all  friends  of  religious  liberty  in  France  and 
my  best  wishes  for  your  success.  May  God,  the  Almighty  Father,  help  you 
in  your  noble  undertaking.  May  He  give  us  all  His  spirit  of  love,  of  truth, 
of  liberty,  of  mutual  help,  and  unlimited  progress,  so  that  we  may  become 
pure  as  He  is  pure,  good  as  He  is  good,  loving  as  He  is  love,  perfect  as  He 
is  perfect,  and  we  shall  find  in  these  moral  improvements  the  possession  of 
real  liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity.  For,  as  said  our  genial  poet,  Victor 
Hugo: 

All  men  are  sons  of  the  same  father. 

They  are  the  same  tear  and  pour  from  the  same  eye  I 


FROM  AUSTRALASIA, 

ARCHBISHOP  REDWOOD  OF  NEW  ZEALAND. 

I  am  glad,  indeed,  that  it  has  been  announced  to  you  that  I  shall 
address  you  in  only  a  few  words,  for  we  have  been  here  so  long,  we  have 
been  listening  to  such  strains  of  eloquence,  we  have  had  our  minds  so 
enlarged  by  the  presence  of  this  multitude  and  the  varied  representatives 
of  the  races  and  colors  of  mankind,  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  at 
this  stage  of  the  proceedings  to  detain  you  for  any  great  length  of  time. 
However,  as  your  honorable  president  has  had  the  kindness  to  say,  I  have 
at  least  one  merit,  that  of  having  come  from  afar.  I  have  also  another 
merit:  I  have  the  honor  of  representing  the  newest  phase  of  civilization 
of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  and  the  English  speaking  people. 


FROM  AUSTRALASIA. 


59 


I  represent  Australia,  a  country  divided  into  various  colonies,  governing 
themselves  with  wonderful  freedom,  and,  I  may  say  without  boasting, 
making  rapid  advances  on  the  way  to  true  civilization.  I  deem  it  a  very 
great  honor  and  privilege  to  be  present  on  such  an  occasion  as  this  in  an 
assembly  that  begins  as  it  were  on  a  new  era  for  mankind — an  era,  I 
believe,  of  real  brotherly  love.  It  is  a  sad  spectacle,  when  the  mind  ranges 
over  a  whole  universe,  to  see  that  multitude  of  1,200,000,000  of  human 
beings  created  by  the  same  God,  destined  to  the  same  happiness,  and  yet 
divided  by  various  barriers;  to  see  that  instead  of  love  prevailing  from 
nation  to  nation,  there  are  barriers  of  hatred  dividing  them.  I  believe  an 
occasion  like  this  is  the  strongest  possible  means  of  removing  forever  such 
barriers. 

I  stand  here  as  the  representative  of  that  distant  land,  of  that  noble  old 
church  founded  by  God  from  the  beginning  ;  for,  as  one  of  the  holy  fathers 
said,  the  beginning  of  all  things  is  the  holy  Catholic  Church.  We  go  back 
to  Christ,  her  founder ;  to  Christ,  foretold  thousands  of  years  before  he 
came.  There  she  stands  as  a  landmark  in  history.  In  her  teaching  there 
is  an  event  which  the  human  race  shall  never  forget — that  the  Godhead 
took  up  our  human  nature  to  so  elevate  and  unite  it  with  the  divine  nature, 
whence  began  a  brotherhood  of  man  never  dreamed  of  by  merely  human 
beings. 

Now  we  can  walk  the  earth  and  say  truly  we  are  the  brothers  of  God. 
Indeed,  in  the  whole  of  creation  is  the  brotherhood  of  God  known.  It  is 
known  in  the  soul  representing  the  spiritual  creation,  in  the  body  repre¬ 
senting  the  material  creation,  for  man’s  body  is  an  epitome  of  the  material 
universe.  Is  it  indeed  that  God  glorified  and  deified  the  whole  of  creation 
in  that  act,  so  that  now  the  very  mountains,  trees,  rocks,  and  plants  can  be 
saluted  not  only  as  his  creation  but  as  Christ’s  brother  ?  These  are  the 
great  ideas  that  underlie  Christianity  fully  understood.  We  are  to  remove, 
in  this  19th  century,  the  barriers  of  hatred  that  prevent  men  from  listen¬ 
ing  to  the  truth  contained  in  all  religions. 

In  all  religions  there  is  a  vast  element  of  truth,  otherwise  they  would 
have  no  cohesion.  They  all  have  something  respectable  about  them,  they 
all  have  vast  elements  of  truth  ;  and  the  first  thing  for  men,  to  respect 
themselves  and  to  take  away  the  barriers  of  hatred,  is  to  see  what  is  noble  in 
their  respective  beliefs,  and  to  respect  each  other  for  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth  contained  therein. 

Therefore  I  think  that  this  Parliament  of  Religions,  will  promote  the  gr  eat 
brotherhood  of  mankind,  and  in  order  to  promote  that  brotherhood  it  will 
promote  the  expansion  of  truth.  I  do  not  pretend  as  a  Catholic  to  have  the 
whole  truth  or  to  be  able  to  solve  all  the  problems  of  the  human  mind.  I 
can  appreciate  love  and  esteem  and  any  element  of  truth  found  outside  of 
that  great  body  of  truth.  Some  men  have  said  we  are  the  lovers  of  truth, 
we  are  the  seekers  of  truth,  we  are  the  philosophers  of  truth,  but  Christ 
had  the  divine  audacity  to  say,  “  I  am  the  truth.”  Wherever  there  is 
truth  there  is  something  worthy  the  respect  not  only  of  man  but  of 
God,  the  god-man,  the  incarnate  God.  Therefore,  in  order  to  sweep  away 
the  iDarriers  of  hatred  that  exist  in  the  world,  we  must  respect  the  elements 
of  truth  contained  in  all  religions,  and  we  must  respect  also  the  elements  of 
morality  contained  in  all  religions. 

Man  is  an  intelligent  being  and  therefore  he  requires  to  know  truth. 
He  is  also  a  moral  being  that  is  bound  to  live  up  to  that  truth  and  is  bound 
to  use  his  will  and  liberty  in  accordance  with  truth.  He  is  bound  to  be  a 
righteous  being.  W’e  find  in  all  religions  a  number  of  truths  that  are  the 
foundation,  the  bed-rock  of  all  morality,  and  we  see  them  in  the  various 
religions  throughout  the  world,  and  we  can  surely,  without  sacrificing  one 
point  of  Catholic  morality  or  of  truth,  admire  those  truths  revealed  in  some 
manner  by  God. 


60 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Man  is  not  only  a  mortal  being,  but  a  social  being.  Now  the  condition 
to  make  him  happy  and  prosperous  as  a  social  being,  to  make  him  pro¬ 
gress  and  go  forth  to  conquer  the  world,  both  mentally  and  physically, 
is  that  he  should  be  free,  and  not  only  to  be  free  as  a  man  in  temporal 
matters,  but  to  be  free  in  religious  matters.  Therefore,  it  is  to  be 
hoped  that  from  this  day  will  date  the  dawn  of  that  period  when,  through¬ 
out  the  whole  of  the  universe,  in  every  nation  the  idea  of  oppressing  any 
man  for  his  religion  will  be  swept  away.  I  think  I  can  say  in  the  name  of 
the  young  country  I  represent,  in  the  name  of  New  Zealand,  and  thechurch 
of  Australasia  that  has  made  such  a  marvelous  progress  in  our  day,  that  we 
hope  God  will  speed  that  day.  Less  than  a  century  ago  there  were  only 
two  Catholic  priests  in  the  whole  of  Australasia.  Now  we  have  a  hierarchy 
of  one  cardinal,  six  archbishops,  eighteen  bishops,  a  glorious  army  of  priests, 
with  brotherhoods,  and  sisterhoods  teaching  schools  in  the  most  practical 
manner.  The  last  council  of  the  church  held  in  Sydney  sent  her  greeting 
to  the  church  in  America,  and  the  church  in  America  was  seized  by  sur¬ 
prise  and  admiration  at  the  growth  of  Christianity  in  that  distant  land.  It 
is  in  the  name  of  that  church  I  accept  with  the  greatest  feeling  of  thank¬ 
fulness  the  greeting  made  to  my  humble  self  representing  that  new  country 
of  New  Zealand  and  that  thriving  and  advancing  country  of  Australasia. 


GOOD  WISHES  OF  CEYLON. 

H.  DHAEMAPALA  OP  CEYLON. 

Friends:  I  bring  to  you  the  good  wishes  of  475,000,000  of  Buddhists, 
the  blessings  and  peace  of  the  religious  founder  of  that  system  which  has 
prevailed  so  many  centuries  in  Asia,  which  has  made  Asia  mild,  and  which 
is  to-day  in  its  twenty-fourth  century  of  existence,  the  prevailing  religion  of 
the  country.  I  have  sacrificed  the  greatest  of  all  work  to  attend  this  par¬ 
liament.  I  have  left  the  work  of  consolidation  —  an  important  work  which 
we  have  begun  after  700  years — the  work  of  consolidating  the  different 
Buddhist  countries,  which  is  the  most  important  work  in  the  history  of 
modern  Buddhism.  When  I  read  the  programme  of  this  Parliament  of 
Religions  I  saw  it  was  simply  the  re-echo  of  a  great  consummation  which 
the  Indian  Buddhists  accomplished  twenty-four  centuries  ago. 

At  that  time  Asoka,  the  great  emperor,  held  a  council  in  the  city  of 
Patma  of  1,000  scholars,  which  was  in  session  for  seven  months.  The  pro¬ 
ceedings  were  epitomized  and  carved  on  rock  and  scattered  all  over  the 
Indian  peninsula  and  the  then  known  globe.  After  the  consummation  of 
that  programme  the  great  emperor  sent  the  gentle  teachers,  the  mild  dis¬ 
ciples  of  Buddha,  in  the  garb  that  you  see  on  this  platform,  to  instruct  the 
world.  In  that  plain  garb  they  went  across  the  deep  rivers,  the  Himalayas, 
to  the  plains  of  Mongolia  and  the  Chinese  plains,  and  to  the  far-off  beauti¬ 
ful  isles,  the  empire  of  the  rising  sun;  and  the  influence  of  that  congress 
held  twenty-one  centuries  ago  is  to-day  a  living  power,  because  you  every¬ 
where  see  mildness  in  Asia. 

Go  to  any  Buddhist  country  and  where  do  you  find  such  healthy  com¬ 
passion  and  tolerance  as  you  find  there?  Go  to  Japan,  and  what  do  you 
see?  The  noblest  lessons  of  tolerance  and  gentleness.  Go  to  any  of  the 
Buddhist  countries  and  you  will  see  the  carrying  out  of  the  programme 
adopted  at  ^he  congress  called  by  the  Emperor  Asoka. 

Why  do  I  come  here  to-day?  Because  I  find  in  this  new  city,  in  this 
land  of  freedom  the  very  place  where  that  programme  can  also  be  carried 
out.  For  one  year  I  meditated  whether  this  parliament  would  be  a  success. 
Then  I  wrote  to  Dr.  Barrows  that  this  would  be  the  proudest  occasion  of 
modern  history,  and  the  crowning  work  of  nineteen  centuries.  Yes,  friends, 
if  you  are  serious,  if  you  are  unselfish,  if  you  are  altruistic,  this  programme 


DR.  CARL  VON  BERGEN 
Of  Stockholm,  Sweden. 


SWEDEN  FOR  CHRIST. 


61 


can  be  carried  out,  and  the  20th  century  will  see  the  teachings  of  the  meek 
and  lowly  Jesus  accomplished. 

I  hope  in  this  great  city,  the  youngest  of  all  cities  but  the  greatest  of  all 
cities,  this  programme  will  be  carried  out,  and  that  the  name  of  Dr.  Barrows 
will  shine  forth  as  the  American  Asoka.  And  I  hope  that  the  noble  lessons 
of  tolerance,  learned  in  this  majestic  assembly,  will  result  in  the  dawning 
of  universal  peace,  which  will  last  for  twenty  centuries  more 

A  recess  was  then  taken  until  2:30  o’clock. 


SWEDEN  FOR  CHRIST. 

DE.  GAEL  VON  BEEGEN  OF  STOCKHOLM,  SWEDEN. 

There  is  at  present,  and  has  existed  during  a  long  time  in  the  past,  a 
bond  of  mental,  spiritual  affinity  between  the  leaders  of  religious  thought 
in  Sweden  and  the  United  States  of  America.  Those  grand  and  glorious 
principles,  which  are,  so  to  say,  the  foundation-stones  upon  which  this 
great  international  congress  hopes  to  build  the  temple  of  religious  truth 
for  the  everlasting  benefit  of  coming  generations,  have  been — every  one  of 
them — enunciated  and  proclaimed  to  the  multitude  long  ago  by  world- 
famous  seers  and  sages  in  Sweden.  They  are,  in  our  days,  the  war-cry  of 
those  “  worshipers  of  God  and  lovers  of  human  progress  ”  (to  use  the  words 
of  our  respected  President,  Mr.  Bonney)  in  Sweden,  who  do  battle,  with 
unrelenting  energy,  against  an  earth-bound,  superficial,  grossly  unscientific 
atheism  and  materialism,  which  makes  itself  sometimes  the  mouthpiece  of 
a  teaching  of  immorality  most  vile  and  pernicious. 

The  speaker  quoted  from  the  printed  programme  of  the  Parliament  of 
Religions  several  of  the  principles,  to  which  he  referred — religious  freedom, 
universal  brotherhood  of  man,  tolerance,  unity  of  God,  Christ  as  the 
Savior  of  mankind— and  he  showed  by  quotations  from  great  Swedish 
scientists,  philosophers,  historians,  and  poets,  that  all  those  lofty  ideas  have 
been  and  are  the  watchwords  of  the  leaders  and  representative  men  in  his 
own  country.  The  heroes  of  Swedish  science  and  literature — men  such  as 
the  immortal  Linnaeus,  Swedenborg,  Berzelius,  Agardh,  Geijer,  Tegner, 
Wallin,  Bostrom,  Viktor  Rydberg,  and  many  others — have  all  joined  in  the 
strain  that  was  struck  on  the  lyre  of  the  grand  bard  of  modern  England, 
Alfred  Tennyson: 

King  out  the  darkness  of  the  land, 

King  in  the  Christ  that  is  to  be ! 

“  In  sign  you  will  conquer!”  Such  is  the  conviction  of  the  truly 
great  ones  and  the  best  in  Sweden  as  well  as  in  America. 


WORD  FROM  BOMBAY. 

Vichand  A.  Gandhi,  a  lawyer  of  Bombay,  and  one  of  the 
chief  exponents  of  Jain  religion  of  that  oriental  country: 

Mr.  President.,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  I  will  not  trouble  you  with  a 
long  speech.  I,  like  my  respected  friends,  Mr.  Mozoomdar  and  others, 
come  from  India,  the  mother  of  religions.  I  represent  Jainism,  a  faith 


62 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


older  than  Buddhism,  similar  to  it  in  its  ethics,  but  different  from  it  in  its 
psychology,  and  professed  by  1,500,000  of  India’s  most  peaceful  and  law- 
abiding  citizens.  You  have  heard  so  many  speeches  from  eloquent  mem¬ 
bers,  and  as  I  shall  speak  later  on  at  some  length,  I  will  therefore,  at  present, 
only  offer,  on  behalf  of  my  community  and  their  high  priest,  Moni  Atma 
Ranji,  whom  I  especially  represent  here,  our  sincere  thanks  for  the  kind 
welcome  you  have  given  us.  This  spectacle  of  the  learned  leaders  of 
thought  and  religion  meeting  together  on  a  common  platform,  and  throwing 
light  on  religious  problems,  has  been  the  dream  of  Atma  Ranji’s  life. 
He  has  commissioned  me  to  say  to  you  that  he  offers  his  most  cordial  con¬ 
gratulations  on  his  own  behalf,  and  on  behalf  of  the  Jain  community,  for 
your  having  achieved  the  consummation  of  that  grand  idea,  of  convening 
a  Parliament  of  Religions. 

GREETING  FROM  OLD  ARMENIA. 

In  introducing  Professor  Minas  Sclierez,  editor  of  an  Arme¬ 
nian  newspaper  published  in  London,  Dr.  Barrows  appropri¬ 
ately  referred  to  the  fact  that  Armenia  is  supposed  to  have  been 
the  cradle  of  the  race,  and  that,  according  to  the  Biblical  story, 
the  ark,  after  the  flood,  rested  on  Mount  Ararat,  in  Armenia. 
He  paid  a  tribute  to  the  noble  traits  exhibited  by  the  old  Arme¬ 
nian  Christian  nation  when  suffering  under  persecution. 

Salutations  to  the  New  World,  in  the  name  of  Armenia,  the  oldest  coun¬ 
try  of  the  Old  World.  Salutations  to  the  American  people,  in  the  name  of 
Armenia,  which  has  been  twice  the  cradle  of  the  human  race.  Salutations 
to  the  Parlialnent  of  Religions,  in  the  name  of  Armenia,  where  the  religious 
feeling  first  blossomed  in  the  enraptured  heart  of  Adam.  Salutations  to 
every  one  of  you,  brothers  and  sisters,  in  the  name  of  the  Tigris  and  the 
Euphrates,  which  watered  the  Garden  of  Eden;  in  the  name  of  the  majes¬ 
tic  Ararat,  which  was  crowned  by  the  ark  of  Noah;  in  the  name  of  a 
church  which  was  almost  contemporary  with  Christ. 

A  pious  thought  animated  Christopher  Columbus  when  he  directed  the 
prow  of  his  ship  toward  this  land  of  his  dreams:  To  convert  the  natives 
to  the  faith  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  A  still  more  pious  thought 
animates  you  now,  noble  Americans,  because  you  try  to  convert  the  whole 
of  humanity  to  the  dogma  of  universal  toleration  and  fraternity.  Old 
Armenia  blesses  this  grand  undertaking  of  young  America,  and  wishes  her 
to  succeed  in  laying,  on  the  extinguished  volcanoes  of  religious  hatred,  the 
foundation  of  the  temple  of  peace  and  concord. 

At  the  beginning  of  our  sittings,  allow  the  humble  representatives  of 
the  Armenian  people  to  invoke  the  divine  benediction  on  our  labors,  in  the 
very  language  of  his  fellow-countrymen:  Zkorzs  tserats  merots  oogheegh 
ora  i  mez,  Der,  yev  zkorzs  tserats  merots  achoghia  mez. 


SEES  SPIRIT  AND  MATTER. 

PROFESSOR  C.  N.  CHAKRAVARRTI,  A  THEOSOPHIST  FROM  INDIA. 

I  came  here  to  represent  a  religion,  the  dawn  of  which  appeared  in  a 
misty  antiquity  which  the  powerful  microscope  of  modern  research  has 
not  yet  been  able  to  discover;  the  depth  of  whose  beginnings  the  plummet 
of  history  has  not  been  able  to  sound.  From  time  immemorial  spirit  has 
been  represented  by  white,  and  matter  has  been  represented  by  black,  and 


SEES  SPIRIT  AND  MATTER. 


63 


the  two  sister  streams  which  join  at  the  town  from  which  I  came,  Allaha¬ 
bad,  represent  two  sources  of  spirit  and  matter,  according  to  the  philosophy 
of  my  people.  And  when  I  think  that  here,  in  this  City  of  Chicago,  this 
vortex  of  physicality,  this  center  of  material  civilization,  you  hold  a  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  Religions;  when  I  think  that,  in  the  heart  of  the  World’s  Pair, 
where  abound  all  the  excellencies  of  the  physical  world,  you  have  provided 
also  a  hall  for  the  feast  of  reason  and  the  flow  of  soul,  I  am  once  more 
reminded  of  my  native  land. 

“  Why  ?  Because  here,  even  here,  I  find  the  same  two  sister  streams  of 
spirit  and  matter,  of  the  intellect  and  physicality,  joining  hand  and  hand, 
representing  the  symbolical  evolution  of  the  universe.  I  need  hardly  tell 
you  that,  in  holding  this  Parliament  of  Religions,  where  all  the  religions  of 
the  world  are  to  be  represented,  you  have  acted  worthily  of  the  race  that  is 
in  the  vanguard  of  civilization — a  civilization  the  chief  characteristic  of 
which,  to  my  mind,  is  widening  toleration,  breadth  of  heart,  and  liberality 
toward  all  the  different  religions  of  the  world.  In  allowing  men  of  different 
shades  of  religious  opinion,  and  holding  different  views  as  to  philosophical 
and  metaphysical  problems,  to  speak  from  the  same  platform — aye,  even 
allowing  me,  who,  I  confess,  am  a  heathen,  as  you  call  me — to  speak  from 
the  same  platform  with  them,  you  have  acted  in  a  manner  worthy  of  the 
motherland  of  the  society  which  I  have  come  to  represent  to-day.  The 
fundamental  principle  of  that  society  is  universal  tolerance;  its  cardinal 
belief  that,  underneath  the  superficial  strata,  runs  the  living  water  of  truth. 

I  have  always  felt  that  between  India  and  America  there  was  a  closer 
bond  of  union  in  the  times  gone  by,  and  I  do  think  it  is  probable  that  there 
may  be  a  subtler  reason  for  the  identity  of  our  names  than  either  the 
theory  of  Johnson  or  the  mistake  of  Columbus  can  account  for.  It  is  true 
that  I  belong  to  a  religion  which  is  now  decrepit  with  age,  and  that  you 
belong  to  a  race  in  the  first  flutter  of  life,  bristling  with  energy.  And  yet 
you  can  not  be  surprised  at  the  sympathy  between  us,  because  you  must 
have  observed  the  secret  union  that  sometimes  exists  between  age  and 
childhood. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  East  we  have  been  accustomed  to  look  toward  some¬ 
thing  which  is  beyond  matter.  We  have  been  taught  for  ages  after  ages, 
and  centuries  after  centuries,  to  turn  our  gaze  inward  toward  realms  that 
are  not  those  which  are  reached  by  the  helx)  of  the  physical  senses.  This 
fact  has  given  rise  to  the  various  schools  of  philosophy  that  exist  to-day  in 
India,  exciting  the  wonder  and  admiration,  not  only  of  the  dead  East,  but 
of  the  living  and  rising  West.  We  have  in  India,  even  to  this  day,  thou¬ 
sands  of  people  who  give  up  as  trash,  as  nothing,  all  the  material  comforts 
and  luxuries  of  life  with  the  hope,  with  the  realization,  that,  great  as  the 
physical  body  may  be,  there  is  something  greater  within  man,  underneath 
the  universe,  that  is  to  be  longed  for  and  striven  after. 

In  the  West  you  have  evolved  such  a  stupendous  energy  on  the  physical 
plane,  such  unparalleled  vigor  on  the  intellectual  plane,  that  it  strikes  any 
stranger  landing  on  your  shores  with  a  strange  amazement.  And  yet  I  can 
read,  even  in  this  atmosphere  of  material  progress,  I  can  discern  beneath 
this  thickness  of  material  luxury  a  secret  and  mystic  aspiration  to  some¬ 
thing  spiritual. 

I  can  see  that  even  you  are  getting  tired  of  your  steam,  of  your  elec¬ 
tricity,  and  the  thousand  different  material  comforts  that  follov/  these  two 
great  powers.  I  can  see  that  there  is  a  feeling  of  despondency  coming  even 
here  —  that  matter,  pursued  however  vigorously,  can  be  only  to  the  death 
of  all,  and  it  is  only  through  the  clear  atmosphere  of  spirituality  that  you 
can  mount  up  to  the  regions  of  peace  and  harmony.  In  the  West,  there¬ 
fore,  you  have  developed  this  material  tendency.  In  the  East  we  have 
developed  a  great  deal  of  the  spiritual  tendency,  but  even  in  this  West,  as 
I  travel  from  place  to  place,  from  New  York  to  Cincinnati,  and  from  Cin- 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


G4 

cinnati  to  Chicago,  I  have  observed  an  ever  increasing  readiness  of  people 
to  assimilate  spiritual  ideas,  regardless  of  the  source  from  which  they  ema¬ 
nate.  This,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  consider  a  most  significant  sign  of  the 
future,  because  through  this  and  through  the  mists  of  prejudice  that  still 
hang  on  the  horizon  will  be  consummated  the  great  event  of  the  future, 
the  union  of  the  East  and  of  the  West. 

The  East  enjoys  the  sacred  satisfaction  of  having  given  birth  to  all  the 
great  religions  of  the  world,  and  even  as  the  physical  sun  rises  ever  from 
the  East,  the  sun  of  spirituality  has  always  dawned  in  the  East.  To  the 
West  belongs  the  proud  privilege  of  having  advanced  on  the  intellectual 
and  on  the  moral  plane,  and  of  having  supplied  to  the  world  all  the  various 
contrivances  of  material  luxuries  and  of  physical  comfort.  I  look,  there¬ 
fore,  upon  a  union  of  the  East  and  West  as  a  most  significant  event,  and  I 
look  with  great  hope  upon  the  day  when  the  East  and  the  West  will  be  like 
brothers  helping  each  other,  each  supplying  to  the  other  what  it  wants  — 
the  West  supplying  the  vigor,  the  youth,  the  power  of  organization,  and  the 
East  opening  up  its  inestimable  treasures  of  a  spiritual  law  and  which  are 
now  locked  up  in  the  treasure  boxes  grown  rusty  with  age. 

And  I  think  that  this  day,  with  the  sitting  of  the  Parliament  of  Relig¬ 
ions,  we  begin  the  work  of  building  up  a  perennial  fountain  from  which 
wdll  flow  for  the  next  century  waters  of  life  and  light  and  of  peace,  slaking 
the  thirst  of  the  thousands  of  millions  that  are  to  come  after  us. 


MOST  ANCIENT  ORDER  OF  MONKS. 

SWAMI  VIVEKANANDA  OF  BOMBAY,  INDIA. 

When  Mr.  Vivekananda  had  addressed  the  audience  as 
“  Sisters  and  Brothers  of  America,”  there  arose  a  peal  of 

applause  that  lasted  for  several  minutes.  He  spoke  as  follows: 

It  fills  my  heart  with  joy  unspeakeable  to  rise  in  response  to  the  warm 
and  cordial  welcome  which  you  have  given  us.  I  thank  you  in  the  name 
of  the  most  ancient  order  of  monks  in  the  world;  I  thank  you  in  the  name 
of  the  mother  of  religion,  and  I  thank  you  in  the  name  of  the  millions  and 
millions  of  Hindu  people  of  all  classes  and  sects. 

My  thanks,  also,  to  some  of  the  speakers  on  this  platform  who  have  told 
you  that  these  men  from  far-off  nations  may  well  claim  the  honor  of 
bearing  to  the  different  lands  the  idea  of  toleration.  I  am  proud  to  belong 
to  a  religion  which  has  taught  the  world  both  tolerance  and  universal 
acceptance.  We  believe  not  only  in  universal  toleration,  but  we  accept  all 
religions  to  be  true.  I  am  proud  to  tell  you  that  I  belong  to  a  religion  into 
W’hose  sacred  language,  the  Sanscrit,  the  word  seclusion  is  untranslatable. 
I  am  proud  to  belong  to  a  nation  which  has  sheltered  the  persecuted  and 
the  refugees  of  all  religions  and  all  nations  of  the  earth.  I  am  proud  to 
tell  you  that  we  have  gathered  in  our  bosom  the  purest  remnant  of  the 
Israelites,  a  remnant  which  came  to  southern  India  and  took  refuge  with 
us  in  the  very  year  in  which  their  holy  temple  was  shattered  to  pieces  by 
Roman  tyranny.  I  am  proud  to  belong  to  the  religion  which  has  sheltered 
and  is  still  fostering  the  remnant  of  the  grand  Zoroastrian  nation.  I  will 
quote  to  you,  brethren,  a  few  lines  from  a  hymn  which  I  remember  to  have 
repeated  from  my  earliest  boyhood,  which  is  every  day  repeated  by  millions 
of  human  beings:  “As  the  different  streams  having  their  sources  in 
different  places,  all  mingle  their  water  in  the  sea,  Oh,  Lord,  so  the  different 
paths  which  men  take  through  different  tendencies,  various  though  they 
appear,  crooked  or  straight,  all  lead  to  Thee.” 


Canada  as  a  link  in  the  empire. 


65 


The  present  convention,  which  is  one  of  the  most  august  assemblies  ever 
held,  is  in  itself  a  vindication,  a  declaration  to  the  world  of  the  wonderful 
doctrine  preached  in  Gita.  “  Whosoever  comes  to  me,  through  whatsoever 
form  I  reach  him,  they  are  all  struggling  through  paths  that  in  the  end 
always  lead  to  me.”  Sectarianism,  bigotry,  and  its  horrible  descendant, 
fanaticism,  have  possessed  long  this  beautiful  earth.  It  has  filled  the  earth 
with  violence,  drenched  it  often  and  often  with  human  blood,  destroyed  civ¬ 
ilization  and  sent  whole  nations  to  despair.  Had  it  not  been  for  this  horri¬ 
ble  demon,  human  society  would  be  far  more  advanced  than  it  is  now.  But 
its  time  has  come,  and  I  fervently  hope  that  the  bell  that  tolled  this  morn¬ 
ing  in  honor  of  this  convention  will  be  the  death-knell  to  all  fanaticism,  to 
all  persecutions  with  the  sword  or  the  pen,  and  to  all  uncharitable  feelings 
between  persons  wending  their  way  to  the  same  goal. 


CANADA  AS  A  LINK  IN  THE  EMPIRE, 

PEINCIPAL  GRANT  OF  CANADA. 

The  dream  that  allured  hardy  navigators  for  many  years  was  the  sup¬ 
posed  existence  of  a  northwest  passage  by  land.  But  in  our  day  it  has  been 
found  that  great  northwest  passage  is  not  by  sea,  but  by  land.  We 
have  discovered  that  the  shortest  way  from  the  Old  World  to  the  world  of 
Japan  and  China  is  across  Canada.  So  Canada  feels  herself  now  to  be  the 
link  between  old  Europe  and  the  older  East,  and  the  link  between  the 
three  great  self-governing  parts  of  the  British  Empire. 

How  is  it  possible  for  a  people  so  situated  to  be  parochial?  How  is  it 
possible  for  them  not  to  meet  in  a  genial  way  the  representatives  of  other 
religions?  It  is  very  impossible,  because  across  our  broad  lands  millions 
are  coming  and  going  from  east  to  west,  mingling  with  us,  and  we  are 
obliged  to  meet  them  as  man  should  always  meet  man.  Not  only  this,  but 
on  that  great  new  ocean  which  is  to  be  the  arena  of  the  future  commerce 
of  the  world — on  that  our  sons  are  showing  that  they  intend  to  play  an 
important  part.  Their  position  as  thfe  fourth  maritime  nation  of  the  world 
as  regards  ocean  tonnage,  shows  the  aptitude  of  our  people  for  foreign 
trade,  and  as  sailors  owning  the  ships  they  sail  in  they  are  more  likely  than 
any  others  to  learn  the  lesson  that  the  life  of  the  world  is  one,  that  truth 
is  one,  that  all  men  are  brothers,  and  that  the  service  of  humanity  is  the 
most  acceptable  form  of  religion  to  God. 

And  therefore  we  feel  that  we  have  a  sort  of  right  to  join  with  you  in 
this  matter  of  extending  a  welcome  to  those  from  different  nations,  whose 
faiths  are  different,  but  whose  spiritual  natures  are  the  same,  in  whom 
dwelleth  that  true  light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world.  Our  place  in  history  gives  us  a  still  more  undoubted  right  to  come 
here  and  to  take  our  place  in  a  friendly  way  beside  the  representatives  of 
other  religions. 

Our  racial,  political,  and  religious  evolution  bids  us  do  that.  Our  racial 
evolution  your  own  Parkman  has  described  to  you  in  pages  glowing  with 
purple  light.  He  has  told  you  of  the  two  centuries  of  conflict  between 
France  and  Britain  for  the  possession  of  this  fair  young  continent,  and  he 
has  told  you  that,  while  outward  failure  was  the  part  of  the  former,  all  the 
heroism  and  enduring  successes  were  not  with  the  conquerors.  Prance 
gave,  without  stint,  the  greatest  explorers,  whose  names  are  sown  all  over 
this  continent  thick  as  seeds  in  a  field— martyrs  and  missionaries  of  death¬ 
less  fame,  saintly,  whose  works  still  follow  them.  In  Canada  the  seeds 
sprang  from  good  soil,  and  we  see  its  permanent  memorial  now  in  a  noble, 
fresh  Canadian  people,  enjoying  their  own  language,  laws,  and  institutions, 


66 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


under  a  flag  that  is  identified  with  their  liberties,  and  under  a  constitution 
that  they  and  their  fathers  have  helped  to  hammer  out.  Their  children  sit 
side  by  side  in  our  federal  parliament  with  the  children  of  their  ancestral 
foes,  and  the  only  real  contest  between  them  is  which  shall  serve  Canada 
best.  The  union  of  the  two  races  and  languages  was  needed  to  enable 
England  to  do  her  imperial  work.  Will  not  the  same  union  enable  Canada 
to  do  a  like  work,  and  does  it  not  force  us  to  see  good  even  in  those  that 
our  ancestors  thought  enemies? 

Our  political  evolution  has  had  the  same  lesson  for  us.  It  has  taught 
us  to  borrow  ideas  with  equal  impartiality  from  sources  apparently  oppo¬ 
site.  We  have  borrowed  the  federal  idea  from  you;  the  parliament,  the 
cabinet,  the  judicial  system  from  Britain,  and,  uniting  both,  we  think  we 
have  found  a  constitution  better  than  that  which  either  the  mother  coun¬ 
try  or  the  older  daughter  enjoys.  At  any  rate  we  made  it  ourselves  and  it 
fits  us;  and  this  very  political  evolution  has  taught  us  that  ideas  belong  to 
no  one  country,  that  they  are  the  common  property  of  mankind,  and  so  we 
act  together,  trying  to  borrow  new  ideas  from  every  country  that  has 
found  by  experiment  that  the  ideas  will  work  well. 

Our  religious  evolution  has  taught  us  the  same  thing.  And  so  we  have 
been  enabled  to  accomplish  a  measure  of  religious  unification  greater  than 
either  the  mother  land  or  the  United  States.  Eighteen  years  ago,  for  in¬ 
stance,  all  the  Presbyterian  denominations  united  into  one  church  in  the 
Dominion  of  Canada.  Immediately  thereafter  all  the  Methodist  churches 
took  the  same  step,  and  now  all  the  Protestant  churches  have  appointed 
committees  to  see  whether  it  is  not  possible  to  have  a  larger  union,  and  all 
the  young  life  of  Canada  says  “  Amen  ”  to  the  proposal. 

Now  it  is  easy  for  a  people  with  such  an  environment  to  understand  that 
where  men  differ  they  must  be  in  error,  that  truth  is  that  which  unites, 
that  every  age  has  its  problems  to  solve,  that  it  is  the  glory  of  the  human 
mind  to  solve  them,  and  that  no  church  has  a  monopoly  of  the  truth  or  of 
the  spirit  of  the  living  God. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  should  begin  this  Parliament  of  Religions,  not 
with  a  consciousness  that  we  are  doing  a  great  thing,  but  with  an  humble 
and  lowly  confession  of  sin  and  failure.  Why  have  not  the  inhabitants  of 
the  world  fallen  before  truth?  The  fault  is  ours.  The  Apostle  Paul,  look¬ 
ing  back  on  centuries  of  marvelous  God-guided  history,  saw  as  the  key  to 
all  its  maxims  this:  That  Jehovah  had  stretched  out  his  hands  all  day  long 
to  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people;  that  although  there  was  always  a 
remnant  of  the  righteousness,  Israel  as  a  nation  did  not  understand  Jehovah 
and  therefore  failed  to  understand  her  own  marvelous  mission. 

If  St.  Paul  were  here  to-day  would  he  not  utter  the  same  sad  confession 
with  regard  to  the  19th  century,  of  Christendom.  Would  he  not  have 
to  say  that  we  have  been  proud  of  our  Christianity  instead  of  allowing 
our  Christianity  to  humble  and  crucify  us;  that  we  have  boasted  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  as  something  we  possessed  instead  of  allowing  it  to  possess  us;  that 
we  have  divorced  it  from  the  moral  and  spiritual  order  of  the  world  instead 
of  seeing  that  it  is  that  which  interpenetrates,  interprets,  completes,  and 
verifies  that  order,  and  that  so  we  have  hidden  its  glories  and  obscured  its 
power.  All  day  long  our  Savior  has  been  saying,  “  I  have  stretched  out  my 
hands  to  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people.” 

But,  sir,  the  only  one  indispensable  condition  of  success  is  that  we  recog¬ 
nize  the  cause  of  our  failure,  that  we  confess  it  with  humble,  lowly,  peni¬ 
tent  and  obedient  minds,  and  that  with  quenchless  Western  courage  and 
faith  we  now  go  forth  and  do  otherwise. 


CONVERTED  PARSEE  WOMAN  OF  BOMBAY. 


67 


CONVERTED  PARSEE  WOMAN  OF  BOMBAY. 

MISS  JEANNIE  SAEAJBJI,  OF  BOMBAY,  INTEODUCED  AS  A  EEPEE- 

SENTATIVE  OF  THE  PAESEES. 

Dr.  Barrows  just  told  you  that  I  belonged  to  the  order  of  Parsee.  He  is 
correct  in  one  way  and  not  in  another.  My  people  \v^ere  fire  worshipers, 
but  I  am  not  now.  Before  I  go  on  further,  I  wish  to  thank  all  those  who 
have  extended  their  welcome  to  us.  This  morning  as  I  looked  around  and 
saw  the  many  faces  that  greeted  a  welcome,  I  felt  indeed  that  it  was  the 
best  day  I  have  seen  in  Chicago.  I  have  been  here  for  some  time,  and  I 
have  asked  the  question  over  and  over  again  :  Where  is  religious  America 
to  be  found — Christian  America  ?  To-day  I  see  it  all  around  me.  You  have 
given  me  a  welcome.  I  will  give  you  a  greeting  from  my  country.  When 
we  meet  one  another  in  our  land,  the  first  thing  we  say  to  each  other  is 
“Peace  be  with  you.”  I  say  it  to  you  to-day  in  all  sincerity,  in  all  love.  I 
feel  to-day  that  the  great  banner  over  iis  is  the  banner  of  love.  I  feel  to-day 
more  than  ever  that  it  is  beautiful  to  belong  to  the  family  of  God,  to 
acknowledge  the  Lord  Christ. 

My  father,  at  the  age  of  eighteen,  was  brought  to  the  knowledge  of 
Christ  by  the  light  of  an  English  missionary.  He  gave  up  friends  and 
countrymen,  rank  and  wealth  and  money  to  be  a  disciple  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  I  tell  you,  friends,  that  it  is  a  great  privilege  and  a  great 
honor  to  be  able  to  stand  here  and  say  to  you  that  I  love  that  Lord  Christ, 
and  I  will  stand  by  him  and  under  his  banner  until  the  end  of  my  life. 

I  would  close  with  one  little  message  from  my  countrywomen.  When 
I  was  leaving  the  shores  of  Bombay  the  women  of  my  country  wanted  to 
know  where  I  was  going,  and  I  told  them  I  was  going  to  America  on  a  visit. 
They  asked  me  whether  I  would  be  at  this  congress.  I  thought  then  I 
would  only  come  in  as  one  of  the  audience,  but  I  have  the  great  privilege 
and  honor  given  to  me  to  stand  here  and  speak  to  you,  and  I  give  you  the 
message  as  it  was  given  to  me.  The  Christian  women  of  my  land  said: 
“  Give  the  women  of  America  our  love  and  tell  them  that  we  love  Jesus, 
and  that  we  shall  always  pray  that  our  countrywomen  may  do  the  same. 
Tell  the  women  of  America  that  we  are  fast  being  educated.  We  shall  one 
day  be  able  to  stand  by  them  and  converse  with  them  and  be  able  to  delight 
in  all  they  delight  in.” 

And  so  I  have  a  message  from  each  one  of  my  countrywomen,  and  once 
more  I  will  just  say  that  I  haven’t  words  enough  in  which  to  thank  you  for  the 
welcome  you  have  given  to  all  those  who  have  come  here  from  the  East. 
When  I  came  here  this  morning  and  saw  my  countrymen  my  heart  was 
warmed,  and  I  thought  I  would  never  feel  homesick  again,  and  I  feel  to-day 
as  if  I  were  at  home.  Seeing  your  kindly  faces  has  turned  away  the 
heartache. 

We  are  all  under  that  one  banner,  love.  In  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  I  thank  you.  You  will  hear  possibly  the  words  in  his  own  voice 
saying  unto  you,  “  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  the  least  of  these,  my 
brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto  me.” 

Bombay’s  second  message,  b.  b.  naegaekae  of  Bombay. 

Brothers  and  Sisters  in  the  Western  Home :  It  is  a  great  privilege  to 
be  able  to  stand  on  this  noble  platform.  As  the  president  has  already 
announced  to  you,  I  represent  the  theistic  movement  in  India,  known  in 
my  native  country  as  the  religion  of  the  Brahmo  Somaj.  I  came  from  the 
City  of  Bombay,  the  first  city  of  the  British  Empire.  It  was  only  five 
months  ago  that  I  left  my  native  land,  and  to  you,  the  Americans,  who  are 


68 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


BO  much  accustomed  to  fly,  as  it  were,  on  wing's  of  the  atmosphere,  it  would 
be  a  hard  task  to  imagine  the  difficulties  and  the  troubles  that  an  Oriental 
meets  when  he  has  to  bring  himself  over  fourteen  thousand  miles.  The 
Hindus  have  been  all  along  confining  themselves  to  the  narrow  precincts 
of  the  Indian  continent,  and  it  is  only  during  the  last  hundred  years  or  so 
that  we  have  been  brought  into  close  contact  with  Western  thought,  with 
English  civilization,  and  by  English  civilization.  I  mean  the  civilization 
of  English  speaking  nations. 

The  Brahmo  Somaj  is  the  result,  as  you  know,  of  the  influence  of  various 
religions,  and  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Theistic  Church,  in  India, 
are  universal  love,  harmony  of  faiths,  unity  of  prophets,  or  rather  unity  of 
prophets  and  harmony  of  faiths.  The  reverence  that  we  pay  the  other 
prophets  and  faiths  is  not  mere  lip  loyalty,  but  it  is  the  universal  love  for  all 
the  prophets  and  for  all  the  forms  and  shades  of  truth  by  their  own  inher¬ 
ent  merit.  We  try  not  only  to  learn  in  an  intellectual  way  what  those 
prophets  have  to  teach,  but  to  assimilate  and  imbibe  these  truths  that  are 
very  near  our  spiritual  being.  It  was  the  grandest  and  noblest  aspiration 
of  the  late  Mr.  Senn  to  establish  such  a  religion  in  the  land  of  India,  which 
has  been  well  known  as  the  birth-place  of  a  number  of  religious  faiths. 
This  is  a  marked  characteristic  of  the  East,  and  especially  India,  so  that 
India  and  its  outskirts  have  been  glorified  by  the  touch  and  teachings  of  the 
prophets  of  the  world.  It  is  in  this  way  that  we  live  in  a  spiritual 
atmosphere. 

Here  in  the  far  West  you  have  developed  another  phase  of  human  life. 
You  have  studied  outward  nature.  We  in  the  East  have  studied  the  inner 
nature  of  man.  Mr.  Senn,  more  than  twenty  years  ago,  said:  “  Glory  to  the 
name  of  God  in  the  name  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions.”  Parliament  of 
Religions  is  exactly  the  expression  that  he  used  on  that  occasion  in  his 
exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  the  new  dispensation.  It  simply  means  the 
Church  of  the  Brahmo  Somaj,  Church  of  India,  so  that  what  I  wish  to 
express  to  you  is  that  I  feel  a  peculiar  pleasure  in  being  present  here  on  this 
occasion.  It  was  only  two  years  ago  that  I  heard  of  the  grand  scheme  that 
was  to  be  worked  out  here  in  the  midst  of  the  country  of  liberty,  and  I  took 
the  first  opportunity  to  put  myself  in  communication  with  the  worthy  Dr. 
Barrows.  For  a  long  time  I  thought  I  would  not  be  able  to  come  over  in 
the  midst  of  you,  but  God  has  brought  me  safe  and  I  stand  in  the  midst  of 
you.  I  consider  it  a  great  privilege. 

In  the  East  we  have  a  number  of  systems  of  philosophy;  a  deep  insight 
into  the  spiritual  nature  of  man,  but  you  have  at  the  same  time  to  make  an 
earnest  and  deep  research  to  choose  what  is  Occidental  and  what  is  essential 
in  Indian  philosophy.  Catch  hold  very  firmly  of  what  is  permanent  of  the 
Eastern  philosophy.  Lay  it  down  very  strongly  to  the  heart,  and  try  to 
assimilate  it  with  your  noble  Western  thoughts.  You  Western  nations 
represent  all  the  material  civilization.  You  who  have  gone  deep  into  the 
outward  world  and  tried  to  discover  the  forces  of  outward  nature,  you  have 
to  teach  to  the  East  the  glory  of  man’s  intellect,  his  logical  accuracy,  his 
rational  nature,  and  in  this  way  it  is  that  in  the  heart  of  the  church  of  the 
new  dispensation — call  it  by  whatever  name  you  will — you  will  have  the 
harmony  of  the  East  and  the  West,  a  union  between  faith  and  reason,  a 
wedding  between  the  Orient  and  the  Occident. 

SYMPATHY  FROM  ENGLAND. 

REV.  ALFRED  W.  MOMERIE,  D.  D.,  OF  LONDON. 

Dr.  Barrows  said  that  one  of  the  letters  he  had  received  in 
reply  to  his  invitations  was  from  the  late  Lord  Tennyson,  and 


SYMPATHY  FROM  ENGLAND. 


69 


that  it  was  a  letter  that  gave  him  great  satisfaction.  The  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  Religion,  he  added,  has  a  number  of  eminent  friends  in 
Great  Britain,  and  he  believed  that  if  that  great  and  noble  man, 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  were  here,  his  frown  upon  the 
parliament  would  not  be  so  severe  as  he  had  made  it.  Dr. 

Momerie  addressed  the  meeting  as  follows: 

Mr.  Chairman,,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  One  of  your  humorists,  Arte- 
mus  Ward,  has  said,  “I  am  always  happiest  when  I  am  silent,”  and  so  am  I, 
friends.  I  shall  not  trespass  on  your  attention  more  than  two  minutes. 
But  there  are  three  things  which  I  feel  I  must  say.  First,  I  must  tender 
my  most  sincere  thanks  to  you  for  the  honor  which  you  have  done  me  in  in¬ 
viting  me  to  come  here,  and  also  for  the  many  words  and  deeds  of  welcome 
with  which  I  have  been  greeted  ever  since  I  came.  Secondly,  I  feel  bound 
to  say  that  there  is  one  thing  which,  to  me  personally,  casts  a  gloom  over 
the  brightness  of  the  day,  and  that  is  the  absence  of  my  own  archbishop.  I 
am  always  bound  to  speak  with  all  respect  of  my  ecclesiastical  superior,  and 
personally,  I  have  the  highest  regard  for  him.  He  has  been  very  kind  to 
me;  I  may  almost  venture  to  call  him  a  friend,  but  that  makes  me  all  the 
more  sad  that  he  is  absent  on  this  occasion.  But,  as  the  chairman  has  just 
told  you,  you  must  not  therefore  think  that  the  Church  of  England,  as  a 
whole,  is  out  of  sympathy  with  you.  One  of  the  greatest  and  best  men  the 
Church  of  England  has  ever  had,  the  late  Dean  of  Westminster,  would,  if 
he  were  alive  to-day,  have  been  with  us,  and  I  believe,  too,  he  would  have 
succeeded  in  bringing  with  him  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  also  many 
men  like  Arnold,  of  Rugby;  Frederick  Robinson,  of  Brighton;  Frederick 
Morris,  who  was  one  of  my  predecessors  at  King’s  College. 

All  these  men  would  have  been  here,  and  further,  I  know  for  a  fact, 
from  my  own  personal  experience,  that  a  very  large  number  of  the  English 
clergy,  and  a  still  larger  number  of  English  laity,  are  in  sympathy  with 
your  congress  to-day.  So  that  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  is  away,  it  still  remains  true  that  all  the  churches  of  the  world 
are  in  sympathy  with  you  and  taking  part  in  the  congress  this  week. 

Then  the  third,  the  last  thing  which  I  wish  to  state,  is  that  I  feel,  and 
shall  always  feel,  the  profoundest  thanks  to  the  president.  Dr.  Barrows, 
and  for  all  who  have  helped  him  in  bringing  about  this  great  and  glorious 
result.  Of  all  the  studies  of  the  present  day,  the  most  serious,  interesting, 
and  important  is  the  study  of  comparative  religion,  and  I  believe  that  this 
object  lesson,  which  it  is  the  glory  of  America  to  have  provided  for  the 
world,  will  do  far  more  than  any  private  study  in  the  seclusion  of  the  student’s 
own  home.  The  report  of  our  proceedings,  which  will  be  telegraphed  all 
over  the  world,  will  help  men  by  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  and  hun¬ 
dreds  of  thousands  to  realize  the  truth  of  those  grand  old  Bible  words  that 
God  has  never  left  himself  without  witness.  It  can  not  be — I  say  it  can  not 
be — that  that  new  commandment  was  inspired  when  uttered  by  Christ,  and 
was  not  inspired  when  uttered,  as  it  was  uttered,  by  Confucius  and  by 
Hillial. 

The  fact  is,  all  religions  are  fundamentally  more  or  less  true,  and  all  reli¬ 
gions  are  superficially  more  or  less  false.  And  I  suspect  that  the  creed  of 
the  universal  religion,  the  religion  of  the  future,  will  be  summed  up  pretty 
much  in  the  words  of  Tennyson — words  which  were  quoted  in  that  magnifi¬ 
cent  address  which  thrilled  us  this  morning:  “The  whole  world  is  every¬ 
where  boup'^  bv  gold  chains  about  the  feet  of  God.” 


70 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


IN  BEHALF  OF  AFRICA. 

BISHOP  AENETT,  OF  THE  AFRICAN  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 

CHURCH. 

Through  the  partiality  of  the  committee  of  arrangements,  I  am  put  in  a 
very  peculiar  position  this  afternoon.  I  am  to  respond  to  the  addresses  of 
welcome  on  behalf  of  Africa.  I  am  to  represent  on  the  one  side  the  Afri¬ 
cans  in  Africa,  and  on  the  other  side  the  Africans  in  America.  I  am  also, 
by  the  chairman,  announced  to  give  color  to  this  vast  Parliament  of 
Religions.  Now,  I  think  it  is  very  well  colored  myself,  and,  if  I  have  any 
eyes,  I  think  the  color  is  in  the  majority  this  time,  anyhow. 

But  Africa  needs  a  voice.  Africa  has  been  welcomed,  and  it  is  so 
peculiar  a  thing  for  an  African  to  be  welcomed,  that  I  congratulate  myself 
that  I  have  been  welcomed  here  to-day.  In  responding  to  the  addresses  of 
welcome  I  will,  in  the  first  place,  respond  for  the  Africans  in  Africa,  and 
accept  your  welcome  on  behalf  of  the  African  continent,  with  its  millions 
of  acres,  and  millions  of  inhabitants,  with  its  mighty  forests,  with  its  great 
beasts,  with  its  great  men,  and  its  great  possibilities.  Though  some  think 
that  Africa  is  in  a  bad  way,  I  am  one  of  those  who  has  not  lost  faith  in  the 
possibilities  of  a  redemption  of  Africa.  I  believe  in  providence  and  in 
the  prophesies  of  God  that  Ethiopia  yet  shall  stretch  forth  her  hand  unto 
God,  and,  although  to-day  our  land  is  in  the  possession  of  others,  and  every 
foot  of  land,  and  every  foot  of  water  in  Africa  has  been  appropriated  by 
the  Governments  of  Europe,  yet  I  remember,  in  the  light  of  history,  that 
those  same  nations  parceled  out  the  American  continent  in  the  past. 

But  America  had  her  Jefferson.  Africa  in  the  future  is  to  bring  forth  a 
Jefferson,  who  will  write  a  declaration  of  the  independence  of  the  dark 
continent.  And,  as  you  had  your  Washington,  so  God  will  give  us  a 
Washington  to  lead  our  hosts.  Or,  if  it  please  God,  He  may  raise  up  not 
a  Washington,  but  another  Toussaint  L’Ouverture,  who  will  become  the 
pathfinder  of  his  country,  and,  with  his  sword,  will  at  the  head  of  his 
people,  lead  them  to  freedom  and  equality.  He  will  form  a  republican 
government,  whose  corner-stone  will  be  religion,  morality,  education,  and 
temperance,  acknowledging  the  fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  brotherhood 
of  man;  while  the  ten  commandments  and  the  golden  rule  shall  be  the 
rule  of  life  and  conduct  in  the  great  republic  of  redeemed  Africa. 

But,  sir,  I  accept  your  welcome,  also,  on  behalf  of  the  negroes  of  the 
American  continent.  As  early  as  1502  or  1503,  we  are  told,  the  negroes 
came  to  this  country.  And  we  have  been  here  ever  since,  and  we  are  going 
to  stay  here  too — some  of  us  are.  Some  of  us  will  go  to  Africa,  because  we 
have  got  the  spirit  of  Americanism,  and  wherever  there  is  a  possibility  in 
sight,  some  of  us  will  go.  We  accept  your  welcome  to  this  grand  assembly, 
and  we  come  to  you  this  afternoon  and  thank  God  that  we  meet  these  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  the  different  religions  of  the  world.  We  meet  you  on  the 
height  of  this  Parliament  of  Religions  and  the  first  gathering  of  the  peoples 
since  the  time  of  Noah,  when  Shem,  Ham,  and  J aphet  met  together.  I 
greet  the  children  of  Shem,  I  greet  the  children  of  Japhet,  and  I  want  you 
to  understand  that  Ham  is  here. 

I  thank  you  that  I  have  been  chosen  as  the  representative  of  the 
negro  race  in  this  great  parliament.  I  thank  those  representatives  that 
have  come  so  far  to  meet,  and  to  greet  us  of  the  colored  race.  A  gentleman 
said  to-day  in  this  meeting  that  he  had  traveled  14,000  miles  to  get  here. 
“  Why,”  said  I  to  myself,  “  that  is  a  wonderful  distance  to  come  to  meet 
me.  I  wonder  if  I  would  go  that  far  to  meet  him.”  Yes,  he  says  he  came 
14,000  miles  to  meet  us  here,  and  “  us  ”  in  this  case  means  me,  too.  There¬ 
fore  I  welcome  these  brethren  to  the  shores  of  America  on  behalf  of  7,400,- 
000  negroes  on  this  continent,  who,  by  the  providence  of  God,  and  the 


IN  BEHALF  OF  AFRICA. 


71 


power  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  have  been  liberated  from  slavery. 
There  is  not  a  slave  among  us  to-day,  and  we  are  glad  you  did  not  come 
while  we  were  in  chains,  because,  in  that  case,  we  could  not  have  got  here 
ourselves. 

Mr.  President,  we  thank  you  for  this  honor.  God  had  you  born  just  at 
the  right  time.  'We  come  last  on  the  programme,  but  I  want  everybody  to 
know,  that  although  last,  we  are  not  least  in  this  grand  assembly,  where 
the  fatherhood  of  God  and  brotherhood  of  man  is  the  watchword  of  us  all; 
and  may  the  motto  of  the  church  which  I  represent  be  the  motto  of  the 
coming  civilization;  “God  on r  father,  Christ  our  redeemer, and  mankind 
our  brother.” 


CHAPTER  II. 


SECOND  DAYy  SEPTEMBER  12th. 


EXISTENCE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 

The  proceedings  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions  on  the  sec¬ 
ond  day,  were  as  impressive  and  instructive  as  on  the  first. 
The  appearance  of  the  platform  at  the  opening  exercises  was 
somewhat  modified  by  the  absence  of  some  representatives  and 
the  presence  of  others.  In  the  midst  of  the  picturesque  attire  of 
the  East  there  were  discerned  Jewish  rabbis  and  the  venerable 
form  of  Frederick  Douglass.  Arrangements  were  made  for 
review  sessions  and  devotional  meetings  to  be  held  daily  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  parliament.  At  the  review  sessions  in  lesser 
halls,  a  leading  divine,  when  asked,  explained  the  difficult  points 
in  the  proceedings  of  the  previous  day  and  answered  any  ques¬ 
tions  asked  by  seekers  of  information.  For  the  purpose  of  these 
reviews,  halls  were  offered  to  all  denominations  that  wished 
them.  The  first  review  meeting  was  conducted  by  Bishop  Keane, 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  devotional  meetings,  held 
in  the  Hall  of  Columbus,  were  in  charge  of  the  Brotherhood  of 
Christian  Unity,  and  began  at  nine  o’clock  in  the  morning. 
They  were  conducted  by  leaders  of  different  faiths,  both  Chris¬ 
tian  and  non-Christian,  and  everybody  attending  the  parlia¬ 
ment  was  welcome  from  day  to  day. 

The  great  hall  was  thronged  with  auditors  when  President 
Bonney,  at  ten  o’clock,  called  upon  the  vast  audience  to  rise 
and  silently  invoke  the  blessing  of  God.  A  hush  fell  upon  the 
great  assemblage,  while  the  representatives  of  many  nations 

sent  up  a  silent  petition  to  the  Eternal  Father 

72 


THE  INFINITE  BEING. 


73 


The  stillness  of  a  few  moments  was  broken  by  the  closing 
word,  “  Amen,”  pronounced  by  Mr.  Bonney.  Following  this, 
while  the  assembly  remained  standing.  Dr.  Barrows  led  in  the 
Lord’s  Prayer,  known  in  the  parliament  as  the  “  universal 
prayer.” 

Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows,  having  been  placed  in  charge  of 
the  parliament,  designated  a  chairman  for  the  day,  and  in  intro¬ 
ducing  him,  said:  “  I  have  been  very  much  cheered  in  the 
work  of  preparing  for  this  parliament  by  the  friendly  words  of 
distinguished  men  of  my  own  church  in  this  country,  and 
among  them  I  cherish  none  in  higher  regard  than  Rev.  S.  J. 
Niccolls,  pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church  of  St. 
Louis.  He  will  take  charge  of  our  session  this  morning  and 
make  an  introductory  address.” 


THE  INFINITE  BEING. 

REV.  S.  J.  NICCOLLS,  PASTOR  OF  THE  SECOND  PRESBYTERIAN 

CHURCH  OF  ST.  LOUIS. 

Members  of  the  Parliament^  Sons  of  a  Common  Heavenly  Father, 
and  Brothers  in  a  Common  Humanity,  it  is  with  special  pleasure  that  I 
assume  the  task  now  assigned  to  me.  Happily  for  me  at  least  it  involves  no 
serious  labor,  and  it  requires  no  greater  wisdom  than  to  mention  the  names 
of  the  speakers  and  the  subjects  placed  upon  the  programme  for  to-day.  And 
yet  when  I  mention  the  name  of  the  subject  that  is  to  invite  our  consider¬ 
ation  to-day  I  place  before  you  the  most  momentous  theme  that  ever  engaged 
human  thought — the  sublimest  of  all  facts,  the  greatest  of  all  thoughts,  the 
most  wonderful  of  all  realities;  and  yet  when  I  mention  the  name  it  points  not 
to  a  law,  not  to  a  principle,  not  to  the  explanation  of  a  phenomenon,  but  it 
points  us  to  a  living  person. 

The  human  mind,  taught  and  trained  by  human  thoughts  and  human 
loves,  points  us  to  one  who  is  over  all,  above  all,  and  in  all,  in  whom  we  live, 
move,  and  have  our  being,  with  whom  we  all  have  to  do,  light  of  our  light, 
life  of  our  life,  the  grand  reality  that  underlies  all  realities,  the  being  that 
pervades  all  beings,  the  sun  of  all  joys,  of  all  glory,  of  all  greatness;  known 
yet  unknown,  revealed  yet  not  revealed,  far  off  from  us  yet  nigh  to  us;  for 
whom  all  men  feel  if  happily  they  might  find  him;  for  whom  all  the 
wants  of  this  wondrous  nature  of  ours  go  out  in  extinguishable  longing; 
one  with  whom  we  all  have  to  do  and  from  whose  dominion  we  can 
never  escape.  If  such  be  the  subject  that  we  are  to  consider  to-day,  surely 
it  becomes  us  to  undertake  it  in  a  spirit  of  reverence  and  of  humility.  We 
can  not  bring  to  its  contemplation  the  exercise  of  our  reasoning  faculties  in 
the  same  way  that  we  would  consider  some  phenomenon  or  fact  of  history. 
He  who  is  greater  than  all  hides  himself  from  the  proud  and  the  self- 
sufficient;  he  reveals  himself  to  the  weak,  the  lowly,  and  the  humble  in 


74 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


heart.  It  is  rather  with  the  heart  that  we  shall  find  him  than  by  measur¬ 
ing  him  merely  with  our  feeble  intellects.  To-day,  as  always,  the  heart 
will  make  the  theologian. 

Perhaps  some  one  may  say:  “After  so  long  a  period  in  human  history 
why  should  we  come  to  consider  the  existence  of  God?  Is  the  fact  so 
obscure  that  it  must  take  long  centuries  to  prove  it?  Has  He  so  hidden 
Himself  from  the  world  that  we  have  not  yet  exactly  found  out  that 'He  is 
or  what  He  is?” 

This  is  only  apparently  an  objection  of  wisdom.  If  God  were  simply  a 
fact  of  history,  if  He  were  simply  a  phenomenon  in  the  past,  then  once 
found  out  or  once  discovered  it  would  remain  for  all  time.  But  since  He  is 
a  person  each  age  must  know  and  find  it  for  himself;  each  generation  must 
come  to  know  and  find  out  the  living  God  from  the  standpoint  which  it 
occupies.  It  is  not  enough  for  you  and  for  me  that  long  generations  ago 
men  found  Him  and  bowed  reverently  before  Him  and  adored  Him. 

We  must  find  Him  in  our  age  and  in  our  day,  to  know  how  He  fills  our 
fives  and  guides  us  to  our  destiny.  This  is  the  grand  fact  that  lies  before 
us,  the  great  truth  that  is  to  unite  us.  Here,  if  anywhere,  we  must  find 
God  and  unite  in  our  beliefs.  We  could  not  afford  to  begin  the  discussions 
of  a  religious  parliament  without  placing  this  great  truth  in  the  fore¬ 
ground.  A  parliament  of  religious  belief  without  the  recognition  of  the 
living  God — that  were  impossible.  Religion  without  a  God  is  only  the 
shadow  of  a  shade;  only  a  mockery  that  rises  up  in  the  human  soul. 

After  all,  we  can  form  no  true  conception  of  ourselves  or  of  man’s  great¬ 
ness  without  God.  The  greatness  of  human  nature  depends  upon  its  con¬ 
ception  of  the  living  God.  All  true  religious  joy,  all  greatness  of  aspiration 
that  has  wakened  in  these  natures  of  ours,  comes  not  from  our  conception 
of  ourselves,  not  from  our  own  recognition  of  the  dignity  of  human  nature 
within  us,  but  from  our  conception  of  God  and  what  He  is,  and  our  relation 
to  Him. 

No  man  can  ever  find  content  in  his  own  attainments,  or  find  peace 
and  satisfaction  in  his  own  achievements.  It  is  as  he  goes  out  toward  the 
infinite  and  the  eternal  and  feels  that  he  is  linked  to  Him  that  he  finds 
satisfaction  in  his  soul  and  the  peace  of  God,  which  passeth  understanding, 
comes  down  into  his  heart.  There  are  many  reasons,  therefore,  why  we 
should  begin  to-day  with  the  study  of  Him  who  holds  all  knowledge  and  all 
wisdom.  If  there  is  a  God  or  a  Creator,  a  Lord  of  all  things,  beginning  of 
all  things  and  end  of  all  things,  for  whom  all  things  are,  then  in  Him  we 
are  to  find  the  key  to  history,  the  explanation  of  human  nature,  the  light 
that  shall  guide  us  in  our  pathway  in  the  future.  You  can  all  readily  see, 
if  you  will  refiect  a  moment,  how  everything  would  vanish  of  what  we  call 
great  and  glorious  in  our  material  achievements,  in  our  literature,  in  all  our 
civil  and  social  institutions,  if  that  one  thought  of  the  living  God  were  taken 
away. 

But  utter  that  simple  name  and  straightway  there  comes  gathering 
around  it  the  clustering  of  glorious  words  shining  and  leaping  out  of  the 
darkness  until  they  blaze  like  a  galaxy  of  glory  in  the  heavens — law,  order, 
justice,  love,  truth,  immortality,  righteousness,  glory!  Blot  out  that  word, 
and  leave  in  its  place  simply  that  other  word,  “  atheism,”  and  then  in  the 
surrounding  blackness  we  may  see  dim  shadows  of  anarchy,  lawlessness, 
despair,  agony,  distress;  and  if  such  words  as  law  and  order  remain,  they 
are  mere  echoes  of  something  that  has  long  since  passed  away. 

We  need  it,  then,  first  of  all,  for  ourselves,  that  we  may  understand  the 
dignity  of  human  nature,  that  this  great  truth  of  God’s  existence  should  be 
brought  close  to  us;  we  need  it  for  our  civilization. 


VERY  REV.  AUGUSTINE  F.  HEWITT,  C.  S.  P., 

New  York. 


% 


•  ^  ^  ^ 


•} 


9 


Ti;£  I  !5S?.RY 
Of  rlis 

ussiviiiiit?  (f  laiNois 


f 


4 


its  .\  - 

p'f  '. 

'  ■ 


j 


j  '■  ■•  -  1 


RATIONAL  DEMONSTRATION  OF  THE  BEING  OF  GOD.  It 


RATIONAL  DEMONSTRATION  OF  THE  BEING  OF 

GOD. 

VEEY  BEV.  AUGUSTINE  F.  HEWITT,  C.  S.  P.,  OF  NEW  YOEK. 

The  paper  was  read  by  Rev.  Walton  Elliott.  “It  is  to  be 
regretted,”  remarked  Father  Elliott,  before  beginning  the  paper, 
“  that  Father  Hewitt,  superior  of  the  community  of  Paulists, 
of  which  I  am  a  member,  can  not  be  present  in  person ;  as  much 
regretted  by  himself,  I  am  sure,  as  by  any  of  us.  But  it  is  a 
privilege  that  he,  whose  whole  life  since  he  entered  the  Catholic 
Church,  now  within  one  year  of  half  a  century,  has  been  devoted 
to  metaphysical  studies,  represents  the  knowledge  of  God  to 
this  distinguished  assembly,  as  known  without  the  light  of 
revelation,  as  known  by  evidences  entirely  apart  from  the 

special  teaching  of  God  to  mankind  by  revelation.” 

An  honorable  and  arduous  task  has  been  assigned  me.  It  is  to  address 
this  numerous  and  distinguished  assembly  on  a  topic  taken  from  the  highest 
branch  of  special  metaphysics.  The  thesis  of  my  discourse  is  the  rational 
demonstration  of  the  being  of  God,  as  presented  in  Catholic  philosophy. 
This  is  a  topic  of  the  highest  importance,  and  of  the  deepest  interest  to  all 
who  are  truly  rational,  who  think,  and  who  desire  to  know  their  destiny  and 
to  fulfill  it.  The  minds  of  men  always  and  everywhere,  in  so  far  as  they 
have  thought  at  all,  have  been  deeply  interested  in  all  questions  relating  to 
the  divine  order  and  its  relations  to  nature  and  humanity. 

The  idea  of  a  divine  princi  ple  and  power,  superior  to  sensible  phenom¬ 
ena,  above  the  changeable  world  and  its  short-lived  inhabitants,  is  as  old 
and  as  extensive  as  the  human  race.  Among  vast  numbers  of  the  most 
enlightened  part  of  mankind  it  has  existed  and  held  sway  in  the  form  of 
pure  monotheism,  and  even  among  those  who  have  deviated  from  this 
original  religion  of  our  first  ancestors  the  divine  idea  has  never  been 
entirely  effaced  and  lost.  In  our  own  surrounding  world  and  for  all  classes 
of  men  differing  in  creed  and  opinion  who  may  be  represented  in  this  audi¬ 
ence,  this  theme  is  of  paramount  interest  and  import. 

Christians,  Jews,  Mohammedans,  and  philosophical  theists  are  agreed  in 
professing  monotheism  as  their  fundamental  and  cardinal  doctrine.  Even 
unbelievers  and  doubters  show  an  interest  in  discussing  and  endeavoring 
to  decide  the  question  whether  God  does  or  does  not  exist.  It  is  to  be 
hoped  that  many  of  them  regard  their  skepticism  rather  as  a  darkening 
cloud  over  the  face  of  nature  than  as  a  light  clearing  away  the  mists  of 
error;  that  they  would  gladly  be  convinced  that  God  does  exist  and  govern 
a  world  which  he  has  made.  I  may,  therefore,  hope  for  a  welcome  recep¬ 
tion  to  my  thesis  in  this  audience. 

I  have  said  that  it  is  a  thesis  taken  from  the  special  metaphysics  of 
Catholic  philosophy.  I  must  explain  at  the  outset  in  what  sense  the  term 
Catholic  philosophy  is  used.  It  does  not  denote  a  system  derived  from  the 
Christian  revelation  and  imposed  by  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church; 
it  signifies  only  that  rational  scheme  which  is  received  and  taught  in  the 
Catholic  schools  as  a  science  proceeding  from  its  own  proper  principles  by 
its  own  methods,  and  not  a  subaltern  science  to  dogmatic  theology.  It  has 
been  adopted  in  great  part  from  Aristotle  and  Plato,  and  does  not  disdain 


76 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


to  borrow  from  any  pure  fountain  or  stream  of  rational  truth.  The  topic 
before  us  is,  therefore,  to  be  treated  in  a  metaphysical  manner  on  a  ground 
where  all  who  profess  philosophy  can  meet,  and  where  reason  is  the  only 
authority  which  can  be  appealed  to  as  umpire  and  judge.  All  who  profess 
to  be  students  of  philosophy  thereby  proclaim  their  conviction  that  meta¬ 
physics  is  a  true  science,  by  which  certain  knowledge  can  be  obtained. 

Metaphysics,  in  its  most  general  sense,  is  ontology  i.  e.,  discourse  con¬ 
cerning  being  in  its  first  and  universal  principles.  Being,  in  all  its  latitude, 
in  its  total  extension  and  comprehension,  is  the  adequate  object  of  intellect, 
taking  intellect  in  its  absolute  essence,  excluding  all  limitations.  It  is  the 
object  of  the  human  intellect,  in  so  far  as  this  limited  intellectual  faculty 
is  proportioned  to  it  and  capable  of  apprehending  it.  Metaphysics  seeks 
for  a  knowledge  of  all  things  which  are  within  the  ken  of  human  faculties, 
in  their  deepest  causes.  It  investigates  their  reason  of  being,  their  ulti¬ 
mate,  efficient,  and  final  causes.  The  rational  argument  for  the  existence 
of  God,  guided  by  the  principles  of  the  sufficient  reason,  and  efficient  casu¬ 
alty,  begins  from  contingent  facts  and  events  in  the  world,  and  traces  the 
chain  of  causation  to  the  first  cause.  It  demonstrates  that  God  is,  and  it 
proceeds,  by  analysis  and  synthesis,  by  induction  from  all  the  first  princi¬ 
ples  possessed  by  reason,  from  all  the  vestiges,  refiections,  and  images  of 
God  in  the  creation,  to  determine  what  God  is.  His  essence  and  its  perfec¬ 
tions. 

Let  us  then  begin  our  argument  from  the  first  principle  that  everything 
that  has  any  kind  of  being — that  is,  which  presents  itself  as  a  thinkable, 
knowable,  or  real  object  to  the  intellect,  has  a  sufficient  reason  of  being. 
The  possible  has  a  sufficient  reason  of  its  possibility.  There  is  in  it  an 
intelligent  ratio  which  makes  it  thinkable.  Without  this  it  is  unthinkable, 
inconceivable,  utterly  impossible;  as,  for  instance,  a  circle,  the  points  in 
whose  circumference  are  of  unequal  distances  from  the  center.  The  real 
has  a  sufficient  reason  for  its  real  existence.  If  it  is  contingent,  indifferent 
to  non-existence  or  existence,  it  has  not  its  sufficient  reason  of  being  in 
its  essence.  It  must  have  it,  then,  from  something  outside  of  itself — that 
is,  from  an  efficient  cause. 

All  the  beings  with  which  we  are  acquainted  in  the  sensible  world 
around  us  are  contingent.  They  exist  in  determinate,  specific,  actual,  indi¬ 
vidual  forms  and  modes.  They  are  in  definite  times  and  places.  They  have 
their  proper  substantial  and  accidental  attributes;  they  have  qualities  and 
relations,  active  powers,  and  passive  potencies.  They  do  not  exist  by  any 
necessary  reason  of  being;  they  have  become  what  they  are.  They  are 
subject  to  many  changes  even  in  their  smallest  molecules  and  in  the  com¬ 
binations  and  movements  of  their  atoms.  This  changeableness  is  the  mark 
of  their  contingency,  the  result  of  that  potentiality  in  them,  which  is  not 
of  itself  in  act,  but  is  brought  into  act  by  some  moving  force.  They  are  in 
act — that  is,  have  actual  being,  inasmuch  as  they  have  a  specific  and  indi¬ 
vidual  reality.  But  they  are  never,  in  any  one  instance,  in  act  to  the  whole 
extent  of  their  capacity.  There  is  a  dormant  potency  of  further  actuation 
always  in  their  actual  essence.  Moreover,  there  is  no  necessity  in  their 
essence  for  existing  at  all.  The  pure,  ideal  essence  of  things  is,  in  itself, 
only  possible.  Their  successive  changes  of  existence  are  so  many  move¬ 
ments  of  transition  from  mere  passing  potency  into  act  under  the  impulse- 
of  moving  principles  of  force.  And  their  very  first  act  of  existence  is  by  a 
motion  of  transition  from  mere  possibility  into  actuality.  The  whole  mul¬ 
titude  of  things  which  become,  of  events  which  happen,  the  total  sum  of 
the  movements  and  changes  of  contingent  beings,  taken  collectively  and 
taken  singly,  must  have  a  sufficient  reason  of  being  in  some  extrinsic  prin¬ 
ciple,  some  efficient  cause. 

The  admirable  order  which  rules  over  this  multitude,  reducing  it  to  the 
unity  of  the  universe,  is  a  display  of  efficient  causality  on  a  most  stupen- 


RATIONAL  DEMONSTRATION  OF  THE  BEING  OF  GOD.  77 


dous  scale.  There  is  a  correlation  and  conservation  of  force  acting  on  the 
inert  and  passive  matter,  according  to  fixed  laws,  in  harmony  with  a  definite 
plan,  and  producing  most  wonderful  results.  Let  us  take  our  solar  system 
as  a  specimen  of  the  whole  universe  of  bodies  moving  in  space.  According 
to  the  generally  received,  and  highly  probable  nebular  theory,  it  has  been 
evolved  from  a  nebulous  mass  permeated  by  forces  in  violent  action.  The 
best  chemists  affirm  by  common  consent  that  both  the  matter  and  the  force 
are  fixed  quantities.  No  force  and  no  matter  ever  disappears,  no  new  force, 
or  new  matter  ever  appears.  The  nebulous  mass,  and  the  motive  force 
acting  within  it,  are  definite  quantities,  having  a  definite  location  in  space, 
at  definite  distances  from  other  nebulsB.  The  atoms  and  molecules  are 
combined  in  the  definite  forms  of  the  various  elementary  bodies  in  definite 
proportions.  The  movements  of  rotation  are  in  certain  directions,  conden¬ 
sation  and  incandescence  take  place  under  fixed  laws,  and  all  these 
movements  are  co-ordinated  and  directed  to  a  certain  result,  viz.:  the  for* 
mation  of  a  sun  and  planets. 

Now,  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  matter  and  force  which  deter¬ 
mines  it  to  take  on  just  these  actual  conditions  and  no  others.  By  their 
intrinsic  essence  they  could  just  as  well  have  existed  in  greater  or  lesser 
quantities  in  the  solar  nebula.  The  proportions  of  hydrogen,  oxygen,  and 
other  substances  might  have  been  different.  The  movements  of  rotation 
might  have  been  in  a  contrary  direction.  The  process  of  evolution  might 
have  begun  sooner,  and  attained  its  finality  ere  now,  or  it  might  be  begin¬ 
ning  at  the  present  moment.  The  marks  of  contingency  are  plainly  to  be 
discerned  in  the  passive  and  active  elements  of  the  inchoate  world  as  it 
emerges  into  the  consistency  and  stable  equilibrium  of  a  solar  system  from 
primitive  chaos. 

Equally  obvious  is  the  presence  of  the  determining  principle,  acting  as 
an  irresistible  law,  regulating  the  transmission  of  force  along  definite  lines 
and  in  a  harmonious  order.  The  activo  forces  at  work  in  nature,  giving 
motion  to  matter,  only  transmit  a  movement  which  they  have  received,  they 
do  not  originate  It  makes  no  difference  how  far  back  the  series  of  effects 
and  causes  may  be  traced,  natural  causes  remain  always  secondary  causes, 
with  no  tendency  to  become  primary  principles;  they  demand  some  ante¬ 
rior,  sufficio  t  reason  of  their  being,  some  original,  primary  principle  from 
which  they  rive  the  force  which  they  receive  and  transmit.  They  demand 
a  first  cause. 

In  the  case  of  a  long  train  of  cars  in  motion,  if  w’e  ask  what  moves  the 
last  car,  the  answer  may  be  the  car  next  before  it,  and  so  on  until  we  reach 
the  other  end,  but  we  have  as  yet  only  motion  received  and  transmitted, 
and  no  sufficient  reason  for  the  initiation  of  the  movement  by  an  adequate 
efficient  cause.  Prolong  the  series  to  an  indefinite  length  and  you  get  no 
nearer  to  the  adequate  cause  of  the  motion;  You  get  no  moving  principle 
which  possesses  motive  power  in  itself;  the  need  of  such  a  motive  force, 
Ixovvover,  continually  increases.  There  is  more  force  necessary  to  impart 
motion  to  the  whole  collection  of  cars  than  for  one  or  a  few.  If  you  choose 
to  imagine  that  the  series  of  cars  is  infinite,  you  have  only  augmented  the 
effect  produced  to  infinity  without  finding  a  cause  for  it.  You  have  made 
a  supposition  Avhich  imperatively  demands  the  further  supposition  of  an 
original  principle  and  source  of  motion,  which  has  an  infinite  power.  The 
cars,  singly  and  collectively,  can  only  receive  and  transmit  motion.  Their 
passive  potency  of  being  moved,  which  is  all  they  have  in  themselves,  would 
never  make  them  stir  out  of  their  motionless  rest.  There  must  be  a  loco¬ 
motive  with  the  motive  power  applied  and  acting,  and  a  connection  of  the 
cars  with  this  locomotive,  in  order  that  the  train  may  be  propelled  along  its 
tracks. 

The  series  of  movements  given  and  received  in  the  evolution  of  the 
world  from  primitive  chaos  is  like  this  long  chain  of  cars.  The  question. 


78 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


how  did  they  come  about,  what  is  their  efficient  cause,  starts  up  and  con¬ 
fronts  the  mind  at  every  stage  of  the  process.  You  may  trace  back  conse¬ 
quents  to  their  antecedents,  and  show  how  the  things  which  come  after 
were  virtually  contained  in  those  which  came  before.  The  present  earth 
came  from  the  paleo-zoic  earth,  and  that  from  the  a-zoic,  and  so  on,  until 
you  come  to  the  primitive  nebula  from  which  the  solar  system  was  con¬ 
structed. 

But  how  did  this  vast  mass  of  matter,  and  the  mighty  forces  acting  upon 
it,  come  to  be  started  on  their  course  of  evolution,  their  movement  in  the 
direction  of  that  result  which  we  see  to  have  been  accomplished.  It  is 
necessary  to  go  back  to  a  first  cause,  a  first  mover,  an  original  principle  of 
all  transition  from  mere  potency  into  act,  a  being,  self-existing,  whose 
essence  is  pure  act  and  the  source  of  all  actuality.  The  only  alternative  is 
to  fall  back  on  the  doctrine  of  chance,  an  absurdity  long  since  exploded  and 
abandoned,  a  renunciation  of  all  reason,  and  an  abjuration  of  the  rational 
nature  of  man. 

Together  with  the  question  “  How”  and  the  inquiry  after  efficient  causes 
of  movement  and  changes  in  the  world,  the  question  “  Why  ’•  also  perpet¬ 
ually  suggests  itself.  This  is  an  inquiry  into  another  class  of  the  deepest 
causes  of  things,  viz.,  final  causes.  Final  cause  is  the  same  as  the  end,  the 
design,  the  purpose  toward  which  movements,  changes,  the  operation  of 
active  forces,  efficient  causes,  are  directed,  and  which  are  accomplished  by 
their  agency. 

Here  the  question  arises,  how  the  end  attained  as  an  effect  of  efficient 
casuality  can  be  properly  named  as  a  cause.  How  can  it  exert  a  causative 
influence,  retroactively,  on  the  means  and  agencies  by  v/hich  it  is  produced? 
It  is  last  in  the  series  and  does  not  exist  at  the  beginning  or  during  the 
progress  of  the  events  whose  final  term  it  is.  Nothing  can  act  before  it 
exists  or  give  existence  to  itself.  Final  cause  does  not,  therefore,  act  phys¬ 
ically  like  efficient  causes.  It  is  a  cause  of  the  movements  which  precede 
its  real  and  physical  existence,  only  inasmuch  as  it  has  an  ideal  pre-exist¬ 
ence  in  the  foresight  and  intention  of  an  intelligent  mind.  Regard  a 
masterpiece  of  art.  It  is  because  the  artist  conceived  the  idea  realized  in 
this  piece  of  work  that  he  employed  all  the  means  necessary  to  the  fulfill¬ 
ment  of  his  desired  end.  This  finished  work  is,  therefore,  the  final  cause, 
the  motive  of  the  whole  series  of  operations  performed  by  the  artist  or  his 
workmen. 

The  multitude  of  causes  and  effects  in  the  world,  reduced  to  an  admir¬ 
able  harmony  and  unity,  constitutes  the  order  of  the  universe.  In  this  order 
there  is  a  multifarious  arrangement,  and  co-ordination  of  means  to  ends, 
denoting  design  and  purpose,  the  intention  and  art  of  a  supreme  architect 
and  builder,  who  impresses  his  ideas  upon  what  we  may  call  the  raw  mate¬ 
rial,  out  of  which  he  forms  and  fashions  the  worlds  which  move  in  space, 
and  their  various  innumerable  contents.  From  these  final  causes,  as  ideas 
and  types  according  to  which  all  movements  of  efficient  casualty  are  directed, 
the  argument  proceeds  which  demonstrates  the  nature  of  the  first  cause,  as 
in  essence,  intelligence  and  will. 

The  best  and  highest  Greek  philosophy  ascended  by  this  cosmological 
argument  to  a  just  and  sublime  conception  of  God  as  the  supremely  wise, 
powerful,  and  good  author  of  all  existing  essences  in  the  universe  and  of  all 
its  complex,  harmonious  order.  Cicero,  the  Latin  interpreter  of  Greek 
philosophy,  with  cogent  reasoning,  and  in  language  of  unsurpassed  beauty, 
has  summarized  its  best  lessons  in  natural  theology.  In  brief,  his  argument 
is  that  since  the  highest  human  intelligence  discovers  in  nature  an  intel¬ 
ligible  object  far  surpassing  in  capacity  of  apprehension,  the  design  and 
construction  of  the  whole,  natural  order  must  proceed  from  an  author  of 
supreme  and  divine  intelligence. 

The  questioning  and  the  demand  of  reason  for  the  deepest  causes  of 


RATIONAL  DEMONSTRATION  OF  THE  BEING  OF  GOD.  79 


things  is  not,  however,  yet  entirely  and  explicitly  satisfied.  The  concept 
of  God  as  the  first  builder  and  mover  of  the  universe  comes  short  of  assign¬ 
ing  the  first  and  final  cause  of  the  underlying  subject-matter  which  receives 
formation  and  motion.  When  and  what  is  the  first  matter  of  our  solar 
nebula?  How  and  why  did  it  come  to  be  in  hand  and  lie  in  readiness  for 
the  divine  architect  and  artist  to  make  it  burn  and  whirl  in  the  process  of 
the  evolution  of  sun  and  planets?  Plato  is  understood  to  have  taught  that 
the  first  matter,  which  is  the  term  receptive  of  the  divine  action,  is  self- 
existing  and  eternal. 

The  metaphysical  notion  of  first  matter  is,  however,  totally  different 
from  the  concept  of  matter  as  a  constant  quantity,  and  distinct  from  force 
in  chemical  science.  Metaphysically  first  matter  has  no  specific  reality,  no 
quality,  no  quantity.  It  is  not  separate  from  active  force  in  act,  but  is 
only  in  potency.  Chemical  first  matter  exists  in  atoms,  say  of  hydrogen, 
oxygen,  or  some  other  substance,  each  of  which  has  definite  weight  in  pro¬ 
portion  to  the  weight  of  different  atoms.  It  would  be  perfectly  absurd  to 
imagine  that  the  primitive  nebulous  vapor  which  furnished  the  material 
for  the  evolution  of  the  solar  system  was  in  any  way  like  the  Platonic  con¬ 
cept  of  original  chaos.  We  may  call  it  chnos,  relatively  to  its  later,  more 
developed  order.  The  artisan’s  work-shop,  full  of  materials  for  manufact¬ 
ure,  the  edifice  which  is  in  its  first  stage  of  construction,  are  in  a  compar¬ 
ative  disorder,  but  this  disorder  is  m  inchoate  order. 

So,  our  solar  chaos,  as  an  inchoate  virtual  system,  was  full  of  initial,  ele¬ 
mentary  principles  and  elements  of  order.  The  Platonic  first  matter  was 
supposed  to  be  formless  and  void,  without  quality  or  quantity,  devoid  of 
every  idea'  element  or  aspect — a  mere  recipient  of  ideas  which  God  im¬ 
pressed  upon  it.  The  undermost  matter  of  chemistry  has  definite  quiddity, 
and  quantity  is  never  separate  from  2orce,  ind  s  it  was  in  the  primitive 
solar  nebula,  was  in  act  and  in  violent  activity  of  motion.  It  is  obvious  at 
a  glance  that  a  Platonic  first  matter,  existing  eternally  by  its  own  essence, 
without  form  is  a  mere  vacuum,  anci  only  intelligible  under  the  concept  of 
jjure  possibility.  Aristotle  saw  and  demonstrated  this  truth  clearly.  There¬ 
fore  the  analysis  of  material  existence,  carried  as  far  as  experiment  or 
hypothesis  will  admit,  finds  nothing  except  the  changeable  and  the  contin¬ 
gent. 

Let  us  suppose  that  underneath  the  so-called  simple  substances,  such  as 
oxygen  and  hydrogen,  there  exists,  and  may  hereafter  be  discerned  by 
chemical  analysis,  some  homogeneous  basis,  there  still  remains  something 
which  does  not  account  for  itself,  and  which  demands  a  sufficient  reason 
for  its  being,  in  the  efficient  casuality  of  the  first  cause.  The  ultimate 
molecule  of  the  composite  substance  and  the  ultimate  atom  of  the  simple 
substance,  each  bears  the  mark  of  a  manufactured  article.  Not  only  the 
order  which  combines  and  arranges  all  the  simple  elements  of  the  corijoreal 
world,  but  the  gathering  together  of  the  materials  for  the  orderly  structure; 
the  union  and  relation  of  matter  and  force;  the  beginning  of  the  first 
motions,  and  the  existence  of  the  movable  element  and  the  motive  principle 
in  definite  quantities  and  proportions,  all  demand  their  origin  in  the  intelli¬ 
gence  and  the  will  of  the  first  cause. 

In  God  alone  essence  and  existence  are  identical.  He  alone  exists  by 
the  necessity  of  his  nature,  and  is  the  eternal  self -subsisting  being.  There 
is  nothing  outside  of  his  essence  which  is  coeval  with  him,  and  which  pre¬ 
sents  a  real,  existing  term  for  his  action.  If  he  wishes  to  communicate  the 
good  of  being  beyond  himself,  he  must  create  out  of  nothing  the  objective 
terms  of  his  beneficial  action.  He  must  give  first  being  to  the  recipients  of 
motion,  change,  and  every  kind  of  transition  from  potency  into  actuality. 
The  first  and  fundamental  transition  is  from  not  being,  from  the  absolute 
non-existence  of  anything  outside  of  God,  into  being  and  existence  by  the 
creative  act  of  God ;  called  by  his  almighty  word  the  world  of  finite 
creatures  into  real  existence. 


80 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


In  this  creative  act  of  God  the  two  elements  of  intelligence  and  volition 
are  necessarily  contained.  Intelligence  perceives  the  possibility  of  a  finite, 
created  order  of  existence,  in  all  its  latitude.  Possibility  does  not,  however, 
make  the  act  of  creation  necessary.  It  is  the  free  volition  of  the  creator 
which  determines  him  to  create.  It  is  likewise  his  free  volition  which 
determines  the  limits  within  which  he  will  give  real  existence  and  actuality 
to  the  possible.  We  have  already  seen  that  final  causes  must  have  an  ideal 
pre-existence  in  the  mind  which  designs  the  work  of  art  and  arranges  the 
means  for  its  execution.  The  idea  of  the  actual  universe  and  of  the  wider 
universe  which  he  could  create  if  he  willed  must  have  been  present  eter¬ 
nally  to  the  intelligence  of  the  divine  creator  as  possible. 

Now,  therefore,  a  further  question  about  the  deepest  cause  of  being  con¬ 
fronts  the  mind  with  an  imperative  demand  for  an  answer.  What  is  this 
eternal  possibility  which  is  coeval  with  God?  It  is  evidently  an  intelligible 
object,  an  idea  equivalent  to  an  infinite  number  of  particular  ideas  of 
essences  and  orders,  which  are  thinkable  by  intellect  to  a  certain  extent,  in 
proportion  to  its  capacity,  and  exhaustively  by  the  divine  intellect.  The 
divine  essence  alone  is  an  eternal  and  necessary  self-subsisting  being.  In 
the  formula  of  St.  Thomas:  “  Ijjsum  esse  subsistens.”  It  is  pure  and  per¬ 
fect  act,  in  the  most  simple,  indivisible  unity. 

Therefore  in  God,  as  Aristotle  demonstrates,  intelligent  subject  and 
intelligible  object  are  identical.  Possibility  has  its  foundation  in  the  divine 
essence.  God  contemplates  His  own  essence,  which  is  the  plenitude  of 
being,  with  a  comprehensive  intelligence.  In  this  contemplation  He  per¬ 
ceives  His  essence  as  an  archetyjje  which  eminently  and  virtually  contains 
an  infinite  multitude  of  typical  essences,  capable  of  being  made  in  various 
modes  and  degrees  a  likeness  to  Himself.  He  sees  in  the  comprehension  of 
His  omnipotence  the  power  to  create  whatever  He  will  according  to  His 
divine  ideas.  And  this  is  the  total  ratio  of  possibility. 

These  are  the  eternal  reasons  according  to  Vv'hich  the  order  of  nature  has 
been  established  under  fixed  laws.  They  are  reflected  in  the  works  of  God. 
By  a  perception  of  these  reasons,  these  ideas  impressed  on  the  universe,  we 
ascend  from  single  and  particular  objects  up  to  universal  ideas,  and  finally 
to  the  knowledge  of  God  as  first  and  final  cause. 

When  we  turn  from  the  contemplation  of  the  visible  word  and  sensible 
objects  to  the  rational  creation,  the  sphere  of  intelligent  spirits  and  of  the 
intellectual  life  in  which  they  live,  the  argument  for  a  first  and  final  cause 
ascends  to  a  higher  plane.  The  rational  beings  who  are  known  to  us— our¬ 
selves  and  our  fellowman — bear  the  marks  of  contingency  in  their  intel¬ 
lectual  nature  as  plainly  as  in  their  bodies.  Our  individual,  self-conscious, 
thinking  souls  have  come  out  of  'non-existence  only  yesterday. '  They  begin 
to  live  with  only  a  dormant  intellectual  capacity,  without  knowledge  or  the 
use  of  reason.  The  soul  brings  with  it  no  memories  and  no  ideas.  It  has 
no  immediate  knowledge  of  itself  and  its  nature.  Nevertheless  the  light 
of  intelligence  in  it  is  something  divine — a  spark  from  the  source  of  light — 
and  it  indicates  clearly  that  it  has  received  its  being  from  God. 

In  the  material  things  we  see  the  vestiges  of  the  Creator,  in  the 
rational  soul  his  very  image,  it  is  capable  of  apprehending  the  eternal  rea¬ 
sons  which  are  in  the  mind  of  God;  its  intelligible  object  is  being  in  all  its 
latitude  according  to  its  specific  and  infinite  mode  of  apprehension,  and  the 
proportion  which  its  cognoscitive  faculty  has  to  the  thinkable  and  knowa- 
ble.  As  contingent  beings,  intelligent  spirits,  come  into  the  universal  order 
of  effects  from  which  by  the  argument,  a  posteriori,  the  existence  of  the 
first  cause,  as  supreme  intelligence,  and  will  is  inferred,  and  likewise  the 
ideas  of  necessary  and  eternal  truth  which,  as  so  many  mirrors,  reflect  the 
eternal  reasons  of  the  divine  mind,  subjectively  considered,  come  under  the 
same  category  as  contingent  facts  and  effects  produced  by  second  causes 
and  ultimately  by  the  first  cause. 


RATIONAL  demonstration  OF  THE  BEING  OF  GOD.  81 


These  ideas  are  not,  however,  mere  subjective  concepts.  They  are,  in¬ 
deed,  mental  concepts,  but  they  have  a  foundation  in  reality,  according  to 
the  famous  formula  of  St.  Thomas:  “Universalia  sunt  conceptus  mentis 
cum  fundamento  in  re.”  They  are  originally  gained  by  abstraction  from 
the  single  objects  of  sensitive  cognition;  for  instance,  from  single  things 
which  have  a  concrete  existence,  the  idea  of  being  in  general,  the  most 
extensive  and  universal  of  all  concepts  is  gained.  So,  also,  the  notions  of 
species  and  genius;  of  essence  and  existence;  of  beauty,  goodness,  space 
and  time;  of  efficient  and  final  cause;  of  the  first  principles  of  metaphysics, 
mathematics,  and  ethics.  But,  notwithstanding  this  genesis  of  abstract 
and  universal  concepts  from  concrete,  contingent  realities,  they  become 
free  from  all  contingency  and  dependence  on  contingent  things,  and 
assume  the  character  of  necessary  and  universal,  and  therefore  of  eternal 
truths.  For  instance,  that  the  three  sides  of  a  triangle  can  not  exist  with¬ 
out  three  angles  is  seen  to  be  true,  supposing  there  had  never  been  any 
bodies  or  minds  created.  There  is  an  intelligible  world  of  ideas,  super¬ 
sensible,  and  extra-mental,  within  the  scope  of  intellectual  apprehension; 
they  have  objective  reality,  and  force  themselves  on  the  intellect,  compel¬ 
ling  its  assent  as  soon  as  they  are  clearly  perceived  in  their  self-evidence  or 
demonstration. 

Now,  what  are  these  ideas?  Are  they  some  kind  of  real  beings,  inhabit¬ 
ing  an  eternal  and  infinite  space?  This  is  absurd,  and  they  can  not  be 
conceived  except  as  thoughts  of  an  eternal  and  infinite  mind.  In  thinking 
them  we  are  rethinking  the  thoughts  of  God.  They  are  the  eternal  reasons 
reflected  in  all  the  works  of  creation,  but  especially  in  intelligent  minds. 
Prom  these  necessary  and  eternal  truths  we  infer,  therefore,  the  intelli¬ 
gent  and  intelligible  essence  of  God,  in  which  they  have  their  ultimate 
foundation.  This  metaphysical  argument  is  the  apex  and  culmination  of 
the  cosmological,  moral,  and  in  all  its  forms  the  a  posteriori  argument  from 
effects,  from  design,  from  all  reflections  of  the  divine  perfections  in  the  cre¬ 
ation  to  the  existence  and  nature  of  the  first  and  final  cause  of  the  intellect¬ 
ual,  moral,  and  physical  order  of  the  universe.  It  goes  beyond  every  other 
line  of  argument  in  one  respect.  Prom  concrete,  contingent  facts  we  infer 
and  demonstrate  that  God  does  exist.  We  obtain  only  a  hypothetical  neces¬ 
sity  of  His  existence;  i.  e,,  since  the  world  does  really  exist,  it  must  have  a 
creator. 

The  argument,  from  necessary  and  eternal  truths,  gives  us  a  glimpse  of 
the  absolute  necessity  of  God’s  existence;  it  shows  us  that  He  must  exist 
that  His  non  existence  is  impossible.  We  rise  above  contingent  facts  to  a 
consideration  of  the  eternal  reasons  in  the  intelligible  and  intelligent  essence 
of  God.  We  do  not,  indeed,  perceive  these  eternal  reasons  immediately  in 
God  as  divine  ideas  identical  with  His  essence.  We  have  no  intuition  of 
the  essence  of  God.  God  is  to  us  inscrutable,  incomprehensible,  dwelling  in 
light,  inaccessible.  As  when  the  sun  is  below  the  horizon,  we  perceive 
clouds  illuminated  by  His  rays,  and  moon  and  planets  shining  in  His  reflected 
light,  so  we  see  the  reflection  of  God  in  His  works.  We  perceive  Him  immedi¬ 
ately,  by  the  eternal  reasons  which  are  reflected  in  nature,  in  our  own 
intellect,  and  in  the  ideas  which  have  their  foundation  in  His  mind.  Our 
mental  concepts  of  the  divine  are  analogical,  derived  from  created  things, 
and  inadequate.  They  are,  notwithstanding,  true,  and  give  us  unerring 
knowledge  of  the  deepest  causes  of  being.  They  give  us  metaphysical  certi¬ 
tude  that  God  is.  They  give  us,  also,  a  knowledge  of  what  God  is,  within 
the  limits  of  our  human  mode  of  cognition. 

All  these  metaphysical  concepts  of  God  are  summed  up  in  the  formula 
of  St.  Thomas:  “Ipsum  esse  subsistens.”  Being  in  its  intrinsic  essence 
subsisting.  He  is  the  being  whose  reason  of  real,  self-subsisting  being  is 
in  His  essence;  He  subsists,  as  being,  not  in  any  limitation  of  a  particular 
kind  and  mode  of  being,  but  in  the  irftelligible  ratio  of  being,  in  every 


82 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


respect  which  is  thinkable  and  comprehensible  by  the  absolute,  infinite 
intellect.  He  is  being  in  all  its  longitude,  latitude,  profundity,  and  pleni¬ 
tude;  Heia  being  subsisting  in  pure  and  perfect  act,  without  any  mixture  of 
potentiality  or  possibility  of  change;  infinite,  eternal,  without  before  or 
after;  always  being,  never  becoming;  subsisting  in  an  absolute  present, 
the  now  of  eternity.  Boethius  has  expressed  this  idea  admirably:  “Tota 
simul  ac  perfecta  possessio  vitae  interminabilis.”  The  total  and  perfect 
possession,  all  at  once,  of  boundless  life. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  enrich  and  complete  our  conceptions  of  the 
nature  and  perfections  of  God  we  have  only  to  analyze  the  comprehensive 
idea  of  being  and  to  ascribe  to  God,  in  a  sense  free  from  all  limitations,  all 
that  we  find  in  His  works  which  comes  under  the  general  idea  of  being. 
Being,  good,  truth,  are  transcendental  notions  which  imply  each  other. 
They  include  a  multitude  of  more  specific  terms,  expressing  every  kind  of 
definite  concepts  of  realities  which  are  intelligible  and  desirable.  Beauty, 
splendor,  majesty,  moral  excellence,  beatitude,  life,  love,  greatness,  power, 
and  every  kind  of  perfection  are  phases  and  aspects  of  being,  goodness,  and 
truth.  Since  all  which  presents  an  object  of  intellectual  apprehension  to 
the  mind  and  of  complacency  to  the  will  in  the  effects  produced  by  the 
first  cause  must  exist  in  the  cause  in  a  more  eminent  way,  we  must  predict 
of  the  Creator  all  the  perfections  found  in  creatures. 

The  vastness  of  the  universe  represents  His  immensity.  The  multi¬ 
farious  beauties  of  creatures  represent  His  splendor  and  glory  as  their 
archetype.  The  marks  of  design  and  the  harmonious  order  which  are 
visible  in  the  world  manifest  His  intelligence.  The  faculties  of  intelligence 
and  will  in  rational  creatures  show  forth  in  a  more  perfect  image  the 
attributes  of  intellect  and  will  in  their  author  and  original  source.  All 
created  goodness,  whether  physical  or  moral,  proclaims  the  essential  excel¬ 
lence  and  sanctity  of  God.  He  is  the  source  of  life,  and  is,  therefore,  the 
living  God.  All  the  active  forces  of  nature  witness  His  power. 

All  finite  beings,  however,  come  infinitely  short  of  an  adequate  represen¬ 
tation  of  their  ideal  archetype;  they  retain  something  of  the  intrinsic 
nothingness  of  their  essence,  of  its  potentiality,  changeableness,  and  con¬ 
tingency.  Many  modes  and  forms  of  created  existence  have  an  imperfection 
in  their  essence  which  makes  it  incompatible  with  the  perfection  of  the 
divine  essence  that  they  should  have  a  formal  being  in  God.  We  can  not 
call  him  a  circle,  an  ocean,  or  a  sun.  Such  creatures,  therefore,  represent 
that  which  exists  in  their  archetype  in  an  eminent  and  divine  mode,  to  us 
incomprehensible.  And  those  qualities  whose  formal  ratio  in  God  and 
creatures  is  the  same,  being  finite  in  creatures,  must  be  regarded  as  raised 
to  an  infinite  power  in  God.  Thus  intelligence,  will,  wisdom,  sanctity, 
happiness,  are  formally  in  God,  but  infinite  in  their  excellence. 

All  that  we  know  of  God  by  pure  reason  is  summed  up  by  Aristotle  in 
the  metaphysical  formula  that  God  is  pure  and  perfect  act,  logically  and 
ontologically  the  first  principles  of  all  that  becomes  by  a  transition  from 
potential  into  actual  being.  And  from  this  concise,  comprehensive  formula 
he  has  developed  a  truly  admirable  theodicy.  Aristotle  says:  “It  is  evident 
that  act  (energeia)  is  anterior  to  potency  (dunamis),  logically  and  ontologi¬ 
cally.  A  being  does  not  pass  from  potency  into  act,  and  become  real,  except 
by  the  action  of  a  principle  already  in  act.”  (Met.  viii,  9.)  Again,  “All  that 
is  produced  comes  from  a  being  in  act.”  (De  Anim,  hi,  7.) 

“  There  is  a  being  which  moves  without  being  moved,  which  is  eternal,  is 
substance,  is  act.  *  *  *  The  immovable  mover  is  necessary  being,  that  is, 
being  which  absolutely  is,  and  can  not  be  otherwise.  This  nature,  therefore,  is 
the  principle  from  which  heaven  (meaning  by  this  term  immortal  spirits  who 
are  the  nearest  to  God)  and  nature  depend.  Beatitude  is  his  very  act. 
*  *  *  Contemplation  is  of  all  things  the  most  delightful  and  excellent, 
and  God  enjoys  it  always,  by  the  intellection  of  the  most  excellent  good,  in 


EVIDENCE  OF  A  SUPREME  BEING, 


83 


which  intelligence  and  intelligible  are  identical.  God  is  life,  for  the  act  of 
intelligence  is  life,  and  God  is  this  very  act.  Essential  act  is  the  life  of  God, 
perfect  and  eternal  life.  Therefore  we  name  God  a  perfect  and  eternal 
living  being,  in  such  a  way  that  life  is  uninterrupted;  eternal  duration 
belongs  to  God,  and  indeed  it  is  this  which  is  God.”  (Met.  xi,  7.)  I  have 
here  condensed  a  long  passage  from  Aristotle  and  inverted  the  order  of 
some  sentences,  but  I  have  given  a  verbally  exact  statement  of  his  doctrine. 

I  will  add  a  few  sentences  from  Plotinus,  the  greatest  philosopher  of  the 
Neo-Platonic  school.  “Just  as  the  sight  of  the  heavens  and  the  brilliant 
stars  causes  us  to  look  for  and  to  form  an  idea  of  their  author,  so  the  con¬ 
templation  of  the  intelligible  world  and  the  admiration  which  it  inspires 
lead  us  to  look  for  its  father.  Who  is  the  one,  we  exclaim,  who  has  given 
existence  to  the  intelligible  world?  Where  and  how  has  he  begotten  such 
a  child,  intelligence,  this  son  so  beautiful?  The  supreme  intelligence  must 
necessarily  contain  the  universal  archetype,  and  be  itself  that  intelligible 
world  of  which  Plato  discourses.”  (Ennead  iii,  L  viii,  10  v.  9).  Plato  and 
Aristotle  have  both  placed  in  the  clearest  light  the  relation  of  intelligent, 
immortal  spirit  to  God  as  their  final  cause,  and  together  with  this  highest 
relation  the  subordinate  relation  of  all  the  inferior  parts  of  the  universe. 
Assimilation  to  God,  the  knowledge  and  the  love  of  God,  communication  in 
the  beatitude  which  God  possesses  in  himself,  is  the  true  reason  of  being, 
the  true  and  ultimate  end  of  intellectual  natures. 

In  these  two  great  sages  rational  philosophy  culminated.  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  did  not  hesitate  to  call  it  a  preparation  furnished  by  divine 
providence  to  the  heathen  world  for  the  Christian  revelation.  Whatever 
controversies  there  may  be  concerning  their  explicit  teachings  in  regard  to 
the  relations  between  God  and  the  world,  their  principles  and  premises  con¬ 
tain  implicitly  and  virtually  a  sublime  natural  theology.  St.  Thomas  has 
corrected,  completed,  and  developed  this  theology,  with  a  genius  equal  to 
theirs  and  with  the  advantage  of  a  higher  illumination. 

It  is  the  highest  achievement  of  human  reason  to  bring  the  intellect  to 
a  knowledge  of  God  as  the  first  and  final  cause  of  the  world.  The  denial  of 
this  philosophy  throws  all  things  into  night  and  chaos,  ruled  over  by  blind 
chance  or  fate.  Philosophy,  however,  by  itself  does  not  suffice  to  give  to 
mankind  that  religion  the  excellence  and  necessity  of  which  it  so  brilliantly 
manifests.  Its  last  lesson  is  the  need  of  a  divine  revelation,  a  divine  relig¬ 
ion,  to  lead  men  to  the  knowledge  and  love  of  God  and  the  attainment  of 
their  true  destiny  as  rational  and  immortal  creatures.  A  true  and  practi¬ 
cal  philosopher  will  follow,  therefore,  the  example  of  Justin  Martyr;  in  his 
love  of  and  search  for  the  highest  wisdom  he  will  seek  for  the  genuine 
religion  revealed  by  God,  and  when  found  he  will  receive  it  with  his  whole 
mind  and  will. 


EVIDENCE  OF  A  SUPREME  BEING. 

EEV.  ALFRED  WILLIAMS  MOMERIE  OF  LONDON,  ENGLAND. 

“  We  have  just  heard  a  voice,”  said  Chairman  Niccolls, 
‘‘from  the  largest  and  one  of  the  most  venerable  of  the 
churches  of  Christendom.  That  voice  was  clear,  eloquent, 
logical,  and  learned  in  its  testimony.  The  church  which  it 
represents  is  to-day  the  teacher  of  millions,  and  if  such  are  its 
convictions  we  know  that  the  doctrine  of  Christian  theism  is 


84 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


safe  in  her  hands.  Another  church  has  been  eloquent  in  its 
testimony,  and  I  am  glad  we  have  to-day  one  of  its  representa¬ 
tives  here,  a  distinguished  preacher  and  teacher,  a  learned 
scholar  and  professor.  Rev.  Dr.  Momerie,  of  London,  who  will 
present  the  next  paper  on  ‘  The  Moral  Evidence  of  a  Divine 
Existence.’  ” 

Before  submitting  his  paper.  Dr.  Momerie  said:  ‘‘It  is  only 
this  moment  that  I  have  discovered  the  subject  of  my  paper  as 
shown  on  the  programme.  I  was  originally  asked  to  write 
upon  ‘The  Philosophic  and  Moral  Evidence  for  the  Existence  of 
God,’  and  it  is  upon  that  subject  trhat  I  have  written.  Indeed, 
I  could  hardly  have  written  on  any  other,  for  the  argument  for 
God  seems  to  me  to  be  distinctly  one  and  indivisible.  I  must 
apologize  if  in  the  first  part  of  the  paper  I  have  to  tread  upon 
ground  already  traversed.  I  looked  at  the  philosophical  argu¬ 
ment  from  a  somewhat  different  point  of  view,  and,  perhaps, 
therefore,  there  will  be  no  more  harm  done.” 

The  evidences  for  the  existence  of  God  may  be  summed  up  under  two 
heads.  First  of  all  there  is  what  I  will  designate  the  rationality  of  the 
world.  Under  this  head,  of  course,  comes  the  old  argument  from  design. 
It  is  often  supposed  that  the  argument  from  design  has  been  exploded. 
“Nowadays,”  says  Comte,  “the  heavens  declare  no  other  glory  than  that  of 
Hipparchus,  Newton,  Kepler,  and  the  rest  who  have  found  out  the  laws  of 
sequence.  Our  power  of  foreseeing  phenomena  and  our  power  of  control¬ 
ling  them  destroy  the  belief  that  they  are  governed  by  changeable  wills.” 
Quite  so.  But  such  a  belief  —  the  belief,  viz.,  that  phenomena  were  gov¬ 
erned  by  changeable  wills,  could  not  be  entertained  by  any  philosophical 
theist.  A  really  irregular  phenomenon,  as  Mr.  Fiske  has  said,  would  be  a 
manifestation  of  sheer  diabolism.  Philosophical  theism  —  belief  in  a  being 
deservedly  called  God  --  could  not  be  established  until  after  the  uniformity 
of  nature  had  been  discovered.  We  must  cease  to  believe  in  many  change¬ 
able  wills  before  we  can  begin  to  believe  in  one  that  is  unchangeable.  We 
must  cease  to  believe  in  a  finite  God,  outside  of  nature,  who  capriciously 
interferes  with  her  phenomena,  before  we  can  begin  to  believe  in  an  infinite 
God,  immanent  in  nature,  of  whom  mind  and  will  and  all  natural  phenomena 
are  the  various  but  never  varying  expressions.  Though  the  regularity  of 
nature  is  not  enough,  by  itself,  to  prove  the  existence  of  God,  the  irregu¬ 
larity  of  nature  would  be  amply  sufficient  to  disprove  it.  The  uniformity 
of  nature,  which,  by  a  curious  observation  of  the  logical  faculties,  has  been 
used  as  an  atheistic  argument,  is  actually  the  first  step  in  the  proof  of  the 
existence  of  God.  The  purposes  of  a  reasonable  being,  just  in  proportion  to 
his  reasonableness,  will  be  steadfast  and  immovable.  And  in  God  there  is 
no  change,  neither  shadow  of  turning.  He  is  the  same  yesterday,  to  day, 
and  forever. 

There  is  another  scientific  doctrine,  viz.,  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  which 
is  often  supposed  to  be  incompatible  with  the  argument  from  design.  But 
it  seems  to  me  that  the  discovery  of  the  fact  of  evolution  was  an  important 


EVIDENCE  OF  A  SUPREME  BEING. 


85 


step  in  the  proof  of  the  divine  existence.  Evolution  has  not  disproved 
adaptation;  it  has  merely  disproved  one  particular  kind  of  adaptation — the 
adaptation,  viz.,  of  a  human  artifice.  In  the  time  of  Paley,  God  was  regarded 
as  a  great  Mechanician,  spelled  with  a  capital  M,  it  is  ture,  but  employing 
means  and  methods  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes  more  or  less 
similar  to  those  which  would  be  used  by  a  human  workman.  It  was 
believed  that  every  species,  every  organism,  and  every  part  of  every  organ¬ 
ism  had  been  individually  adapted  by  the  Creator  for  the  accomplishment 
of  a  definite  end,  just  as  every  portion  of  a  watch  is  the  result  of  a  partic¬ 
ular  act  of  contrivance  on  the  part  of  the  watchmaker. 

A  different  and  far  higher  method  is  suggested  by  the  doctrine  of  evo¬ 
lution,  a  doctrine  which  may  now  be  considered  as  practically  demonstrated, 
thanks  especially  to  the  light  which  has  been  shed  on  it  by  the  sciences  of 
anatomy,  physiology,  geology,  palaeontology,  and  embryology.  These  sciences 
have  placed  the  blood  relationship  of  species  beyond  a  doubt.  The  embryos 
of  existing  animals  are  found  again  and  again  to  bear  the  closest  resem¬ 
blance  to  extinct  species,  though  in  this  adult  form  the  semblance  is 
obscured.  Moreover,  we  frequently  find  in  animals  rudimentary,  or  abortive, 
organs,  which  are  manifestly  not  adapted  to  any  end,  which  never  can  be 
of  any  use,  and  whose  presence  in  the  organism  is  sometimes  positively  in¬ 
jurious.  There  are  snakes  that  have  rudimentary  legs — legs  which,  how¬ 
ever  interesting  to  the  anatomist,  are  useless  to  the  snake.  There  are  rudi¬ 
ments  of  fingers  in  a  horse’s  hoof,  and  of  teeth  in  a  whale’s  mouth,  and  in 
man  himself  there  is  the  vermiform  appendix?.  It  is  manifest,  therefore, 
that  any  particular  organ  in  one  species  is  merely  an  evolution  from  a  some¬ 
what  different  kind  of  organ  in  another.  It  is  manifest  that  the  species 
themselves  are  but  transmutations  of  one  or  a  few  primordial  types,  and 
that  they  have  been  created  not  by  paroxysm  but  by  evolution.  The 
Creator  saw  the  end  from  the  beginning.  He  had  not  many  conflicting 
purposes,  but  one  that  was  general  and  all-embracing.  Unity  and  con¬ 
tinuity  of  design  serve  to  demonstrate  the  wisdom  of  the  designer. 

The  supposition  that  nature  means  something  by  what  she  does  has 
not  infrequently  led  to  important  scientific  discoveries.  It  was  in  this  way 
that  Harvey  found  out  the  circulation  of  the  blood.  He  took  notice  of 
the  valves  in  the  veins  in  many  parts  of  the  body,  so  placed  as  to  give  free 
passage  to  the  blood  towards  the  heart,  but  opposing  its  passage  in  the 
contrary  direction.  Then  he  bethought  himself,  to  use  his  own  words, 
“that  such  a  provident  cause  as  nature  had  not  placed^  so  many  valves 
without  a  design,  and  the  design  which  seemed  most  probable  was  that  the 
blood,  instead  of  being  sent  by  these  veins  to  the  limbs,  should  go  first 
through  the  arteries,  should  return  through  other  veins  whose  valves  did 
not  oppose  its  course.”  Thus,  apart  from  the  supposition  of  purpose,  the 
greatest  discovery  in  physiological  science  might  not  have  been  made.  And 
the  curious  thing  is — a  circumstance  to  which  I  would  particularly  direct 
your  attention — the  word  purpose  is  constantly  employed  even  by  those  who 
are  most  strenuous  in  deying  the  reality  of  the  fact.  The  supposition  of 
purpose  is  used  as  a  working  hypothesis  by  the  most  extreme  materialists. 
The  recognition  of  an  immanent  purpose  in  our  conception  of  nature  can  be 
so  little  dispensed  with  that  we  find  it  admitted  even  by  Vogt.  Haeckel, 
in  the  very  book  in  which  he  says  that  “the  much  talked-of  purpose  in 
nature  has  no  existence,”  defines  an  organic  body  as  “one  in  which  the 
various  parts  work  together  for  the  purpose  of  producing  the  phenomenon 
of  life.”  And  Hartman,  according  to  whom  the  universe  is  the  outcome  of 
unconsciousness,  speaks  of  “the  wisdom  of  the  unconscious,”  of  “the 
mechanical  contrivance  which  it  employs,”  of  “  the  direct  activity  in 
bringing  about  complete  adaptation  to  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  case,”  of 
“  its  incursions  into  the  human  brain  which  determine  the  course  of  history 
in  all  departments  of  civilization  in  the  direction  of  the  goal  intended  by  the 


86 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


unconscious.”  Purpose,  then,  has  not  been  eliminated  from  the  universe  by 
the  discoveries  of  physical  science.  These  discoveries  have  but  intensified 
and  elevated  our  path. 

And  there  is  yet  something  else  to  be  urged  in  favor  of  the  argument 
from  design.  If  the  world  is  not  due  to  purpose,  it  must  be  the  result  of 
chance.  This  alternative  can  not  be  avoided  by  asserting  that  the  world  is 
the  outcome  of  law,  since  law  itself  must  be  accounted  for  in  one  or  other 
of  these  alternative  ways.  A  law  of  nature  explains  nothing.  It  is  merely 
a  summary  of  the  facts  to  be  explained — merely  a  statement  of  the  way  in 
which  things  happen;  e.  g.,  the  law  of  gravitation  is  the  fact  that  all  mate¬ 
rial  bodies  attract  one  another  with  a  force  varying  directly  as  their  mass 
and  inversely  as  the  squares  of  their  distances.  Now,  the  fact  that  bodies 
attract  one  another  in  this  way  can  not  be  explained  by  the  law,  for  the  law 
is  nothing  but  the  precise  expression  of  the  fact.  To  say  that  the  gravita¬ 
tion  of  matter  is  accounted  for  by  the  law  of  gravitation,  is  merely  to 
say  that  matter  gravitates  because  it  gravitates.  And  so  of  the  other 
laws  of'  nature.  Taken  together,  they  are  simply  the  expression,  in  a  set  of 
convenient  formulae,  of  all  the  facts  of  our  experience.  The  laws  of  nature 
are  the  facts  of  nature  summarized.  To  say,  then,  that  nature  is  explained 
by  law,  is  to  say  that  the  facts  are  explained  by  themselves.  The  question 
remains,  Why  are  the  facts  what  they  are  ?  And  to  this  question  we  can 
only  answer,  either  through  purpose  or  by  chance. 

In  favor  of  the  latter  hypothesis  it  may  be  urged  that  the  appearance 
of  purpose  in  nature  could  have  been  produced  by  chance.  Arrangements 
which  look  intentional  may  sometimes  be  purely  accidental.  Something 
was  bound  to  come  of  the  play  of  the  primeval  atoms.  Why  not  the  par¬ 
ticular  world  in  which  we  find  ourselves? 

Why  not?  For  this  reason:  It  is  only  within  narrow  bounds  that 
seemingly  purposeful  arrangements  are  accidentally  produced.  And,  there¬ 
fore,  as  the  signs  of  purpose  increase  the  presumjjtion  in  favor  of  their  acci¬ 
dental  origin  diminishes.  It  is  the  most  curious  phenomenon  in  the  history 
of  thought  that  the  philosophers  who  delight  in  calling  themselves  experi¬ 
enced  should  have  countenanced  the  theory  of  the  accidental  origin  of  the 
world,  a  theory  with  which  our  experience,  as  far  as  it  goes,  is  completely 
out  of  harmony.  When  only  eleven  planets  were  known  De  Morgan  showed 
that  the  odds  against  their  moving  in  one  direction  round  the  sun  with  a 
slight  inclination  of  the  planes  of  their  orbits — had  chance  determined  the 
movement — would  have  been  20,000,000,000  to  one.  And  this  movement  of 
the  planets  is  but  a  single  item,  a  tiny  detail,  an  infinitesimal  fraction  in  a 
universe  which,  notwithstanding  all  arguments  to  the  contrary,  still  appears 
to  be  pervaded  through  and  through  with  purpose.  Let  every  human  being 
now  alive  upon  the  earth  spend  the  rest  of  his  days  and  nights  writing  down 
arithmetical  figures;  let  the  enormous  numbers  which  these  figures  would 
represent — each  number  forming  a  library  in  itself — be  all  added  together; 
let  this  result  be  squared,  cubed,  multiplied  by  itself  10,000  times,  and  the 
final  product  would  fall  short  of  expressing  the  probabilities  of  the  world 
having  been  evolved  by  chance. 

But  over  and  above  the  signs  of  purpose  in  the  world  there  are  other 
evidences  which  bear  witness  to  its  rationality,  to  its  ultimate  dependence 
upon  mind.  We  can  often  detect  thought  even  when  we  fail  to  detect  pur¬ 
pose.  “  Science,”  says  Lange,  “  starts  from  the  principle  of  the  intelligible¬ 
ness  of  nature.”  To  interpret  is  to  explain,  and  nothing  can  be  explained 
that  is  not  in  itself  rational.  Reason  can  only  grasp  what  is  reasonable. 
You  can  not  explain  the  conduct  of  a  fool.  You  can  not  interpret  the 
actions  of  a  lunatic.  They  are  contradictory,  meaningless,  unintelligible. 
Similarly  if  nature  were  an  irrational  system  there  would  be  no  possibility 
of  knowledge.  The  interpretation  of  nature  consists  in  making  our  own 
the  thoughts  which  nature  implies.  Scientific  hypothesis  consists  in  guess- 


EVIDENCE  OF  A  SUPREME  BEING. 


87 


ing  at  these  thoughts;  scientific  verification  in  proving  that  we  have  guessed 
aright.  “  O  God,’’  says  Kepler,  when  he  discovered  the  laws  ot  planetary 
motion,  “  O  God,  I  think  again  Thy  thoughts  after  Thee.”  There  could  be 
no  course  of  nature,  no  law  of  sequence,  no  possibility  of  scientific  predic¬ 
tions  in  a  senseless  play  of  atoms.  But  as  it  is,  we  know  exactly  how  the 
forces  of  nature  act,  and  how  they  will  continue  to  act.  We  can  express 
their  mode  of  working  in  the  most  precise  formulae.  Every  fresh  discovery 
in  science  reveals  anew  the  order,  the  law,  the  system  —  in  a  word,  the  rea¬ 
son  which  underlies  material  phenomena.  And  reason  is  the  outcome  of 
mind.  It  is  mind  in  action. 

Nor  is  it  only  within  the  realm  of  science  that  we  can  detect  traces  of  a 
supreme  intelligence.  Kant  and  Hegel  have  shown  that  the  whole  of  our 
conscious  experience  implies  the  existence  of  a  mind  other  than  but  similar 
to  our  own.  For  students  of  philosophy  it  is  needless  to  explain  this;  for 
others  it  would  be  impossible  within  the  short  time  at  my  disposal.  SulBRce 
it  to  say  it  has  been  proved  that  what  we  call  knowledge  is  due  subjectively 
to  the  constructive  activity  of  our  own  individual  minds,  and  objectively  to 
the  constructive  activity  of  another  mind  which  is  omnipresent  and  eternal. 
In  other  words,  it  has  been  proved  that  our  limited  consciousness  implies 
the  existence  of  a  consciousness  that  is  unlimited — that  the  common,  every¬ 
day  experience  of  each  one  of  us  necessitates  the  increasing  activity  of  an 
inunite  thinker. 

The  world,  then,  is  essentially  rational.  But  if  that  were  all  we  could 
say  we  should  be  very  far  from  having  proved  the  existence  of  God.  A 
question  still  remains  for  us  to  answer;  Is  the  infinite  thinker  good?  I 
pass  on,  therefore,  to  speak  briefly  on  the  second  part  of  my  subject,  viz., 
the  progressiveness  of  the  world.  The  last,  the  most  comprehensive,  the 
most  certain  word  of  science  is  evolution.  And  it  is  the  most  hopeful  word 
I  know.  For  when  we  contemplate  the  suffering  and  disaster  around  us  we 
are  sometimes  tempted  to  think  that  the  Great  Contriver  is  indifferent  to 
human  welfare.  But  evolution,  which  is  only  another  form  for  continuous 
improvement,  inspires  us  with  confidence.  It  suggests,  indeed,  that  the 
Creator  is  not  omnipotent,  in  the  vulgar  sense  of  being  able  to  do  impossi¬ 
bilities;  but  it  also  suggests  that  the  difficulties  of  creation  are  being  surely 
though  slowly  overcome. 

Now,  it  may  be  asked,  How  could  there  be  difficulties  for  God  ?  How 
could  the  Infinite  be  limited  or  restrained  ?  Let  us  see.  We  are  too  apt 
to  look  upon  restraint  as  essentially  an  evil;  to  regard  it  as  a  sign  of  weak¬ 
ness.  This  is  the  greatest  mistake.  Restraint  may  be  an  evidence  of 
power,  of  superiority,  of  perfection.  Why  is  poetry  so  much  more  beautiful 
than  prose  ?  Because  of  tho  restraints  of  conscience.  Many  things  are 
possible  for  a  prose  writer  which  are  impossible  for  a  poet;  many  things  are 
possible  for  a  villain  which  are  impossible  for  a  man  of  honor;  many  things 
are  possible  for  a  devil  which  are  impossible  for  a  God.  The  fact  is,  infinite 
wisdom  and  goodness  involve  nothing  less  than  infinite  restraint.  When 
we  say  that  God  can  not  do  wrong,  we  virtually  admit  that  He  is  under  a 
moral  obligation  or  necessity,  and  reflection  will  show  that  there  is  another 
kind  of  necessity,  viz.,  mathematical,  by  which  even  the  Infinite  is  bound. 

Do  you  suppose  that  the  Deity  could  make  a  square  with  only  three 
sides  or  aline  with  only  one  end?  Admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  theoretically  he  had  the  power,  do  you  suppose  that  under  any  con¬ 
ceivable  circumstances  he  would  use  it?  Surely  not.  It  would  be  prosti¬ 
tution.  It  would  be  the  employment  of  an  infinite  power  for  the  production 
of  what  was  essentially  irrational  and  absurd.  It  would  be  the  same  kind 
of  folly  as  if  some  one  who  was  capable  of  writing  a  sensible  book  were  de¬ 
liberately  to  produce  a  volume  with  the  words  so  arranged  as  to  convey  no 
earthly  meaning.  The  same  kind  of  folly  but  far  more  culpable,  for  the 
guilt  of  foolishness  increases  in  proportion  to  the  capacity  for  wisdom.  A 


88 


TITE  PARLTAMENT  OF  RELTGTONS, 


being,  therefore,  who  attempted  to  reverse  the  truth  of  mathematics  would 
not  be  divine.  To  mathematical  necessity  Deity  itself  must  yield. 

Similarly  in  the  physical  sphere  there  must  be  restraints  equally  neces¬ 
sary  and  equally  unalterable,  viz.,  it  may  be  safely  and  reverently  affirmed 
that  God  could  not  have  created  a  painless  world.  The  Deity  must  have 
been  constrained  by  his  goodness  to  create  the  best  world  possible,  and  a 
world  without  suffering  would  have  been  not  better,  but  worse  than  our 
own.  For  consider;  sometimes  pain  is  needed  as  a  warning  to  preserve  us 
from  greater  pain  —  to  keep  us  from  destruction.  If  pain  had  not  been 
attached  to  injurious  actions  and  habits,  all  sentient  beings  would  long  ago 
have  passed  out  of  existence.  Sui^pose,  e.  g.,  that  fire  did  not  cause  pain, 
we  might  easily  be  burnt  to  death  before  we  knew  we  were  in  danger.  Suj)- 
pose  the  loss  of  health  were  not  attended  with  discomfort,  we  should  lack 
the  strongest  motive  for  preserving  it.  And  the  same  is  true  of  the  pangs 
of  remorse,  which  follow  what  we  call  sin.  Further, pain  is  necessary  for 
the  development  of  character,  especially  in  its  higher  phases.  In  some 
wayor  other,  though,  we  can  not  tellexactly  how  pain  acts  as  an  intellectiud 
and  spiritual  stimulus.  The  world’s  greatest  teachers,  Dante,  Shakespeare, 
Darwin,  etc.,  have  been  men  who  suffered  much.  Suffering,  moreover, 
develops  in  us  pity,  mercy,  and  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice;  it  develops  in  us 
self-respect,  self-reliance,  and  all  that  is  implied  in  the  expression,  strength 
of  character.  In  no  other  way  could  such  a  character  be  conceivably 
acquired.  It  could  not  have  been  bestowed  upon  us  by  a  creative  fiat;  it 
is  essentially  the  result  of  personal  conflict.  Even  Christ  became  perfect 
through  suffering.  And  there  is  also  a  further  necessity  for  pain  arising  ► 
from  the  reign  of  law. 

There  is  no  doubt  something  awesome  in  the  thought  of  the  absolute- 
inviolability  of  law;  in  the  thought  that  nature  goes  on  her  way  quite 
regardless  of  your  wishes  or  mine.  She  is  so  strong  and  so  indifferent! 
The  reign  of  law  often  entails  on  individuals  the  direst  suffering.  But  if 
the  Deity  interfered  with  it  He  would  at  once  convert  the  universe  into 
chaos.  The  first  requisite  for  a  rational  life  is  the  certain  knowledge 
that  the  same  effects  will  always  follow  from  the  same  cause;  that  they 
will  never  be  miraculously  averted;  that  they,  will  never  be  miraculously 
produced.  It  seems  hard — it  is  hard — that  a  mother  should  lose  her  dar¬ 
ling  child  by  accident  or  disease,  that  she  can  not  by  any  agony  of  prayer 
recall  the  child  to  life.  But  it  would  be  harder  for  the  world  if  she  could. 
The  child  has  died  through  a  violation  of  some  of  nature’s  laws,  and  if 
sucht  violation  were  unattended  with  death,  men  would  lose  the  great 
iuducement  to  discover  and  obey  them.  It  seems  hard — it  is  hard — that 
the  man  who  has  taken  poison  by  accident  dies,  as  surely  as  if  he  had 
taken  it  on  purpose.  But  it  would  be  ’harder  for  the  world  if  he  did 
not.  If  one  act  of  carelessness  were  ever  overlooked,  the  race  would 
cease  to  feel  the  necessity  for  care.  It  seems  hard — it  is  hai  d — that  chil¬ 
dren  are  made  to  suffer  for  their  father’s  crimes.  But  it  would  be  harder 
for  the  world  if  they  were  not.  If  the  j)enalties  of  wrongdoing  w^ere 
averted  from  the  children,  the  fathers  would  lose  the  best  incentive  to 
do  right.  Vicarious  suffering  has  a  great  part  to  piny  in  the  moral 
development  of  the  world.  Each  individual  is  apt  to  think  that  an  excep¬ 
tion  might  be  made  in  his  favor,  But,  of  course,  that  could  not  be.  If 
the  laws  of  nature  were  broken  for  one  person  justice  would  require  that 
they  should  be  broken  for  thousands,  for  all.  And  if  only  one  of  nature’s 
laws  could  be  proved  to  have  been  only  once  violated  our  faith  in  law 
would  be  at  an  end;  we  should  feel  that  we  were  living  in  a  disorderly 
universe;  we  should  lose  the  sense  of  the  paramount  importance  of  con¬ 
duct;  we  should  know  that  we  were  the  sport  of  chance. 

Pain,  therefore,  was  an  unavoidable  necessity  in  the  creation  of  the  best 
of  all  possible  worlds.  But  however  many  or  however  great  were  the  diffi- 


THEISTIC  TEACHINGS  OF  HISTORIC  FAITHS. 


89 


culties  in  the  Creator’s  path,  the  fact  of  evolution  makes  it  certain  that 
they  are  being  gradually  overcome.  And  among  all  the  changes  that  have 
marked  its  progress,  none  is  so  palpable,  so  remarkable,  so  persistent,  as  the 
development  of  goodness.  Evolution  “  makes  for  righteousness.”  That 
which  seems  to  be  its  end  varies. 

The  truth  is  constantly  becoming  more  apparent  that  on  the  whole,  and 
in  the  long  run  it  is  not  well  with  the  wicked;  that  sooner  or  later,  both  in 
the  lives  of  individuals  and  of  nations,  good  tnumplis  over  evil.  And  this 
tendency  toward  righteousness,  by  which  we  find  ourselves  encompassed, 
meets  with  a  ready,  an  even  readier,  response  in  our  own  hearts.  We 
can  not  help  respecting  goodness,  and  we  have  inextinguishable  long¬ 
ings  for  its  personal  attainment;  Notwithstanding  “  sore  lets  and 
hindrances,”  notwithstanding  the  fioTcest  temptations,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  most  disastrous  failures,  these  yearnings  continually  reassert 
themselves  with  ever-increasing  force.  .  We  feel,  we  know  that  we 
shall  always  be  dissatisfied  and  unhappy  unti]  the  tendency  within  us  is 
brought  into  perfect  unison  with  the  tendency  without  us,  until  we  also 
make  for  righteousness  steadily,  unremittingly,  and  with  our  whole  heart. 
What  is  this  disquietude,  what  are  these  yearnings,  but  the  spirit  of  the 
universe  in  communion  with  our  spirits,  inspiring  us,  impelling  us,  all  but 
forcing  us  to  become  co-workers  with  itself. 

To  sum  up  in  one  sentence — all  knowledge,  whether  practical  or  scien¬ 
tific,  nay,  the  commonest  experience  of  everyday  life,  implies  the  existence 
of  a  mind  which  is  omnipresent  and  eternal,  while  the  tendency  toward 
^  righteousness,  which  is  so  unmistakably  manifest  in  the  course  of  history, 
together  with  the  response  which  this  tendency  awakens  in  our  own  hearts, 
combine  to  prove  that  the  infinite  thinker  is  just,  and  kind,  and  good.  It 
must  be  because  He  is  always  with  us  that  we  sometimes  imagine  that  He  ' 
is  nowhere  to  be  found. 

I  “Oh.  where  is  the  sea?”  the  fishes  cried 

I  As  they  swum  the  crystal  clearness  through ; 

\  “We’ve  heard  from  of  old  of  the  ocean’s  tide 
\  And  we  long  to  look  on  the  waters  blue, 
i  The  wise  ones  speak  of  an  infinite  sea, 

I  Oh,  who  can  tell  us  if  such  there  be? 

I  The  lark  fiew  up  in  the  morning  bright 
1  And  sang  and  balanced  on  sunny  wings 
j  And  this  was  its  song:  “I  see  i  he  light; 

(  I  look  on  a  world  of  beautiful  things; 

I  And  flying  and  singing  everywhere 
1  In  vain  have  I  sought  to  find  the  air.” 


THEISTIC  TEACHINGS  OF  HISTORIC  FAITHS. 

PROFESSOl^  N.  VALENTINE,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  OF  THE  LUTH¬ 
ERAN  CHURCH. 

“We  have  heard  two-fold  testimony,  to-day,”  said  Chairman 
Niccolls,  “with  reference  to  the  existence  of  God,  and  I  am 
afraid  that  if  there  is  one  here  who  has  listened  to  this  two- 
fold  testimony  and  yet  doubts,  we  must  remind  him  of  the 
description  tliat  was  given  by  one  of  Israel’s  psalmists  long 
ago,  with  reference  to  the  man  who  was  unconvinced.  Now  we 


90 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


advance  a  step  farther,  and  I  am  glad  we  shall  have  a  paper 
from  a  distinguished  professor  in  one  of  the  great  churches  of 
reformation,  a  representative  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  Profes¬ 
sor  N.  Valentine,  whose  name  is  well  known  throughout  the 
land.” 

In  calling  attention  to  the  “  Harmonies  and  Distinctions  in  the  Theis- 
tic  Teaching  of  the  Various  Historic  Faiths,”  I  must,  by  very  necessity  of 
the  case,  speak  from  the  Christian  standpoint.  This  standpoint  is  to  me 
synonymous  with  the  very  truth  itself.  I  can  not  speak  as  free  from  ju’e- 
possessions.  This,  however,  does  not  mean  any  unwillingness,  nor,  I  trust, 
inability  to  see  and  treat  with  sincerest  candor  and  genuine  appreciation 
the  truth  that  may  be  found  in  each  and  all  of  the  various  theistic  concep¬ 
tions  which  reason  and  providence  may  have  enabled  men  anywhere  to 
reach.  Undoubtedly  some  rays  from  the  true  divine  “Light  of  the  World” 
have  been  shining  through  reason,  and  reflected  from  “the  things  that  are 
made”  everywhere  and  at  all  times.  God  never  nor  in  any  place  leaves 
himself  wholly  without  witness.  And  though  we  now  and  here  stand  in 
the  midst  of  the  high  illumination  of  what  we  accept  as  supernat  ural  revela¬ 
tion,  we  rejoice  to  recognize  the  truth  which  may  have  come  into  view  from 
other  openings,  blending  with  the  light  of  God’s  redemptive  self-manifesta¬ 
tion  in  Christianity. 

It  is  not  necessary  prejudice  to  truth  anywhere  when  from  this  stand¬ 
point  I  am  further  necessitated,  in  this  comparative  view,  to  take  the 
Christian  conception  as  the  standard  of  comparison  and  measurement.  We 
must  use  some  standard  if  we  are  to  proceed  discriminatingly  or  reach  any 
well-defined  and  consistent  conclusions.  Simply  to  compare  different  con¬ 
ceptions  with  one  another,  without  the  unifying  light  of  some  accepted  rule 
of  judging,  or  at  least  of  reference,  can  never  lift  the  impression  out  of  con¬ 
fusion  or  fix  any  valuable  points  of  truth.  Only  to  hold  our  eye  to  the 
varied  shifting  colors  and  combinations  of  the  kaleidoscope  can  bring  no 
satisfactory  or  edifying  conclusion.  The  Christian’s  comparative  view 
of  the  “historic  faiths”  other  than  his  own  necessarily  thus  ranges  them 
under  his  own  Christian  canons  of  judgment,  means  no  exclusion  or 
obscuration  of  the  light,  but  merely  fixes  the  leading  parallelism  of  its  fall, 
securing  consistency  and  clearness  of  presentation,  a  presentation  under 
which  not  only  the  harmonies  and  distinctions,  but  the  actual  truth,  may 
be  most  clearly  and  fairly  seen. 

The  phrase,  “theistic  teaching,”  in  the  statement  of  the  subject  of  this 
paper,  I  understand,  in  its  broadest  sense,  as  referring  to  the  whole  con¬ 
ception  concerning  God,  including  the  very  question  of  His  being,  and, 
therefore,  applicable  to  systems  of  thought,  if  any  such  there  be  that,  in 
philosophic  reality,  are  atheistic.  In  this  sense  teachings  on  the  subject  of 
deity,  or  “the  divine,”  are  “theistic,”  though  they  negative  the  reality  of 
God,  and  so  may  come  legitimately  into  our  comparative  view.  Ana  yet, 
we  are  to  bear  in  mind,  it  is  only  the  “  theistic  ”  teaching  of  the  historic 
faiths,  not  their  whole  religious  view,  that  falls  under  the  intention  of  this 
paper.  The  subject  is  special,  restricting  us  specifically  to  their  ideas  about 
God. 

At  the  outset  we  need  to  remind  ourselves  of  the  exceeding  difficulty  of 
the  comparison  or  of  precise  and  firm  classification  of  the  theistic  faiths 
of  mankind.  They  are  all  —  at  least  all  the  ethnic  faiths  —  developments  or 
evolutions,  having  undergone  various  and  immense  changes.  Their  evolu¬ 
tions  amount  to  revolutions  in  some  cases.  They  are  not  permanently 
marked  by  the  same  features,  and  will  not  admit  the  same  predicates  at 
different  times.  Some  are  found  to  differ  more  from  themselves  in  their 


THEISTIC  TEACHINGS  OF  HISTORIC  FAITHS. 


91 


history  than  from  one  another.  There  is  such  an  inter- crossing  of  principles 
and  manifold  form  of  representation  as  to  lead  the  most  learned  specialists 
into  disputes  and  opposing  conclusions,  and  render  a  scientihc  characteriza¬ 
tion  and  classification  impossible.  The  most  and  best  that  can  be  done  is 
to  bring  the  teachings  of  the  historic  religions,  in  this  particular,  into  com¬ 
parison  as  to  five  or  six  of  the  fundamental  and  most  distinctive  features  of 
theistic  conception.  Their  most  vital  points  of  likeness  and  difference  will 
thus  appear.  It  will  be  enough  to  include  in  the  comparison,  besides  Chris¬ 
tianity,  the  religions  of  ancient  Greece  and  Rome,  of  old  Egypt,  Indian 
Hinduism  or  more  exactly  Brahmanism,  Persian  Parseeism  or  Zoroastrian¬ 
ism,  Buddhism,  Chinese  Confucianism,  Celtic  Druidism,  the  Norse  or  Teu¬ 
tonic  mythology,  and  Mohammedanism,  with  incidental  reference  to  some 
less  prominent  religions.  I  class  Judaism  as  the  early  stage  of  unfolding 
Christianity. 

Adopting  this  method,  therefore,  of  comparing  them  under  the  light  of 
a  few  leading  features  or  elements  of  the  theistic  view,  we  begin  with  that 
which  is  most  fundamental — belief  in  the  existence  of  God,  or  of  what  we 
call  “the  divine”  Deity,  some  higher  power  to  which  or  to  whom  men  sus¬ 
tain  relations  of  dependence,  obligation,  and  hope.  This  is  the  bottom 
point,  the  question  underlying  all  other  questions  in  religious  belief:  Does 
a  God  exist  ?  And  here  it  is  assuring;  a  wonderful  harmony  is  found.  All 
the  historic  faiths,  save  perhaps  one,  rest  on  belief  in  some  divine  existence 
or  existences  to  be  acknowledged,  feared,  or  pleased.  It  seems  to  be  part 
of  the  religious  instinct  of  the  race.  And  the  intellect  concurs  in  fostering 
the  belief.  History,  ethnology,  and  philology  not  only  suggest,  but  amply 
prove,  that  the  idea  of  God,  of  some  power  or  powers  above,  upon  whom 
man  depends  and  to  whom  he  must  answer,  is  so  normal  to  human  reason 
in  the  presence  and  experience  of  the  phenomena  of  nature  and  life,  that  it 
is  developed  wherever  man’s  condition  is  high  enough  for  the  action  of  his 
religious  nature  at  all. 

“  God  ”  is  the  fundamental  and  constructive  idea,  and  it  is  the  greatest 
and  most  vital  idea  of  humanity.  But  the  harmony  of  the  world’s  religious 
faiths  in  this  positive  theistic  teaching  is,  according  to  prevailing  interpret¬ 
ation,  broken  in  the  case  of  Buddhism.  This  appears  to  be  atheistic;  a 
religion,  or,  rather,  a  philosophy  of  life,  without  a  Deity  or  even  the 
apothoesis  of  nature.  Many  things,  however,  incline  me  to  the  view  of  those 
interpreters  who  deny,  or  at  least  doubt,  the  totally  atheistic  character  of 
Buddhism.  For  instance,  it  is  rooted  in  the  earlier  pantheistic  Hindu  faith, 
and  has  historically  developed  a  cult  with  temples  and  prayers.  In  the 
face  of  these  and  other  things,  only  the  most  positive  evidence  can  put  its 
total  atheism  beyond  question.  Gautama’s  work  of  reform,  which  swept 
away  the  multitudinous  divinities  of  the  popular  theology,  may  not  have 
been  a  denial  of  God,  even  as  Socrates  alleged  atheism  was  not,  but  rather 
an  overthrow  of  the  prevalent  gross  polytheism  in  the  interest  of  a  truer 
and  more  spiritual  conception,  though  it  may  have  been  a  less  definite  one 
of  the  Divine  Being. 

And  may  we  not  justly  distinguish  between  Buddhism  as  a  mere  phil¬ 
osophy  of  life  or  conduct  and  Buddhism  as  a  religion,  with  its  former  nature 
— gods  swept  away,  and  the  replacing  better  conception  only  obscurely  and 
inadequately  brought  out  ?  At  least  it  is  certain  that  its  teaching  was  not 
dogmatic  atheism,  a  formal  denial  of  God,  but  marked  rather  by  the 
negative  attitude  of  failing  positively  to  recognize  and  affirm  the  divine 
existence.  The  divergence  in  this  case  is  undoubtedly  less  of  a  discord  than 
has  often  been  supposed.  There  are  cases  of  atheism  in  the  midst  of  Chris¬ 
tian  lands,  the  outcome  of  bewilderment  through  speculative  philosophies. 
They  may  even  spread  widely  and  last  long.  They,  however,  count  but 
little  against  the  great  heart  and  intellect  of  mankind,  or  even  as  giving  a 
definite  characteristic  to  the  religion  in  the  midst  of  which  they  appear. 


92 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


And  they  lose  sway,  even  as  the  Buddhist  philosophy,  in  becoming  a  re¬ 
ligion  that  has  had  to  resume  recognition  of  deity.  And  it  is  something 
grand  and  inspiring  that  the  testimony  of  the  world’s  religions  from  all 
around  the  horizon  and  down  the  centuries  is  virtually  unanimous  as  to 
this  first  great  principle  in  theistic  teaching.  It  is  the  strong  and  ceaseless 
testimony  of  the  great,  deej)  heart  and  reason  of  mankind.  Nay,  it  is  God’s 
own  testimony  to  His  being,  voiced  through  the  religious  nature  and  life 
made  in  His  image. 

But  let  these  various  religions  be  compared  in  the  light  of  a  second 
principle  in  theistic  teaching — that  of  monotheism.  Here  it  is  startling  to 
find  how  terribly  the  idea  of  God,  whose  existence  is  so  unanimously  owned, 
has  been  misconceived  and  distorted.  For,  taking  the  historic  faiths  in 
their  fully  developed  form,  only  two,  Christianity  and  Mohammedanism, 
present  a  pure  and  maintained  monotheism.  Zoroastrianism  can  not  be 
counted  in  here,  though  at  first  its  Ahriman,  or  evil  spirit,  was  not  con¬ 
ceived  of  as  a  God,  it  afterward  lapsed  into  theological  dualism  and  prac¬ 
tical  polytheism.  All  the  rest  are  prevailingly  and  discordantly  poly¬ 
theistic.  They  move  off  into  endless  multiplicity  of  divinities  and  grotesque 
degradations  of  their  character.  This  fact  does  not  speak  well  for  the 
ability  of  the  human  mind  without  supernatural  help,  to  formulate  and 
maintain  the  necessary  idea  of  God  worthily. 

This  dark  and  regretful  phenomenon  is,  however,  much  relieved  by 
several  modifying  facts.  One  is  that  the  search-lights  of  history  and  phil¬ 
ology  reveal  for  the  principal  historic  faiths,  back  of  their  stages  and  condi¬ 
tions  of  luxuriantly  developed  polytheism,  the  existence  of  an  early,  or 
possibly  though  not  certainly,  primitive  monotheism.  This  point,  I  know, 
is  strongly  contested,  especially  by  many  whose  views  are  determined  by 
acceptance  of  the  evolutionist  hypothesis  of  the  derivative  origin  of  the 
human  race.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  evidence,  as  made  clear  through 
the  true  historical  method  of  investigation,  is  decisive  for  monotlieism  as 
the  earliest  known  form  of  theistic  conception  in  the  religions  of  Egypt, 
China,  India,  and  the  original  Druidism,  as  well  as  of  the  two  faiths  already 
classed  as  asserting  the  divine  unity. 

Polytheisms  are  found  to  be  actual  growths.  Tracing  them  back  they 
become  simpler  and  simpler.  “The  younger  the  polytheism  the  fewer  the 
gods,”  until  a  stage  is  reached  where  God  is  conceived  of  as  one  alone.  This 
accords,  too,  as  has  been  well  pointed  out,  with  the  psychological  genesis  of 
ideas — the  singular  number  preceding  the  plural,  the  idea  of  a  god  preced¬ 
ing  the  idea  of  gods,  the  affirmation,  “There  is  a  God,”  going  before  the 
affirmation  there  are  two  or  many  gods. 

Another  fact  of  belief  is  that  the  polytheisms  have  not  held  their  fields 
without  dissent  and  revolt.  Over  against  the  tendency  of  depraved  human¬ 
ity  to  corrupt  the  idea  of  God  and  multiply  imaginary  and  false  divinities, 
there  are  forces  that  act  for  correction  and  improvement.  The  human  soul 
has  been  formed  for  the  one  true  and  only  God.  Where  reason  is  highly 
developed  and  the  ijetsting  powers  of  the  intellect  and  conscience  are  earn¬ 
estly  applied  to  the  problems  of  existence  and  duty,  these  grotesque  and 
gross  polytheisms  prove  unsatisfactory. 

In  the  higher  accents  of  civilization,  faith  in  the  mythologic  divinities  is 
undermined  and  weakened.  Men  of  lofty  genius  arise,  men  of  finer  ethical 
intuitions  and  higher  religious  sense  and  aspiration,  and  better  conceptions 
of  the  power  by  and  in  which  men  live  and  move  are  reached  and  a  reform¬ 
ation  comes.  This  is  illustrated  in  the  epoch-making  teachings  of  Confu¬ 
cius  in  China,  or  Zoroaster  in  Persia,  of  Gautama  in  India,  and  of  Socrates, 
Plato,  Cicero,  and  kindred  spirits  in  Ancient  Greece  and  Rome.  In  their 
profounder  and  more  rational  inquiries  these,  and  such  as  these,  have 
pieiTced  the  darkness  and  confusion  and  caught  sure  vision  of  the  one  true 
eternal  God  above  all  gods,  at  once  explaining  the  significance  of  them  all, 


THE  1ST IC  TEACHINGS  OF  HISTORIC  FAITHS. 


93 


and  reducing  all  but  the  One  to  myths  or  symbols.  Polytheism,  which  has 
put  its  stamp  so  generally  on  the  historic  faiths,  has  not  held  them  in  undis¬ 
puted,  full,  unbroken  sway. 

Taking  these  modifying  facts  into  account,  the  testimony  of  these  faiths 
to  the  unity  of  God  is  found  to  be  far  larger  and  stronger  than  at  first  vi^w 
it  seemed.  For  neither  Christianity,  with  its  Old  Testament  beginning,  nor 
Mohammedanism,  has  been  a  small  thing  in  the  world.  They  have  spoken  for 
the  divine  unity  for  ages,  and  voiced  it  far  through  the  earth.  And 
unquestionably  the  faith  of  the  few  grand  sages,  the  great  thinkers  of  the 
race,  who,  by  “The  world’s  great  altar-stairs  that  slope  through  darkness 
up  to  God,”  have  risen  to  clear  view  of  the  sublime,  eternal  truth  of  the 
divine  unity,  is  worth  ten  thousand  times  more,  as  an  illumination  and 
authority  for  correct  faith,  than  the  ideas  and  practice  *of  the  ignorant  and 
unthinking  millions  that  have  crowded  the  polytheistic  worships. 

But  of  the  two  found  purely  monotheistic,  Christianity  has  unique  char¬ 
acteristics.  Its  witness  is  original  and  independent — not  derived  as  that  of 
Islam,  which  adopted  it  from  Judaic  and  Christian  teaching.  It  is  trini¬ 
tarian,  teaching  a  triune  mystery  of  life  in  the  one  infinite  and  eternal  God, 
as  over  against  Islam’s  repudiation  of  this  mystery.  The  trinities  detected 
in  the  other  religions  have  nothing  in  common  with  the  Christian  teaching 
save  the  use  of  the  number  three.  And  it  stands  accredited,  not  as  a  mere 
evolution  of  rational  knowledge,  a  scientific  discovery,  but  as  a  super¬ 
natural  revelation,  in  which  the  Eternal  One  Himself  says  to  the  world;  “I 
am  God,  and  beside  Me  there  is  none.” 

But  we  pass  to  another  point  of  comparison  in  the  principle  of  person¬ 
ality.  Under  this  principle  the  religions  of  the  world  fall  into  two  classes; 
Those  which  conceive  of  God  as  an  intelligent  being,  acting  in  freedom,  and 
those  that  conceive  of  Him  pantheistical ly  as  the  sum  of  nature  or  the 
impersonal  energy  or  soul  of  all  things.  lii  Christian  teaching  God  is  a 
personal  being  with  all  the  attributes  or  predicates  that  enter  into  the 
concept  of  such  being.  In  the  Christian  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  this  conception  is  never  for  a  moment  lowered  or  obscured. 
God,  though  immanent  in  nature,  filling  it  with  His  presence  and  power,  is 
yet  its  creator  and.  preserver,  keeping  it  subject  to  His  will  and  purposes, 
never  confounded  nor  identified  with  it.  He  is  the  infinite,  absolute  per¬ 
sonality. 

The  finding  of  this  feature  of  teaching  in  the  other  historic  religions 
depends  on  the  period  or  stage  of  development  at  which  we  take  them.  In 
the  polytheistic  forms  of  all  grades  of  development  we  are  bewildered  by 
the  immense  diversity  in  which,  in  this  particular,  the  objects  of  worship 
are  conceived,  from  the  intense  anthropomorphism  that  makes  the  gods  but 
mighty  men  or  apotheosized  ancestors  down  through  endless  personifica¬ 
tions  of  the  powers  and  operations  to  the  lowest  forms  of  fetichism.  Largely, 
however,  their  theistic  thought  includes  the  notion  of  personality,  and  so  a 
point  of  fellowship  is  established  between  the  worshiper  and  his  gods.  But 
we  have  to  do  mainly  with  the  monotheistic  faiths  or  periods  of  faith.  In 
the  early  belief  of  Egypt,  of  China,  of  India,  in  the  teaching  of  Zoroaster, 
of  Celtic  Druidism,  of  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  faith,  and  in  the  best 
intuition  of  Greek  and  Roman  philosophers,  without  doubt,  God  was  appre¬ 
hended  as  a  personal  god.  Indeed,  in  almost  the  whole  world’s  religious 
thinking  this  element  of  true  theistic  conception  has  had  more  or  less 
positive  recognition  and  maintenance.  It  seems  to  have  been  spontaneously 
and  necessarily  demanded  by  the  religious  sense  and  life. 

The  human  feeling  of  helplessness  and  need  called  for  a  God  who  could 
hear  and  understand,  feel  and  act.  And  whenever  thought  rose  beyond  the 
many  pseudo-gods  to  the  existence  of  the  one  true  God  as  a  creator  and 
ruler  of  the  world,  the  ten  thousand  marks  of  order,  plan,  and  purpose  in 
nature  speaking  to  men’s  hearts  and  reason  led  up  to  the  grand  truth  that 


94 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  Maker  of  all  is  a  thinker  and  both  knows  and  wills.  And  so  a  relation 
of  trust,  fellowship,  and  intercourse  was  found  and  recognized.  None  of 
the  real  feelings  of  worship,  love,  devotion,  gratitude,  consecration,  could 
live  and  act  simply  in  the  presence  of  an  impersonal,  unconscious,  fatefui 
energy  or  order  of  nature.  No  consistent  hope  of  a  conscious  personal 
future  life  can  be  established  except  as  it  is  rooted  in  faith  in  a  personal 
God. 

And  yet  the  personality  of  God  has  often  been  much  obscured  in  the 
historic  faiths.  The  observation  has  not  come  as  a  natural  and  spontane¬ 
ous  product  of  the  religious  impulse  of  consciousness,  but  of  mystic  specu¬ 
lative  philosophies.  The  phenomenon  j^resented  by  Spinozism  and  later 
pantheisms,  in  the  presence  of  Christianity,  was  substantially  anticij)ated 
again  and  again,  ages  ago,  in  the  midst  of  various  religious  faiths,  despite 
their  own  truer  version  of  the  eternal  God.  As  we  understand  it,  the 
philosophy  of  religion,  with  Hinduism,  the  hiter  Confucianism,  developed 
Parseeism,  and  Druidism  is  substantially  pantheistic,  reducing  God  to 
impersonal  existence  or  the  conscious  factors  and  forces  of  cosmic  order. 
It  marks  some  of  these  more  strongly  and  injuriously  than  others. 

How  far  do  the  religions  harmonize  in  including  creational  relation  and 
activity  in  their  conception  of  God?  In  Christianity,  as  you  know,  the 
notion  of  creatorship  is  inseperable  from  the  divine  idea.  “  In  the  begin¬ 
ning  God  created.”  Creator  is  another  name  for  Him.  How  is  it  in  the 
polytheistic  mythologies?  The  conception  is  thrown  into  inextricable  con¬ 
fusion.  In  some,  as  in  the  early  iGreek  and  Roman,  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  are  eternal,  and  the  gods,  even  the  highest,  are  their  offspring.  In 
advancing  stages  and  fuller  pantheons,  almost  everywhere,  the  notion  of 
creatorship  emerges  in  connection  with  the  mythologic  divinities.  In  the 
monotheisms,  whether  the  earlier  or  those  reached  in  philosophic  periods, 
it  is  clear  and  unequivocal  —  in  China,  India,  Egypt,  Persia,  and  the  Druidic 
teaching. 

Pantheistic  thought,  however,  while  it  offers  accounts  of  world  origins, 
confuses  or  overthrows  real  creational  action  by  various  processes  of  divine 
self-unfolding,  in  which  God  and  the  universe  are  identified,  and  either  the 
divine  is  lost  in  the  natural,  or  nature  itself  is  God.  The  pantheism  seems 
to  resolve  itself  sometimes  into  atheism;  sometimes  into  acosmism.  But 
while  the  creative  attribute  seems  to  appear  in  some  way  and  measure  in 
all  the  historic  religions,  I  have  found  no  instance  apart  from  Christianity 
and  its  derivatives  in  which  creatio  ex  nihilo,  or  absolute  creation,  is  taught. 
This  is  a  distinction  in  which  Christianity  must  be  counted  as  fairly  stand¬ 
ing  alone. 

A  point  of  high  importance  respects  the  inclusion  of  the  ethical  attribute 
in  the  notion  of  God  and  the  divine  government.  To  what  extent  do  they 
hold  him  not  only  a  governor,  but  a  moral  governor,  whose  will  enthrones 
righteousness  and  whose  administration  aims  at  moral  character  and  the 
blessedness  of  ethical  order  and  excellence?  The  comparison  on  this  point 
reveals  some  strange  phenomena.  In  the  nature-worships  and  polytheistic 
conditions  there  is  found  an  almost  complete  disconnection  between  religion 
and  morality,  the  rituals  of  worship  noi  being  at  all  adjusted  to  the  idea 
that  the  gods  were  holy,  sin-hating,  pure,  and  righteous.  The  grossest 
anthropomorphisms  have  prevailed,  and  almost  every  passion,  vice,  mean¬ 
ness,  and  wrong,  found  among  men  were  paralleled  in  the  nature  and  actions 
of  the  gods.  Often  their  very  worship  has  been  marked  by  horrible  and 
degrading  rites.  But  as  human  nature  carries  in  itself  amoral  constitution, 
and  the  reason  spontaneously  acts  in  the  way  of  moral  distinctions,  judg¬ 
ments,  and  demands,  it  necessarily,  as  it  advanced  in  knowledge,  credited 
the  objects  of  its  worship  with  more  or  less  of  the  moral  qualities  it  required 
in  men.  The  moral  institutions  and  demands  could  notact  with  clearness 
and  force  in  rude  and  uncivilized  men  and  peoples.  The  degrees  of  ethical 


THEISTIC  TEACHINGS  OF  HISTORIC  FAITHS. 


95 


elements  in  their  conception  of  the  gods  reflected  the  less  or  greater 
development  of  the  moral  life  that  evolved  the  theistic  ideas. 

But  whenever  the  religious  faith  was  monotheistic,  and  especially  in  its 
more  positive  and  clear  forms,  the  logic  of  reason  and  conscience  lifted 
thought  into  clear  and  unequivocal  apprehension  of  the  supreme  being  as 
the  power  whose  government  makes  for  righteousness.  Finely  and  impres¬ 
sively  does  this  attribute  come  to  view  in  the  teachings  of  the  faith  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians,  of  Confucianism,  of  Zoroastrianism,  of  Druidism,  and  of 
the  theism  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  sages.  But  Brahmanism,  that  mighty 
power  of  the  East,  though  it  abounds  in  moral  precepts  and  virtuous  maxims 
and  rules  of  life,  fails  to  give  these  a  truly  religious  or  theistic  sanction  by 
any  clear  assurance  that  the  advancement  or  triumph  of  the  right  and  good 
is  the  aim  of  the  divine  government.  Indeed,  the  pantheistic  thought  of 
that  system,  obliterating  the  divine  personality,  leaves  scarcely  any  room  for 
a  moral  purpose,  or  any  other  purpose,  in  the  cosmic  energy.  And  Budd¬ 
hism,  though  largely  a  philosophical  ethic  only — however,  of  the  “  good  ” 
sort — yet  by  its  failure  to  make  positive  assertion  of  a  supreme  being,  save 
simply  as  the  infinite  unknown  behind  nature  of  which  (Brahma)  nothing 
may  be  predicted  except  that  it  is,  perceives,  and  is  blessed,  fails  also,  of 
course,  to  affirm  any  moral  predicates  for  its  nature  or  movement.  The 
ethics  of  life,  divorced  from  religious  sanction,  stand  apart  from  theistical 
dynamics. 

Christianity  makes,  the  moral  attributes  of  God  fundamental.  His  gov¬ 
ernment  and  providence  have  a  supreme  ethical  aim,  the  overthrow  of  sin 
with  its  disorder  and  misery  and  the  making  of  all  things  new  in  a  kingdom 
in  which  righteousness  shall  dwell.  And  we  rejoice  to  trace  from  the  great 
natural  religions  round  the  globe  how  generally  and  sometimes  inspiringly 
this  grand  feature  of  true  theism  has  been  discerned  and  used  for  the  up¬ 
lifting  of  character  and  life — furnishing  a  testimony  obscured  or  broken 
only  by  the  crudest  fetichisms,  or  lowest  polytheisms,  or  by  pantheistic 
teachings  that  reduce  God  to  impersonality  where  the  concept  of  moral 
character  becomesflnapplicable. 

But  a  single  additional  feature  of  theistic  teaching  can  be  brought  into 
this  comparative  view.  How  far  do  the  various  religions  include  in  their 
idea  of  God  redemptive  relation  and  administration?  Some  comparativists, 
as  you  are  aware,  class  two  of  them  as  religions  of  redemption  or  deliver- 
ance — Buddhism  and  Christianity.  But  if  Buddhism  is  to  be  so  'classed 
there  is  no  reason  for  not  including  Brahmanism.  For,  as  Professor  Max 
Muller  has  so  clearly  shown.  Buddhism  rests  upon  and  carried  forward  the 
same  fundamental  conceptions  of  the  world  and  human  destiny  and  the 
way  of  its  attainment.  They  both  start  v/ith  the  fact  that  the  condition  of 
man  is  unhajjpy  through  his  own  errors,  and  set  forth  a  way  of  deliverance 
or  salvation.  Both  connect  this  state  of  misery  with  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  metempsychosis,  innumerably  repeated  incarnations,  or  births 
and  deaths,  with  a  possible  deliverance  in  a  final  absorption  into  the  repose 
of  absolute  existence  or  cessation  of  conscious  individuality — Nirvana. 

It  is  connected,  too,  in  both,  with  a  philosophy  of  the  world  that  pan- 
theistically  reduces  God  into  impersonality,  making  the  divine  but  the  ever- 
moving  course  of  nature.  And  the  deliverance  comes  as  no  free  gift, 
gracious  help,  or  accomjfiishment  of  God,  but  an  issue  that  a  man  wins  for 
himself  by  knowledge,  ascetic  repression  of  desire  and  self -reduction  out  of 
conscious  individuality,  reabsorption  into  primal  being.  God  is  not  conceived 
of  as  a  being  of  redeeming  love  and  loving  activity.  A  philosophy  of  self¬ 
redemption  is  substituted  for  faith  and  surrender  to  a  redeeming  god.  As 
I  understand  it,  it  is  a  philosophy  that  pessimistically  condemns  life  itself 
as  an  evil  and  misfortune  to  be  escaped  from  and  to  be  escaped  by  self¬ 
redemption,  because  life  finds  no  saving  in  God.  And  so  these  faiths  can 
not  fairly  be  said  to  attribute  to  God  redemptive  character  and  adminis- 
trationp 


96 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Christianity  stands,  therefore,  as  the  only  faith  that  truly  and  fully  con¬ 
ceives  of  God  in  redemptory  rulership  and  activity.  In  this  faith  “  God  is 
love,”  in  deepest  and  most  active  sympathy  with  man.  While  he  rules  for 
the  maintenance  and  victory  of  righteousness,  he  uses  also  redeeming  action 
for  the  same  high  ends —  recovering  the  lost  to  holiness.  In  this  comes  in 
the  unique  supernatural  character  of  Christianity.  It  is  not  a  mere  evolu¬ 
tion  of  natural  religious  intuitions.  Even  as  a  revelation,  it  is  not  simply 
an  ethic  or  a  philosophy  of  happy  life.  Christianity  stands  fundamentally 
and  essentially  for  a  course  of  divine  redemptive  action,  the  incoming  pres¬ 
ence  and  activity  of  the  supernatural  in  the  world  and  time. 

Let  us  fix  this  clearly  in  mind,  as  its  distinction  among  all  religions, 
causing  it  to  stand  apart  and  alone.  Prom  the  beginning  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  to  the  end  of  the  New,  :.t  is  a  casclosure  in  record  of  what  God  in 
grace  has  done,  is  doing,  and  will  do  for  the  deliverance,  recovery,  and 
eternal  salvation  from  sin  of  lapsed.;  sin-enslaved  humanity.  It  is  a  super¬ 
natural  redemptory  work  and  provision  with  an  inspired  instruction  as  to 
the  way  and  duty  of  life.  If  Christianity  be  not  this  Christendom  has  been 
deluded.  It  is  the  religion  of  the  divine  love  and  help  which  the  race  needs 
and  only  God  could  give. 

Let  us  sum  uji  the  results  of  this  hurried  comparison.  On  the  funda¬ 
mental  point  of  affirming  or  implying  the  existence  of  God  the  testimony  is 
a  rich  harmony.  To  the  monotheistic  conception  there  is  strong  witness 
from  the  chief  earliest  great  historical  religions— ithe  Egyptian,  Chinese, 
Indian,  Original  Zoroastrianism,  and  Druidism,  obscured  and  almost  lost  in 
later  growths  of  enormous  polytheisms,  till  restored  there  and  elsewhere  in 
greater  or  less  degree  under  the  better  intuitions  of  sages,  including  those 
of  Greece  and  Rome.  The  divine  personality  is  witnessed  to,  though  often 
under  the  rudest  and  most  distorted  notions,  by  almost  all  religions,  but 
darkened  out  of  sight  by  pantheistic  developments  in  India,  China,  Druid¬ 
ism,  and  among  the  Greeks.  Creational  activity  in  some  sense  and  measure  has 
been  almost  everywhere  included  in  the  idea  of  God;  but  creatio  ex  nihilo 
seems  peculiar  to  Christianity.  The  attribution  of  ethical  attributes  to  God 
has  varied  in  degrees 'according  to  the  civilization  and  culture  of  the  tribes 
and  nationsjor  their  religious  leaders,  made  inconsistent  here  and  there  by 
pantheistic  theories — Christianity,  however,  giving  the  moral  idea  supreme 
emphasis.  And  finally,  redeeming  love  and  effort  in  redemption  from  moral 
evil  is  clearly  asserted  only  in  the  Christian  teaching. 

The  other  historic  faiths  have  grasped  some  of  the  great  essential  ele¬ 
ments  of  theistic  truth.  We  rejoice  to  trace  and  recognize  them.  But 
they  all  shine  forth  in  Christian  revelation.  As  I  see  it,  the  other  historic 
beliefs  have  no  elements  of  true  theistic  conception  to  give  to  Christianity 
what  it  has  not,  but  Christianity  has  much  to  give  to  the  others.  It  unites 
and  consummates  out  of  its  own  given  light  all  the  theistic  truth  that  has 
been  sought  and  seen  in  partial  vision  by  sincere  souls  along  the  ages  and 
round  the  world.  And  more,  it  gives  what  they  have  not — a  disclosure  of 
God’s  redeeming  love  and  action,  presenting  to  mankind  the  way,  the  truth, 
and  the  life.  And  we  joy  to  hold  it  and  offer  it  as  the  hope  of  the  world. 


THEOLOGY  OF  JUDAISM. 

DR.  ISAAC  WISE  RABBI  OF  CINCINNATI. 

“We  are  now  to  have  the  pleasure,”  said  the  chairman,  “of 
hearing  from  that  Jerusalem,  which  is  the  mother  of  us  all. 
The  oldest  faith  will  speak  to  us.  I  am  sure  that  all  who  call 


THEOLOGY  OF  JUDAISM. 


97 


tliemselves  Christians  are  ready  to  respond  to  the  simple  creed 
of  that  ancient  faith  —  ‘Hear,  oh  Israel,  the  Lord,  our  God,  is 
one  Lord’ — and  we  are  also  ready  to  join  in  the  testimony  of 
Israel’s  greatest  psalmist — ‘Happy  is  he  who  has  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel  for  his  trust.’  I  take  great  pleasure  in  introduc¬ 
ing  to  you  Dr.  Isaac  M.  Wise,  a  well-known  scholar,  who,  by  his 
teaching,  has  left  a  deep  impression  on  the  public  thought  of 
this  country.” 

The  theology  of  Judaism,  in  the  opinion  of  many,  is  a.  new  academic 
discipline.  They  maintain  Judaism  is  identical  with  legalism,  it  is  religion 
of  deeds  without  dogmas.  Theology  is  a  systematic  treatise  on  the  dogmas 
of  any  religion.  There  could  be  no  theology  of  Judaism.  The  modern 
latitudinarians  and  syncretists  on  their  part  maintain  we  need  more 
religion  and  less  theology,  or  no  theology  at  all,  deeds  and  no  creeds.  For 
religion  is  undefinable  and  purely  subjective;  theology  defines  and  casts 
free  sentiments  into  dictatorial  words.  Religion  unites  and  theology  divides 
the  human  family,  not  seldom,  into  hostile  factions. 

Research  and  reflection  antagonize  these  objections.  They  lead  to  con¬ 
viction,  both  historically  and  psychologically.  Truth  unites  and  appeases; 
error  begets  antagonism  and  fanaticism.  Error,  whether  in  the  spontaneous 
belief  or  in  the  scientific  formulas  of  theology,  is  the  cause  of  the  distract¬ 
ing  fractionalism  in  the  transcendental  realm.  Truth  well  defined  is  the  most 
successful  arbitrator  among  mental  combatants.  It  seems,  therefore,  the 
best  method  to  unite  the  human  family  in  harmony,  peace,  and  good  will  is 
to  construct  a  rational  and  humane  system  of  theology,  as  free  from  error 
as  possible,  clearly  defined,  and  appealing  directly  to  the  reason  and  con¬ 
science  of  all  normal  men.  Research  and  reflection  in  the  field  of  Israel’s 
literature  and  history  produce  the  conviction  that  a  code  of  laws  is  no  reli¬ 
gion.  Yet  legalism  and  observances  are  but  one  form  of  Judaism.  The  un¬ 
derlying  principles  and  doctrines  are  essentially  Judaism  and  these  are 
material  to  the  theology  of  Judaism  and  these  are  essentially  dogmatic. 

Scriptures  from  the  first  to  the  last  page  advance  the  doctrine  of  divine 
inspiration  and  revelation :  Ratiocinate  this  as  you  may,  it  always  centers 
in  the  proposition:  There  exists  an  inter-relation  and  a  faculty  of  inter¬ 
communication  in  the  nature  of  that  universal,  prior,  and  superior  being 
and  the  individualized  being  called  man;  and  this  also  is  a  dogma. 

Scriptures  teach  that  the  Supreme  Being  is  also  Sovereign  Providence. 
He  provides  sustenance  for  all,  all  that  stand  in  need  of  it.  He  foresees  and 
foreordains  all,  shapes  the  destinies  and  disposes  the  affairs  of  man  and 
mankind,  and  takes  constant  cognizance  of  their  doings.  He  is  the  law¬ 
giver,  the  judge,  and  the  executor  of  his  laws.  Press  all  this  to  the  ultimate 
abstraction  and  formulate  it  as  you  may,  it  always  centers  in  the  proposi¬ 
tion  of ‘‘Die  sittliche  Weltordnung,”  the  universal,  moral,  just,  benevolent 
and  beneficent  theocracy,  which  is  the  cause,  source  and  textbook  of  all 
canons  of  ethics;  and  this  again  is  a  dogma. 

Scriptures  teach  that  virtue  and  righteousness  are  rewarded;  vice, 
misdeeds,  crimes,  sins,  are  punished,  inasmuch  as  they  are  free-will  actions 
of  man;  and  adds  thereto  that  the  free  and  benevolent  Deity  under  certain 
conditions  pardons  sin,  iniquity,  and  transgression.  Here  is  an  apparent 
contradiction  between  justice  and  grace  in  the  Supreme  Being.  Press  this 
to  its  ultimate  abstraction,  formulate  it  as  you  may  and  you  will  always 
arrive  at  some  proposition  concerning  atonement,  and  this  also  is  a  dogma. 

As  far  back  into  the  twilight  of  myths,  the  early  dawn  of  human  rea^ 


98 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


son,  as  the  origin  of  human  knowledge  was  traced,  mankind  was  in  posses¬ 
sion  of  four  dogmas.  They  were  always  present  in  men’s  consciousness, 
although  x^hilosophy  has  not  discovered  the  antecedents  of  the  syllogism, 
of  which  these  are  the  conclusions.  The  exceptions  are  only  such  tribes, 
clans  or  individuals  that  had  not  yet  become  conscious  of  their  own  senti¬ 
ments,  not  being  crystalized  into  conceptions,  and  in  consequence  thereof 
had  no  words  to  express  them,  but  those  are  very  rare  exceptions.  These 
four  dogmas  are: 

1.  There  exists — in  one  or  more  forms  of  being — a  superior  being,  liv¬ 
ing,  mightier  and  higher  than  any  other  being  known  or  imagined.  (Exis¬ 
tence  of  God.) 

2.  There  is  in  the  nature  of  this  superior  being,  and  in  the  nature  of 
man,  the  capacity  and  desire  of  mutual  sympathy,  inter-relation  and  inter¬ 
communication.  (Revelation  and  worshiji.) 

3.  The  good  and  the  right,  the  true  and  the  beautiful,  are  desirable,  the 
opposites  thereof  are  detestable  and  repugnant  to  the  superior  being  and  to 
man.  (^Conscience,  ethics,  and  msthetics.) 

4.  There  exists  for  man  a  state  of  felicity  or  torment  beyond  this  state 
of  mundane  life.  (Immortality,  reward  or  punishment.) 

These  four  dogmas  of  the  human  family  are  the  postulate  of  all  theol¬ 
ogy  and  theologies,  and  they  are  axiomatic.  They  require  no  proof,  for 
what  all  men  always  knew  is  self-evident;  and  no  proof  can  be  adduced  to 
them,  for  they  are  transcendent.  Philosophy,  with  its  apparatus  and 
methods  of  cogitation,  can  not  reach  them,  can  not  expound  them,  can  not 
negate  tnem,  and  none  ever  did  prove  such  negation  satisfactorily  even  to 
the  individual  reasoner  himself. 

All  systems  of  theology  are  built  on  the  four  postulates.  They  differ 
only  in  the  definitions  of  the  quiddity,  the  extension  and  expansion  of  these 
dogmas  in  accordance  with  the  progression  or  retrogression  of  different 
ages  and  countries.  They  differ  in  their  derivation  of  doctrine  or  dogma 
from  the  main  postulates;  their  reduction  to  practice  in  ethics  and  worship, 
forms  and  formulas;  their  methods  of  application  to  human  affairs,  and 
their  notions  of  obligation,  accountability,  hope,  or  fear. 

These  accumulated  differences  in  the  various  systems  of  theology,  inas¬ 
much  as  they  .are  not  logically  contained  in  these  postulates,  are  subject  to 
criticisms;  an  appeal  to  reason  is  always  legitimate,  a  rational  justification 
is  requisite.  The  arguments  advanced  in  all  these  cases  are  not  always 
appeals  to  the  standard  of  reason — therefore  the  disagreements — they  are 
mostly  historical.  “Whatever  we  have  not  from  the  knowledge  of  all  man¬ 
kind,  we  have  from  the  knowledge  of  a  very  respectable  portion  of  it  in 
our  holy  books  and  sacred  traditions”  is  the  main  argument.  So  each 
system  of  theology,  in  as  far  as  it  differs  from  others,  relies  for  proof  of  its 
particular  conceptions  and  knowledges  on  its  traditions,  written  or  unwrit¬ 
ten,  as  the  knowledge  of  a  portion  of  mankind;  so  each  particular  theology 
depends  on  its  sources. 

So  also  does  Judaism.  It  is  based  upon  the  four  postulates  of  all 
theology  and  in  justification  of  its  extensions  and  expansions,  its  derivation 
of  doctrine  and  dogma  from  the  main  postulates,  its  entire  development, 
it  points  to  its  sources  and  traditions  and  at  various  times  also  to  the 
standard  of  reason,  not,  however,  till  the  philosophers  pressed  it  to  reason 
in  self-defense;  because  it  claimed  the  divine  authority  for  its  sources, 
higher  than  which  there  is  none.  And  so  we  have  arrived  at  our  subject 

We  know  what  theology  is,  so  we  must  define  here  only  what  Judaism 
is.  Judaism  is  the  complex  of  Israel’s  religious  sentiments  ratiocinated  to 
conceptions  in  harmony  with  its  Jehovistic  God -cognition. 

These  conceptions,  made  permanent  in  the  consciousness  of  this  people, 
are  the  religions  knowledges  which  form  the  substratum  to  the  theology  of 
Judaism.  The  Thor  ah  maintains  that  its  “  teaching  and  canon  ”  are  divine. 


THEOLOGY  OF  JUDAISM. 


Man’s  knowledge  of  the  true  and  the  good  comes  directly  to  human  reason 
and  conscience  (which  is  unconscious  reason)  from  the  supreme  and  uni¬ 
versal  reason,  the  absolutely  true  and  good;  or  it  comes  to  him  indirectly 
from  the  same  source  by  manifestations  of  nature,  the  facts  of  history  and 
man’s  power  of  inductioc.  This  principle  is  in  conformity  with  the  second 
postulate  of  theology,  and  its  extension  in  harmony  with  the  standard  of 
reason. 

All  knowledge  of  God  and  His  attributes,  the  true  and  the  good,  came 
to  man  by  successive  revelations,  of  the  indirect  kind  first,  which  we  may 
call  natural  revelation,  and  the  direct  kind  afterward,  which  we  may  call 
transcendental  revelation;  both  these  revelations  concerning  God  and  His 
substantial  attributes,  together  with  their  historical  genesis,  are  recorded 
in  the  Thorah  in  the  seven  holy  names  of  God,  to  which  neither  prophet 
nor  philosopher  in  Israel  added  even  one,  and  all  of  which  constantly  recur 
in  all  Hebrew  literature. 

What  we  call  the  God  of  revelation  is  actually  intended  to  designate 
God  as  made  known  in  the  transcendental  revelations  including  the  suc¬ 
cessive  God-ideas  of  natural  revelation.  His  attributes  of  relation  are  made 
known  only  in  such  passages  of  the  Thorah,  in  which  He  Himself  is  reported 
to  have  spoken  to  man  of  Himself,  His  name  and  His  attributes,  and  not  by 
any  induction  or  reference  from  any  law,  story,  or  doing  ascribed  to  God 
anywhere.  The  prophets  only  expand  or  define  those  conceptions  of  Deity 
which  these  passages  of  direct  transcendental  revelation  in  the  Thorah  con¬ 
tain.  There  exists  no  other  source  from  which  to  derive  the  cognition  of 
the  God  of  revelation. 

Whatever  theory  or  practice  is  contrary  or  contradictory  to  Israel’s  God- 
cognition  can  have  no  place  in  the  theology  of  Judaism.  It  compromises 
necessarily. 

The  doctrine  concerning  providence,  its  relations  to  the  individual,  the 
nations,  and  mankind  includes  the  doctrine  of  covenant  between  God 
and  man,  God  and  the  fathers  of  the  nation,  God  and  the  people  of  Israel, 
or  the  election  of  Israel. 

The  doctrine  concerning  atonement.  Are  sins  expiated,  forgiven  or  par¬ 
doned,  and  which  are  the  conditions  or  means  for  such  expiation  of  sins? 

This  leads  us  to  the  doctrine  of  divine  worship  generally,  its  obligatory 
nature,  its  proper  means  and  forms,  its  subjective  or  objective  import,  which 
includes  also  the  precepts  concerning  holy  seasons,  holy  places,  holy  con¬ 
vocations  and  consecrated  or  specially  appointed  persons  to  conduct  such 
divine  worship,  and  the  standard  to  distinguish  conscientiously  in  the  Thorah, 
the  laws,  statutes,  and  ordinances  which  were  originally  intended  to  be 
always  obligatory,  from  those  which  were  originally  intended  for  a  certain 
time  and  place,  and  under  special  circumstances. 

The  doctrine  concerning  the  human  will;  is  it  free,  conditioned  or  con¬ 
trolled  by  reason,  faith,  or  any  other  agency?  This  includes  the  postulate 
of  ethics. 

The  duty  and  accountability  of  man  in  all  his  relations  to  God,  man,  and 
himself,  to  his  nation  and  to  his  government  and  to  the  whole  of  the 
human  family.  This  includes  the  duty  we  owe  to  the  past,  to  that  which 
the  process  of  history  develoijed  and  established. 

This  leads  to  the  doctrine  concerning  the  future  of  mankind,  the  ulti¬ 
mate  of  the  historical  process,  to  culminate  a  higher  or  lower  status  of 
humanity.  This  includes  the  question  of  perfectibility  of  human  nature  and 
the  possibilities  it  contains,  which  establishes  a  standard  of  duty  we  owe  to 
the  future. 

The  doctrine  concerning  personal  immortality,  future  reward  and 
punishment,  the  means  by  which  immortality  is  attained,  the  condition  on 
which  it  depends,  what  insures  reward  or  punishment. 

The  theology  of  Judaism  as  a  systematic  structure  must  solve  these 


100 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


problems  on  the  basis  of  Israel’s  God-cognition.  This  being  the  highest  in 
man’s  cognition,  the  solution  of  all  problems  upon  this  basis,  ecclesiastical, 
ethical,  or  in  eschatology,  must  be  final  in  theology,  provided  the  judgment 
which  leads  to  this  solution  is  not  erroneous.  An  erroneous  judgment  from 
true  antecedents  is  possible.  In  such  cases  the  first  safeguard  is  an  appeal 
to  reason,  and  the  second,  though  not  secondary,  is  an  appeal  to  holy  writ 
and  its  best  commentaries.  Wherever  these  two  authorities  agree,  reason 
and  holy  writ,  that  the  solution  of  any  problem  from  the  basis  of  Israel’s 
God-cognition  is  correct,  certitude  is  established,  the  ultimate  solution  is 
found. 

This  is  the  structure  of  a  systematic  theology.  Israel’s  God-cognition  is 
the  substratum,  the  substance;  holy  writ  and  the  standard  of  reason  are  the 
desiderata,  and  the  faculty  of  reason  is  the  apparatus  to  solve  the  problems 
which  in  their  unity  are  the  theology  of  J udaism,  higher  than  which  none 
can  be. 


THE  ANCIENT  RELIGION  OF  INDIA  AND  PRIMITIVE 

REVELATION. 

KEY.  MAURICE  PHILLIPS  OF  MADRAS. 

The  more  we  go  back,  the  more  we  examine  the  germs  of  any  religion,  the 
purer  I  believe  we  shall  find  the  conceptions  of  the  Deity.— Max  Mullee. 

The  ancient  religion  of  India  is  revealed  in  the  Vedas.  The  Vedas  con¬ 
tain  three  strata  of  literature  extending  over  a  thousand  years,  viz.,  the 
Manthras,  the  oldest  hymns;  the  Brahmanas,  treatises  of  ritualism,  and  the 
Upanishadas,  philosophical  disquisitions.  Each  of  these  mark  a  distinct 
period  in  the  development  of  religion.  To  do  justice,  therefore,  to  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  this  paper  it  would  be  necessary  to  trace  the  Vedic  doctrine  of  the¬ 
ology,  cosmology,  anthropology,  and  soteriology  in  each  of  these  periods, 
and  to  point  out  what  light  they  throw  on  the  Bible  doctrine  of  a“  primitive 
revelation.”  Space,  however,  will  not  permit  me  to  do  more  than  to  trace 
roughly  the  first,  viz.,  the  Vedic  doctrine  of  God,  and  to  show  that  it  can  be 
much  more  rationally  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that  it  is  a  “  rem¬ 
iniscence  ”  than  on  the  supposition  that  it  is  an  evolution. 

The  Manthras  brings  before  us  the  ancient  Hindus,  then  called  Aryans, 
worshiping  the  elements  of  nature  as  living  persons,  such  as  Dyaus,  the 
bright  sky;  Varuna,  the  all-embracing  firmament;  Indra,  the  cloudy  atmos¬ 
phere;  Surya,  the  sun;  Ushas,  the  dawn,  and  Prithivi,  the  broad  earth. 
Hence,  their  worship  is  denominated  “  physiolatry.”  This  term, however,  does 
not  cover  the  whole  ground.  Their  worship  included  the  elements  of  nature 
and  something  more;  it  included  the  natural  and  supernatural,  so  blended 
as  to  be  indistinguishable.  Were  it  all  nature  there  would  be  no  room  for 
personificatmn,  for  personification  implies  the  knowledge  of  a  person,  and 
the  personification  of  a  natural  object  as  an  object  of  worship  implies  the 
conception,  more  or  less  clear,  of  what  we  call  God. 

The  recognition  of  the  supernatural  in  the  natural  is  the  result  of  that 
tendency  deeply  rooted  in  humanity  which  impels  man  everywhere  to  seek 
and  to  worship  some  being  or  beings  greater  than  himself.  Hence  he  grows 
in  religion  as  naturally  and  unconsciously  as  he  grows  into  manhood. .  He 
no  sooner  wakes  into  the  consciousness  that  he  is  a  being  separate  from 
nature  than  he  feels  his  dependence  upon  and  moral  relationship  to  some 
being  above  nature,  to  whom  he  owes  homage.  This  is  the  first  sense  of  the 
Godhead,  the  sensus  numinis,  “  a  sense  divine  of  something  interfused,”  a 
sense  not  the  result  of  reasoning,  nor  generalization,  but  an  immediate  per¬ 
ception  as  real  and  irresistible  as  that  of  the  Ego.  And  as  a  man  is  con- 


THE  ANCIENT  RELIGION  OF  INDIA. 


101 


scious  of  the  Ego  before  knowing  what  man  is,  so  he  is  conscious  of  the 
supernatural  before  knowing  what  God  is.  This  is  necessarily  a  very  vague 
and  incomplete  idea  of  the  Godhead,  so  vague  as  to  elude  definition  and  so 
incomplete  as  not  to  be  named. 

The  Pelasgians,  according  to  Herodotus,  worshiped  gods  without  hav¬ 
ing  names  for  any  of  them;  and  the  ancient  Germans,  according  to  Tacitus, 
worshiped  God  as  “  that  secret  thing  known  only  by  reverence.”  Many  of 
the  Vedic  bards  express  their  consciousness  of  Him  by  the  phrase  That” 
and  “  That  One.”  They  know  that  He  is,  but  where  and  how  they  know 
not,  and  hence  they  tried  to  find  him  in  the  phenomena  of  nature. 

In  perceiving  the  infinite  we  neither  count,  nor  measure,  nor  compare,  nor 
name.  We  know  not  what  it  is,  but  we  know  that  it  is,  because  we  actually  feel  it 
and  are  brought  into  contact  with  it.— Max. Mullp.r’  s  Hilbert  Lectures. 

Besides  that  definite  consciousness  which  logic  formulates  into  laws,  there  is 
also  a  definite  consciousness  which  can  not  be  formulated.  Besides  complete 
thoughts,  and  besides  the  thoughts  which  though  incomplete  admit  of  comple¬ 
tion,  there  are  thoughts  which  it  is  impossible  to  complete  and  yet  which  are  still 
real,  in  the  sense  that  they  are  normal  affections  of  the  mind.— Herbert  tipencer. 

But  thougb  they  knew  not  God  as  a  personal  being  distinct  from  natural 
phenomena,  they  possessed  a  wonderful  knowledge  of  the  actions  and  attri¬ 
butes  which  pre-eminently  belong  to  Him.  They  ascribe  to  the  personified 
elements  of  nature  the  function  of  creator,  preserver,  and  ruler,  and  the 
attributes  of  infinity,  omniscience,  omnipotence,  immortality,  righteousness, 
holiness,  and  mercy.  The  content  of  this  knowledge  is  far  more  definite 
and  extensive  than  that  furnished  by  the  sensus  numinis.  The  question 
then  arises,  how  do  they  acquire  this  knowledge?  An  answer  to  this  ques¬ 
tion  will  make  clear  the  correctness  of  our  definition  of  the  “first  sense  of 
the  Godhead,”  and  the  means  by  which  it  was  developed  so  as  to  embrace 
the  characteristics  of  the  Deity. 

There  are  only  three  answers  conceivable.  They  acquired  it  (1)  by  intu¬ 
ition;  or  (2)  by  experience;  or  (3)  by  revelation. 

Did  they  acquire  it  by  intuition? 

We  have  stated  already  what  knowledge  of  God  we  conceive  man  capa¬ 
ble  of  acquiring  by  intuition,  viz.:  A  vague,  indefinite  idea  of  the  super¬ 
natural  in  the  natural,  of  some  being  above  himself  on  whom  he  depends 
and  whom  he  should  worship.  But  who  that  being  is  and  his  attributes 
are,  he  has  no  means  of  knowing.  If  this  be  correct,  it  follows  that  the 
ancient  Hindus  did  not  acquire  their  knowledge  of  a  divine  function  and 
attribute  by  intuition. 

In  order  to  test  the  validity  of  this  position,  let  us  suppose  that  man 
possesses  a  power  of  intuition  transcending  that  of  the  sensus  numinis,  by 
means  of  which  he  is  able,  so  to  speak,  to  gaze  immediately  on  God;  and  to 
this  power  let  us  ascribe  the  Vedic  knowledge  of  the  divine  functions  and 
attributes.  No  one  will  doubt,  I  presume,  that  in  a  mental  intuition  of 
this  kind  it  is  inconceivable  that  one  can  acquire  knowledge  of  the  divine 
functions  and  attributes  without  at  the  same  time  acquiring  knowledge  of 
the  divine  person] to  whom  they  belong. 

It  is  historically  trufe,  however  that  the  ancient  Hindus  did  not  know 
God  as  a  person  distinct  from  nature;  they  only  knew  of  His  functions  and 
attributes,  which  they  applied  indiscriminately  to  all  the  gods  of  their  pan¬ 
theon,  the  personified  elements  of  nature.  All  these  gods  are  alike  supreme, 
creators,  preservers,  omnipotent,  beneficient,  immortal. 

Among  you,  O,  gods,  there  is  none  that  is  small,  none  that  is  young;  for  all  are 
great  indeed.— i2.  F,,  vUL,  30. 

It  might  be  affirmed  that  the  personality  of  God  was  originally  appre¬ 
hended  by  man,  and  that,  in  course  of  time,  it  gradually  faded  from  his 
memory  till  nothing  was  left  but  the  divine  attribute.  This  is  inconsistent 
with  the  supposition  that  m.an  possesses  a  power  of  intuition  transcending 
that  of  the  sensus  numinis.  For  as  long  as  man  is  conscious,  he  must  be 


102 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


conscious  of  that  power,  and  if  that  power  once  supplied  him  with  the 
knowledge  of  God  and  His  attributes,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  it 
will  not  always  do  so. 

Again,  had  the  ancient  Hindus  acquired  their  knowledge  of  the  divine 
functions  and  attributes  by  intuition,  which  intuition  involves  a  knowledge 
of  the  divine  person,  and  assuming  that  the  mental  powers  and  the  spir¬ 
itual  necessities  of  man  are  similar  everywhere,  we  must  suppose  that  other 
nations  would  have  acquired  divine  knowledge  in  the  same:  way.  There  is 
no  fact,  however,  better  known  To  the  student  of  ancient  religion  than  that 
no  individuals,  much  less  nations,  when  left  to  themselves,  have  ever 
acquired  anything  like  a  clear  and  certain  conception  of  a  supreme  being 
distinct  from  nature.  “  Even  Plato*  did  not  make  his  way  up' to  The  idea  of 
a  divine,  self-conscious,  personal  being;  nor' distinctly  propounded  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  personality  of  God.  It  is  true  that  Aristotle  maintained  more 
definitely  than  Plato  that  the  Deity  must  be  a  personal  being.  But  even 
for  him  it  was  not  absolute,  free,  creative  power,  but  one  limited  by  primor¬ 
dial  matter;  not  the  world’s  creator,  but  only  one  who  gave  shape  to  the 
rude  materials,  and  so  not  truly  absolute.” 

If  the  ancient  Hindus  did  not  acquire  their  knowledge  of  the  divine 
functions  and  attributes  intuitively,  did  they  acquire  it  empirically  ? 

We  acquire  knowledge  by  experience,  by  what  we  see,  hear,  and  feel. 
And  the  conclusions  of  experience  are  wider  than  its  data.  We  have  the 
concepts  of  infinite  space  and  time  as  an  inference  from,  or  an  intuition  by, 
the  finite  space  and  time  supplied  to  us  by  the  senses.  When  we  look  back 
into  space  as  far  as  we  can  see  we  can  neither  fix  its  beginning  nor  its  end¬ 
ing.  And  when  we  contemplate  time,  whether  we  look  backward  or  for¬ 
ward,  there  is  always  a  beyond  and  a  before.  Both  time  and  space  are  to 
us  boundless,  infinite:  Therefore  there  is  no  apriori  reason  why  the  an¬ 
cient  Hindus  should  not  have  acquired  their  knowledge  of  the  divine  attri¬ 
butes  and  functions  by  the  impressions  of  sense  and  the  reflections  of 
reason — the  mind  in  contact  with  the  external  wwld. 

By  contemplating  the  boundlessness  of  the  firmament  from  which  the 
dawn  and  the  sun  flash  forth  every  morning  they  might  have  acquired  the 
concept  of  the  infinite  to  which  they  gave  expression  in  Aditi.  The  regu¬ 
larity  with  which  the  heavenly  bodies  move,  the  succession  of  day  and 
night,  and  the  periodical  recurrence  of  the  seasons  within  the  sphere  of 
Varuna,  the  heaven-god,  might  have  suggested  the  idea  that  he  is\the  ruler 
of  all  things,  visible  and  invisible,  whose  laws  are  fixed  and  unassailable. 
The  permanenceof  the  firmament  as  contrasted  with  the  visible  movements 
of  the  sun,  moon,,  and  stars,  the  clouds,  the  storms,  and  the  changes  and 
bustle  of  this  noisy  world,  might  have  originated  the  idea  of  undecaying, 
immortal,  or  eternal.  Again,  when  contemplating  the  heaven-god  en¬ 
throned  high  above  the  earth,  with  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  as  eyes  pene¬ 
trating  the  darkness  and  seeing  all  that  takes  place  in  the  world  below, 
what  is  the  more  natural  than  that  they  should  call  him  asura  visvadevas, 
the  all-knowing  spirit  or  the  omniscient. 

Moreover,  perceiving  that  light  and  form,  color  and  beauty,  emerge  every 
morning  from  a  gloom  in  which  all  objects  seem  confounded,  the  old  Aryans 
might  have  supposed  that  in  a  like  manner  the  brightness,  order,  and 
beauty  of  the  world  had  sprung  from  darkness  from  which  the  elements  of 
all  things  had  existed,  to  indistinguishable  chaos.  And  since  it  is  the  sun 
that  dispersesThe  darkness  of  the  night  and  gives  back  to  man  the  heaven 
and  the  earth  every  morning,  it  is  not  difficult  to  imagine  how  they  might 
have  concluded  that  the  sun  brought  them  forth  from  the  original  chaos, 
and  hence  that  he  is  the  creator. 

Lastly,  by  applying  superlative  epithets  to  the  sun  it  would  become 
supreme.  “  God  among  gods  and  the  divine  leader  of  all  the  gods,”  and  so 
the  concept  of  omnipotence  might  have  been  formed. 


THE  ANCIENT  RELIGION  OF  INDIA. 


103 


In  this  way,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  functions  of  creator,  preserver,  and 
ruler,  and  the  attributes  of  infinity,  omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  eternity 
might  have  been  empirically  acquired.  And,  as  it  is  natural  to  suppose 
that  all  the  excellent  qualities  which  man  is  conscious  to  exist  in  himself 
must  necessarily  exist  in  the  same  manner,  but  in  an  infinitely  higher 
degree,  in  the'  object  of  the  worship,  we  may  conceive  that  thus  the  moral 
attributes  of  holiness,  justice,  mercy,  love,  and  goodness  ascribed  to  God 
might  have  been  ascribed. 

^  When  we  say  that  the  knowledge  of  God’s  attributes  and  functions 
might  have  been  acquired  empirically,  we  must  remember  that  this  is  con¬ 
ceivable  by  us  who,  already  possessing  that  knowledge,  bring  it  to  the  con¬ 
templation  of  natural  phenomena.  It  was  very  different  with  the  ancient 
Hindus,  for  they  ex  hypothesi  had  no  such  antecedent  knowledge.  All 
that  they  had  was  the  consciousness  of  the  supernatural  in  the  natural 
which  they  could  neither  define  nor  separate,  and  which,  consequently,  they 
worshiped  together  with  the  natural.  Is  it  probable  then  that  they, 
starting  with  that  consciousness,  only  elaborated  their  knowledge  of  the 
divine  functions  and  attributes  from  the  impressions  of  sense  and  the 
reflections  of  reason  ? 

Let  us  suppose  that  they  did  so,  and  it  follows  that  they  possessed  a 
power  of  abstraction  and  generalization  equal  to  that  of  the  best  thinkers 
in  any  age.  There  is  nothing,  apriori,  impossible  in  this,  but  we  may 
reasonably  ask:  Is  the  possession  of  such  a  power  consistent  with  the 
historical  fact  that  they  were  not  conscious  of  the  contradiction  involved 
in  the  ascription  of  infinite  attributes  to  many  individuals?  This  contra¬ 
diction  can  neither  be  resolved  into  mere  exaggerated  expressions  uttered 
in  the  ecstatic  fervor  of  prayer  and  praise  nor  in  different  epochs  or  diver¬ 
sities  of  worship,  for  it  is  the  chief  characteristic  of  the  whole  Vedic 
theology,  as  strikingly  expressed  by  Professor  Max  Muller; 

Each  god  is  to  the  mind  of  the  suppliant  as  good  as  all  the  gods.  He  is  felt  at 
the  time  as  supreme  and  absolute,  in  spite  of  the  necessary  limitations  which  to 
our  mind  a  plurality  of  gods  must  entail  on  every  single  god. 

Is  the  possession  of  this  power  consistent  with  the  historical  fact  that 
the  ancient  Hindus  never  grasp  the  idea  of  God  as  a  personal  being  distinct 
from  nature?  In  obedience  to  the  imperious  law  of  the  human  mind,  which 
leads  it  to  logical  unity,  they  discard  the  old  Vedas,  the  old  gods  of  nature, 
and  afSrmed  in  the  Upanishads  the  existence  of  “One  without  a  second.” 

But  this  “  one”  is  not  the  unity  of  religion  which  is  monotheism,  but  the 
unity  of  philosophy  which  is  monism.  It  is  Brahma,  and  Brahma  is  the 
abstract  totality  of  all  existences.  It  is  not  the  abstract  of  any  one  group 
of  thoughts,  ideas,  or  conceptions.  It  is  analogous  to  the  word  existence 
in  Western  philosophy.  For  that  which  is  common  to  all  thoughts,  ideas, 
or  conceptions,  and  can  not  be  got  rid  of  is  what  we  predicate  of  existence. 
Dissociated  as  this  becomes  from  each  of  its  modes  by  the  perpetual 
changes  of  those  modes,  it  remains  an  indefinite  consciousness  of  some¬ 
thing  constant  under  all  modes — of  being  apart  from  its  appearance. 

The  sages  of  the  Upanishads  grasped  the  idea  of  existence — of  some¬ 
thing  constant  under  all  modes — which  they  call  Brahma.  But  they  went 
further.  They  denied  the  reality  of  all  modes,  regarding  the  world  as 
phenomenal  only,  and  all  things  therein  fictitious  emanations  from  Brahma, 
like  mirage  from  the  rays  of  the  sun.  “  All  living  things  are  only  the  one 
self  fictitiously  limited  to  this  or  that  fictitious  mind  or  body  and  return  into 
the  self  as  soon  as  the  fictitious  limitations  disappear.” 

One  can  not  insist  too  strongly  on  the  distinction  between  the  highest 
abstraction  of  philosophy  and  the  highest  abstraction  of  religion;  for  many 
eminent  writers  failing  to  appreciate  this  distinction  have  fallen  into  the 
error  of  identifiying  the  monism  of  the  Upanishads  with  the  monotheism  of 
the  Bible.  How  infinitely  they  differ  I  need  not  indicate,  but  I  wish  to 


104 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


emphasize  the  fact  that,  in  proportion  as  the  ancient  Hindus  gave  u|  the 
idea  of  God  as  a  living,  energizing,  sympathizing  person,  they  lost  gro>  nd, 
from  a  religious  point  of  view.  For  personality,  with  all  its  limitation, 
though  far  from  exhibiting  God  as  he  is,  is  yet  truer,  grander,  and  more  ele¬ 
vating,  more  religious  than  those  barren,  vague,  meaningless  abstractions  in 
which  men  babble  nothing  under  the  name  of  infinite.  Personal  conscious 
existence  of  which  man  can  dream,  for  it  is  that  which  knows,  not  that 
which  is  known. 

Is  the  supposition  that  the  ancient  Hindus  elaborated  the  divine 
attribute' and  functions  from  the  impressions  of  sense  and  the  reflections  of 
reason  consistent  with  the  order  of  thought  found  in  the  Veda?  Man  in 
the  mental  as  well  as  the  physical  world  has  to  proceed  slowly  and  conquer 
gradually  by  the  “sweat  of  his  brow.”  Therefore,  if  the  Vedic  Aryans 
thought  out  the  divine  functions  and  attributes,  they  did  so  gradually  and 
one  ought' to  see  one  concept  following  another  in  the  process  of  evolution, 
and  the*,  fully  developed  concept  at  the  end.  The  reverse,  however,  is  the 
order  of  things  in  the  Veda.  There  one  finds  the  concepts  of  the  divine 
functions  and  attributes  fully  developed  in  the  Manthras,.  the  oldest  por¬ 
tions  of  the  Veda;  whereas,  in  the  Upanishads,  the  latest  portions,  we  find 
them  dissipated  one  after  another  till  nothing  is  left  but  Nirguna  Brahma, 
Brahma  without  iqualities,  predicates,  or  determination  —  a  something  to  be 
defined  by  “No,”  “No.” 

The  loftiest  conception  of  God,  in  conjunction  with  the  most  intense 
consciousness  of  sin,  found  expression  in  Veruna,  the  oldest  god  of  the 
undivided  Aryans.  During  the  long  interval  between  Veruna  and  Brahma 
that  conception  was  gradually  corrupted,  and  wfith  it  the  ethical  conscious¬ 
ness  of  sin  became  well  nigh  extinct.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
that  corruption  began  with  the  Veda  age,  but,  on  the  contrary,  there  are 
many  indications  that  it  had  begun  much  earlier.  BothVaruna  and  Dyaus 
(another  primitive  god)  appear  in  the  Manthras  as  fully  developed  mytho¬ 
logical  beings.  Varuna  is  associated  with  the  Adityas,  and  Dyaus  is  married 
to  Prythivi.  Now,  if  mythology  be,  as  Professor  Max  Muller  says,  “a  dis¬ 
ease  of  language  which  presupposes  a  healthy  state,”  it  is  obvious  that  a 
long  time  was  necessary  to  confound  the  God  of  heaven  with  the  material 
heaven,  and  to  transform  the  latter  into  mythological  form  which  found 
expression  in  Varuna  and  Dyaus. 

Two  things  are  then  evident:  That  the  higher  we  push  our  inquiries 
into  the  ancient  religion  of  India,  the  purer  and  simpler  we  find  the  con¬ 
ception  of  God,  and  that  in  proportion  as  we  come  down  the  stream  of  time 
the  more  corrupt  and  complex  it  becomes.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that 
the  ancient  Hindus  did  not  acquire  their  knowledge  of  the  divine  attributes 
and  functions  empirically,  for  in  that  case  we  should  find  at  the  end  what 
we  now  find  at  the  beginning.  Hence,  we  must  seek  for  a  theory  that  will 
account  alike  for  the  acquisition  of  that  knowledge,  the  godlike  conception 
of  Varuna,  and  its  gradual  depravation  which  culminated  in  Brahma. 

And  what  theory  will  cover  these  facts  as  well  as  the  doctrine  of  a 
“primitive  revelation”?  If  we  admit  on  the  authority  of  the  Bible  that 
God  revealed  himself  originally  to  man,  the  knowledge  of  divine  functions 
and  attributes  possessed  by  the  ancient  Hindus  would  be  a  reminiscence. 
And,  if  we  admit  on  both  the  authority  of  the  Bible  and  consciousness,  the 
sinful  tendency  of  human  nature  which  makes  the  retention  of  divine 
knowledge  either  a  matter  of  difficulty  or  aversion,  it  is  easy  to  conceive 
that  the  idea  of  God,  as  a  spiritual  personal  being,  would  gradually  recede 
and  ultimately  disappear  from  memory,  while  his  attributes  and  functions 
would  survive  like  broken  fragments  of  a  once  united  whole. 

God  is  a  spirit  distinct  from  nature,  and  the  difficulty  is  to  restrain  that 
characteristic  in  spite  of  the  powerful  tendency  of  the  mind  to  contemplate 
existences  as  having  the  property  of  extension  in  space  and  protension  in 


RELIGIOUS  BELIEF  OF  THE  HINDUS. 


105 


time.  And  when  this  characteristic  is  forgotten  and  material  objects  sub¬ 
stituted  in  its  place,  the  divine  attributes  and  functions  naturally  pass  over 
to  these  objects  and  by  association  are  remembered. 

There  is  a  great  law  in  the  spiritual  as  well  as  the  natural  world  by 
which  an  organism  neglecting  to  develop  itself  or  failing  to  maintain  what 
has  been  bestowed  upon  it,  deteriorates  and  becomes  more  and  more  adapted 
to  a  degenerate  form  of  life.  Under  the  operations  of  this  law  the  ancient 
Hindus  and  all  other  nations  neglecting  to  cultivate  spiritual  religion  lost 
the  knowledge  of  God  as  a  personal  being  separate  from  nature  bestowed 
upon  them;  and  dissected  thediifinite  one  into  many  finite  ones,  or  in  the 
words  of  scripture  they  “changed  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  worshiped 
and  served  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator  who  is  blessed  forever.” 

This  being  the  case,  we  must  believe  that  when  applying  the  divine 
attributes  and  functions  to  the  personified  elements  of  nature,  the  ancient 
Hindus  were  using  language  the  full  meaning  of  which  they  did  not  under¬ 
stand.  For  had  they  understood  it,  they  could  not  fail  to  perceive  the  con¬ 
tradiction  involved  in  ascribing  infinite  attributes  Jo  more  than  one  being. 
The  language  is  an  echo  of  a  pure  worship  in  a  primeval  home.  It  is  appli¬ 
cable  to  God  alone.  It  is  meaningless  when  applied  to  anyone  or  anything 
else.  It  is  the  language  of  monotheism,  and  monotheism  was  a  primitive 
religion. 

Professor  H.  H.  Wilson  says  :  “  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  funda¬ 
mental  doctrine  of  the  Vedas  is  monotheism.”  And  Professor  Max  Muller 
says  :  “  There  is  a  monotheism  that  precedes  the  polytheism  of  the  Veda. 

The  idea  of  God,  though  never  entirely  lost,  has  been  clouded  over  by  error. 
The  names  given  to  God  have  been  changed  and  their  meaning  has  faded 
away  from  the  memory  of  man.  M.  Adolph  Pictet  in  his  great  work,  ‘  Les 
Origines  Europiennes,’  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  religion  of  the  un¬ 
divided  Aryansiwas  a  monotheism  more  or  less  vaguely  defined.’  And  both 
Pictet  and  Muller  maintain  that  traces  of  the  primitive  monotheism  are 
visible  in  the  Veda,  that  the  ‘remembrance  of  a  God,  one  and  infinite, 
breaks  through  the  mists  of  idolatrous  phraseology  like  the  blue  sky  that 
is  hidden  by  a  passing  cloud.’  ” 

Lastly,  is  it  not  philosophically  true  that  polytheism  presupposes  mono¬ 
theism?  Is  it  true,  as  some  suppose,  that  polytheism  is  older  than  mono¬ 
theism?  Is  it  not  likely  that  the  simple  belief  is  older  than  the  more 
complex?  Can  the  concept  many  precede  the  concept  one?  Is  not  plurality 
the  aggregate  of  units?  What  is  the  development  of  thought  as  seen  in 
children?  Is  it  not  from  one  to  two,  from  the  singular  to  the  plural,  from 
the  simple  to  the  complex,  from  unity  to  diversity,  and  then  by  generaliza¬ 
tion  to  abstract  unity? 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  knowledge  of  the  divine  functions  and 
attributes  possessed  by  the  Vedic  Aryans  was  neither  the  product  of  intui¬ 
tion  nor  experience,  but  a  “  survival,”  the  result  of  a  “  primitive  revelation.” 

The  Vedic  doctrines  of  cosmology  and  anthropology  lead  to  the  same 
conclusion. 


RELIGIOUS  BELIEF  OF  THE  HINDUS. 

MANILAL  NI  DVIVEDI  OF  BOMBAY. 

Hinduism  is  a  wide  term,  but,  at  the  same  time,  a  vague  term.  The 
word  Hindu  was  invented  by  the  Mohammedan  conquerors  of  Aryavata, 
the  historical  name  of  India,  and  it  denotes  all  who  reside  beyond  the 
Indus.  Hinduism,  therefore,  correctly  speaking,  is  no  religion  at  all.  It 
embraces  within  its  wide  intention  all  shades  of  thought,  from  the  atheistic 
Jainas  and  Bauddhas  to  the  theistic  Sampradaikas  and  Samajists  and  the 


106 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


rationalistic  Advaytins.  But  we  may  agree  to  use  the  term  in  the  sense  of 
that  body  of  philosophical  and  religious  principles  which  are  professed  in 
part  or  whole  by  the  inhabitants  of  India.  I  shall  confine  myself  in  this 
short  address  to  unfolding  the  meaning  of  this  term,  and  shall  try  to  show 
the  connection  of  this  meaning  with  the  ancient  records  of  India,  the  Vedas. 

Before  entering  upon  this  task  permit  me’however,  to  make  a  few  pre¬ 
liminary  observations.  And  first  it  would  greatly  help  us  on  if  we  had  set¬ 
tled  a  few  points,  chief  among  them  the  meaning  of  the  word  religion.  Re¬ 
ligion  is  defined  by  Webster  generally  as  any  system  of  worship.  This  is, 
however,  not  in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  understood  in  India.  The 
word  has  a  three-fold  connotation.  Religion  divides  itself  into  jjhysics, 
ontology,  and  ethics,  and  without  being  that  vague  something  which  is?  set 
up  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  emotional  side  of  human  nature,  it 
resolves  itself  into  that  rational  demonstration  of  the  universe  which  serves 
as  the  basis  of  a  practical  system  of  ethical  rules.  Every  Indian  religion — ■ 
for  let  it  be  understood  there  is'  quite  a  number  of  them — has  therefore 
some  theory  of  the  physical  universe,  complemented  by  some  sort  of  si)irit- 
ual  government,  and  a  cdde  of  ethics  consistent  with  that  theory  and  that 
government.  So,  then,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  take  away  any  one  phase 
of  any  Indian  religion  and,  pronounce  upon  its  merits  on  a  partial  survey. 

The  next  point  I  wish  to  clear  is  the  chronology  of  the  Puranas.  I  mean 
the  chronology  given  in  the  Puranas.  Whereas  the  Indian  religion  claims 
extravagant  antiquity  for  its  teachings,  the  tendency  of  Christian  writers 
has  been  to  cramp  everything  within  the  narrow  period  of  6,000  years.  But 
for  the  numerous  vagaries  and  fanciful  theories  these  extremes  give  birth 
to  this  point  would  have  no  interest  for  us  at  the  present  moment.  With 
the  rapid  advance  made  by  physical  science  in  the  West  numerous  testi¬ 
monies  have  been  unearthed  to  show  the  untenableness  of  Biblical  chronol¬ 
ogy,  and  it  would  be  safe  to  hold  the  mind  in  mental  suspense  in  regard  to 
this  matter.  The  third  point  is  closely  connected  with  the  second.  Every¬ 
one  has  a  natural  inclination  toward  his  native  land  and  language,  and  par¬ 
ticularly  toward  the  religion  in  which  he  is  brought  up.  It,  however,  be¬ 
hooves  men  of  impartial  judgment  to  look  upon  all  religions  as  so  many 
different  explanations  of  the  dealings  of  the  Supreme  with  men  of  varying 
culture  and  nationality.  It  is  impossible  to  do  justice  to  these  themes  in 
this  place,  but  we  will  start  with  these  necessary  precautions  that  the 
following  pages  may  not  appear  to  make  any  extraordinary  demands  upon 
the  intelligence  of  those  brought  up  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  so-called 
“  Oriental  research  ”  in  the  West. 

We  now  address  ourselves  to  the  subject  before  us.  At  least  six  differ¬ 
ent  and  well-marked  stages  are  visible  in  the  history  of  Indian  philosophic 
thought,  and  each  stage  appears  to  have  left  its  impress  upon  the  meaning 
of  the  word  Hinduism.  The  six  stages  may  be  enumerated  thus:  (1)  the 
Veda;  (2)  the  Sutra;  (.3)  the  Darsana;  (4)  the  Purana;  (5)  the  Samapradava; 
(6)  the  Samaja.  Each  of  these  is  enough  to  fill  several  volumes,  and  all  I 
attempt  here  is  a  cursory  survey  of  “Hinduism”  in  the  religious  sense  of 
the  word. 

1.  Let  us  begin  with  the  Vedas.  The  oldest  of  the  four  Vedas  is  admit¬ 
tedly  the  Rigveda.  It  is  the  most  ancient  record  of  the  Aryan  nation,  nay, 
of  the  first  humanity  our  earth  knows  of.  Traces  of  a  very  superior  degree 
of  civilization  and  art,  found  at  every  page,  prevent  us  from  regarding  these 
records  as  containing  only  the  outpourings  of  the  minds  of  pastoral  tribes 
ignorantly  wondering  at  the  grand  phenomena  of  nature.  We  find  in  the 
Vedas  a  highly  superior  order  of  rationalistic  thought  pervading  all  the 
hymns,  and  we  have  ample  reasons  to  conclude  that  the  childish  poetry  of 
primitive  hearts,  Agni  and  Vishne  and  Indra  and  Rudra,  are  indeed  so 
many  names  of  different  gods,  but  each  of  them  had  really  a  threefold 
aspect. 


RELIGIOUS  BELIEF  OF  THE  HINDUS. 


107 


Viahne,  for  example,  in  his  temporal  aspect,  is  the  physical  sun;  in  his 
corporal  aspect  he  is  the  soul  of  every  being,  and  in  his  spiritual  aspect  he 
is  the  all-pervading  essence  of  the  cosmos.  In  their  spiritual  aspect  all  gods 
are  one,  for  well  says  the  well-known  text,  “Only  one  essence  the  wise 
declare  in  many  ways.”  And  this  conception  of  the  spiritual  unity  of  the 
cosmos,  as  found  in  the  Vedas,  is  the  crux  of  western  oriental  research. 
The  learned  doctors  are  unwilling  to  see  more  than  the  slightest  trace  of 
this  conception  in  the  Veda,  for,  they  say,  it  is  all  nature  worship,  the  invo¬ 
cation  of  different  independent  powers  which  held  the  wandering  mind  of 
this  section  of  primitive  humanity  in  submissive  admiration  and  praise. 
However  well  this  may  accord  with  the  xjsychological  development  of  the 
human  mind,  there  is  not  the  slightest  semblance  of  evidence  in  the  Vedas 
to  show  that  these  records  belong  to  that  hypothetical  period  of  humac 
progress. 

In  the  Vedas  there  are  marks  everywhere  of  the  recognition  of  the  idea 
of  one  God,  the  God  of  nature,  manifesting  himself  in  many  forms.  This 
word,  “God,”  is  one  of  those  which  have  been  the  stumbling-block  of 
philosophy.  God,  in  the  sense  of  a  personal  creator  of  the  universe,  is  not 
known  in  the  Veda,  and  the  highest  effort  of  rationalistic  thought  in  India 
has  been  to  see  God  in  the  totality  of  all  that,  is.  And,  indeed,  it  is  doubt¬ 
ful  whether  philosophy,  be  it  that  of  a  Kant  or  a  Hegel,  has  ever 
accomplished  anything  more.  It  hereby  stands  to  reason  that  men  who 
are  so  far  admitted  to  be  Kants  and  Hegels,  should,  in  other  respects,  be 
only  in  a  state  of  childish  wonderment  at  the  phenomena  of  nature. 

I  humbly  beg  tu  differ  from  those  who  see  in  monotheism,  in  the  recog¬ 
nition  of  a  personal  God  apart  from, nature,  the  acme  of  intellectual  devel¬ 
opment.  I  believe  that  is  only  a  kind  of  anthropomorphism  which  the 
human  mind  stumbles  upon  in  its  first  efforts  to  understand  the  unknown. 
The  ultimate  satisfaction  of  human  reason  and  emotion  lies  in  the  realiza¬ 
tion  of  that  universal  essence  which  is  the  all.  And  I  hold  an  irrefragable 
evidence  that  this  idea  is  present  in  the  Veda,  the  numerous  gods  and  their 
invocations  notwithstanding.  This  idea  of  the  formless  all,  the  Sat — i.  e., 
esse-being — called  Atman  and  Brahman  in  the  Upanishads,  and  further 
explained  in  the  Darsanas,  is  the  central  idea  of  the  Veda,  nay,  the  root 
idea  of  the  Hindu  religion  in  general. 

There  are  several  ideas  for  the  opposite  error  of  finding  nothing  more 
than  the  worship  of  many  gods  in  the  Vedas.  In  the  first  place.  Western 
scholars  are  not  quite  clear  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  Veda.  Native 
commentators  have  always  insisted  that  the  word  Veda  does  not  mean  the 
Samhita  only,  but  the  Brahmanas  and  the  Upanishads  as  well;  whereas. 
Oriental  scholars  have  persisted  in  understanding  the  word  in  the  first 
sense  alone.  The  Samhita  is,  no  doubt,  a  collection  of  hymns  to  different 
powers,  and,  taken  by  itself,  it  is  most  likely. to  produce  the  impression  that 
monotheism  was  not  understood  at  the  time.  Apart,  however,  from  clear 
cases  to  the  contrary,  observable  by  any  one  who  can  read  between  the 
lines,  even  in  the  Samhita,  a  consideration  of  that  portion  along  with  the  other 
two  parts  of  the  Veda  will  clearly  show  the  untenableness  of  the  Oriental¬ 
ist  position.  The  second  source  of  error,  if  I  may  be  allowed  the  liberty  to 
refer  to  it,  is  the  religious  bias  already  touched  upon  at  the  outset.  If, 
then,  we  grasp  this  central  idea  of  the  Veda,  we  shall  understand  the  real 
meaning  of  Hinduism  as  such. 

The  other  conditions  of  the  world  will  unfold  themselves,  by  and  by,  as 
we  proceed.  We  need  not  go  into  any  further  analysis  of  the  Veda,  and 
may  come  at  once  to  the  second  phase  of  religious  thought,  the  Sutras  and 
Smritis,  based  on  the  ritualistic  portion  of  Vedic  literature. 

2.  Sutra  means  an  aphorism.  In  this  period  we  have  aphoristic  works 
beaming  upon  ritual,  philosophy,  morals,  grammar,  and  other  subjects. 
Thougn  this  period  is  distinct  from  the  Vedic  and  subsequent  periods  it  is 


108 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS- 


entirely  unsafe  to  assume  that  this  or  any  other  period  occurred  histori¬ 
cally  in  the  order  of  succession  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  this  essay. 
Between  the  Veda  and  the  Sutra  lie  the  Brahmanas,  with  the  Upanishads 
and  Aryanakas  and  the  Smritis.  The  books  called  Brahmanas  and  Upan¬ 
ishads  form  part  of  the  Veda,  as  explained  before,  the  former  explaining 
the  rTualistic  use  and  application  of  Vedic  hymns,  the  latter  s/stematizing 
the  unique  i3hilosophy  contained  in  them.  What  the  Brahmanas  explained 
allegorically,  and  in  the  quaint  phraseology  of  the  Veda,  the  Smritis,  which 
followed  them,  explained  in  plain,  systematic,  modern  Sanskrit.  As  the 
Veda  is  called  Siruti,  or  something  handed  down  orally  from  teacher  to 
pupil,  these  latter  works  are  called  Smritis,  something  remembered  and 
recorded  after  the  Smritis.  The  Sutras  deal  with  the  Brahmanas  and 
Smritis  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  the  Upanishads  on  the  other.  These 
latter  we  shall  reserve  for  consideration  in  the  next  stage  of  religious 
development,  but  it  .should  never  be  supposed  that  the  central  idea  of  the 
All  as  set  forth  in  the  Upanishads  had  at  this  period,  or  indeed  at  any 
period,  ceased  to  govern  the  whole  of  the  religious  activity  of  India.  The 
Sutras  are  divided  principally  into  the  Grhva,  Sranta,  and  Dharma  Sutras. 
The  first  deals  with  the  Smritis,  the  second  with  the  Brahmanas,  and  the- 
third  with  the  law  as  administered  by  Smritis.  The  first  set  of  butras 
deals  with  the  institution  of  Varnas  and  Asramas  and  with  the  various 
rites  and  duties  belonging  to  them.  The  second  class  of  Sutras  deals  with 
the  larger  Vedic  sacrifices,  and  those  of  the  third  deals  with  that  special 
law  subsequently  known  as  Hindu  law.  It  will  be  interesting  to  deal 
“en  masse”  with  these  subjects  in  this  place — leaving  the  subject  of  law 
out  of  consideration. 

At  first  let  us  say  a  few.  words  about  caste.  In  Vedic  times  the  whole 
Indian  people  is  spoken  of  broadly  as  the  Aryas  and  the  Anaryas.  Arya 
means  respectable  and  fit  to  be  gone,  from  the  root,  R,  “  to  go,”  and  not  an 
agriculturist,  as  the  Orientalist  would  have  it,  from  a  fanciful  root  ar,  to 
till.  The  Aryas  are  divided  into  four  sections  called  Varnas,  men  of  white 
color,  the  others  being  Avarnas.  These  four  sections  comprise  respectively 
priests,  warriors,  merchants,  and  cultivators,  artisans,  and  menials,  called 
Brahmanas,  Ksatrivas,  and  Sudras.  These  divisions,  however,  are  not  at 
all  mutually  exclusive  in  the  taking  of  food,  or' the  giving  in  marriage  of 
sons  and  daughters.  Nay,  men  used  to  be  prompted  or  degraded  to  supe¬ 
rior  or  inferior  Varnas  according  to  individual  deserts.  In  the  Sutra 
period  we  find  all  this  considerably  altered.  Manis  speaks  of  promiscuous 
intercourse  among  Varnas  and  Avarnas  leading  to  the  creation  of  several 
Jatis,  sections  known  by  the  incident  of  birth,  instead  of  by  color  as  before. 

This  is  the  beginning  of  that  exclusive  system  of  castes  which  has 
proved  the  bane  of  India’s  welfare.  Varna  and  Jati  are  foremost  among 
many  other  imx3ortant  features  which  we -find  grafted  on  Hinduism  in  this 
period.  We  find  in  works  of  this  jjeriod  that  the  life  of  every  man  is  dis¬ 
tributed  into  four  periods — student  life,  family  life,  forest  life  and  life 
of  complete  renunciation.  This  institution,  too,  has  become  a  part  of  the 
meaning  of  the  word  Hinduism.  The  duties  and  relations  of  Varnas, 
Jatis  and  Asramas  are  clearly  defined  in. the  Sutras  and  Smritis,  but  with 
these  we  need  not  concern  ourselves  except  in  this  general  manner.  I  can, 
however,  not  pass  over  the  well-known  subject  of  the  Samskaras,  certain 
rites  which  under  the  Sutras  every  Hindu  is  bound  to  perform  if  he  pro¬ 
fesses  to  be  a  Hindu.  Those  rites,  twenty-five  in  all,  may  be  divided  into 
three  groups,  rites  incumbent,  rites  optional  and  rites  incidental.  The 
incumbent  rites  are  such  as  every  householder  is  bound  to  observe  for 
securing  immunity  from  sin.  Every  householder  must  rise  early  in  the 
morning,  wash  himself,  revise  what  he  has  learned  and  teach  to  others 
without  remuneration.  In  the  next  place  he  must  worship  the  family  gods 
and  spend  some  time  in  silent  communion  with  whatever  power  he  adores. 


RELIGIOUS  BELIEF  OF  THE  HINDUS. 


109 


He  should  then  satisfy  his  prototypes  in  heaven — the  lunar  Pitris — by 
offerings  of  water  and  seamen  seeds.  Then  he  should  reconcile  the  powers 
of  the  air  by  suitable  oblations,  ending  by  inviting  some  stray  comer  to 
dinner  with  him.  Before  the  householder  has  thus  done  his  duty  by  his 
teachers,  gods  and  Pitris  and  men,  he  can  not  go  about  his  business  without 
incurring  the  deadliest  guilt. 

The  optional  rites  refer  to  certain  ceremonies  in  connection  with  the 
dead,  whose  souls  are  supposed  to  rest  with  the  lunar  Pitris  for  about  a 
thousand  years  or  more  before  reincarnation.  These  are  called  Sraddhas, 
ceremonies  whose  essence  is  Sraddha  faith.  There  are  a  few  other  cere¬ 
monies  in  connection  with  the  commencement  or  suspension  of  studies,  and 
these,  together  with  the  Sraddhas,  just  referred  to,  make  up  the  four 
optional  Samskaras,  which  the  Smritis  allow  everyone  to  perform  according 
to  his  means. 

By  far  the  most  important  are  the  sixteen  incidental  Samskaras.  I  shall, 
however,  dismiss  the  first  nine  of  these  with  simple  enumeration.  Four  of 
the  nine  refer  respectively  to  the  time  of  first  cohabitation,  conception, 
quickening,  and  certain  sacrifices,  etc.,  performed  with  the  last.  The  other 
five  refer  to  rites  performed  at  the  birth  of  a  child,  and  subsequently  at  the 
time  of  giving  it  a  name,  of  giving  it  food,  of  taking  it  out  of  doors,  and  at 
the  time  of  shaving  its  head  in  some  sacred  place  on  an  auspicious  day. 
The  tenth,  with  the  four  subsidiary  rites  connected  with  it,  is  the  most 
important  of  all.  It  is  called  Upanavana,  the  “taking  to  the  gurnu,”  but 
it  may  yet  better  be  described  as  initiation.  The  four  subsidiary  rites  make 
up  the  four  pledges  which  the  neophyte  takes  on  initiation.  This  rite  is 
performed  on  male  children  alone,  at  the  age  of  from  five  to  eight  in  the 
case  of  Brahmans,  and  a  year  or  two  later  in  the  case  of  others,  except 
Sudras,  who  have  nothing  to  do  with  any  of  the  rites  save  marriage.  The 
young  boy  is  given  a  peculiarly-prepared  thread  of  cotton  to  wear  con¬ 
stantly  on  the  body,  passing  it  cross-ways  over  the  left  shoulder  and  under 
the  right  arm.  It  is  a  mark  of  initiation  which  consists  in  the  imparting  of 
the  sacred  secret  of  the  family,  and  the  order,  to  the  boy,  by  his  father  and 
the  family  gurnu. 

The  boy  pledges  himself  to  his  teacher,  under  whose  protection  he 
henceforth  begins  to  reside,  to  carry  out  faithfully  the  four  vows  he  has 
taken,  viz.,  study,  observance  of  religion,  complete  celibacy,  and  truthful¬ 
ness.  This  period  of  pupilage  ends  after  nine  years  at  the  shortest,  and 
thirty-six  years  at  the  longest  period.  The  boy  then  returns  home,  after 
duly  rewarding  his  teacher,  and  finds  out  some  suitable  girl  for  his  wife. 

This  return  in  itself  makes  up  the  fifteen  Samskaras.  The  last,  but  not 
the  least,  is  the  vivaha — matrimony.  The  Sutras  and  Smritis  are  most 
clear  on  the  injunctions  about  the  health,  learning,  competency,  family 
connections,  beauty,  and,  above  all,  personal  liking  of  principal  parties  to  a 
marriage.  Marriages  between  children  of  the  same  blood  or  family  are 
prohibited.  As  to  age,  the  books  are  very  clear  in  ordaining  that  there 
must  be  a  aistance  of  at  least  ten  years  between  the  respective  age  of  wife 
and  husband,  and  that  the  girl  may  be  married  at  any  age  before  attaining 
puberty,  preferably  at  ten  or  eleven,  though  she  may  be  affianced  at  about 
eight  or  nine.  Be  it  remembered  that  marriage  and  consummation  of  mar¬ 
riage  are  two  different  things  in  India,  as  a  consideration  of  this  Samskara, 
in  connection  with  the  first  of  the  nine  enumerated  at  the  beginning  of  this 
group,  will  amply  show,  several  kinds  of  marriage  are  enumerated,  and 
among  the  eight  generally  given  we  find  marriage  by  courting  as  well. 

The  marriage  ceremony  is  performed  in  the  presence  of  priests  and  gods 
represented  by  fire  on  the  altar,  and  the  tie  of  love  is  sanctified  by  Vedic 
mantras,  repetition  of  which  forms  indeed  an  indispensable  part  of  every 
rite  and  ceremony.  The  pair  exchange  vows  of  fidelity  and  indissoluble 
love  and  bind  themselves  never  to  separate,  even  after  death.  The  wife  is 


liO  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

supposed  henceforth  to  be  as  much  dependent  on  her  husband  as  he  on 
her,  for,  as  the  wife  has  to  complete  the  fulfillment  of  love  as  her  principal 
duty,  the  husband  has,  in  return,  the  entire  maintenance  of  the  wife,  tem¬ 
porarily  and  spiritually,  as  his  principal  duty.  When  the  love  thus  fostered 
has  sufficiently  educated  the  man  into  entire  forgetfulness  of  self,  he  may 
retire,  either  alone  or  with  his  wife,  into  some  secluded  forest  and  prepare 
himself  for  the  last  period  of  life,  complete  renunciation — i.  e  ,  renunciation 
of  all  individual  attachment,  of  personal  likes  and  dislikes,  and  realization 
of  all  in  the  eternal  self-sacrifice  of  universal  love. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  widow  remarriage  as  such  is  unknown  in 
this  system  of  life,  and  the  liberty  of  woman  is  more  a  sentiment  than 
something  practically  wanting  in  this  careful  arrangement.  Woman,  as 
woman,  has  her  place  in  nature  quite  as  much  as  man,  as  man,  and  if  there 
is  nothing  to  hamper  the  one  or  the  other  in  the  discharge  of  his  or  her 
functions  as  marked  out  by  nature,  liberty  beyond  this  limit  means  shadows, 
disorder,  and  irresponsible  license.  And,  indeed,  nature  never  meant  her 
living  embodiment  of  lone  woman  to  be  degraded  to  a  footing  of  equality 
with  her  partner,  to  fight  the  hard  struggle  for  existence,  or  to  allow  love’s 
pure  stream  to  be  defiled  by  being  led  into  channels  other  than  those 
marked  out  for  it.  This  is  in  substance  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  Sastras 
when  they  limit  the  sphere  of  woman’s  action  to  the  house,  and  the  flow  of 
her  heart  to  one  and  one  channel  alone. 

3.  We  arrive  thus  in  natural  succession  to  the  third  period  of  Aryan 
religion,  the  Darsanas,  which  enlarge  upon  the  central  idea  of  Atman,  or 
Brahma,  enunciated  in  the  Veda  and  developed  in  the  Upanishadas. 
It  is  interesting  to  attend  to  the  Charvakas,  the  materialists 
of  Indian  philosophy,  and  to  the  Jainas  and  the  Buddhas,  who, 
though  opposed  to  the  Charvakas,  are  anti-Brahmanical,  in  that  they  do 
not  recognize  the  authority  of  the  Veda  and  preach  an  independent  gospel 
of  love  and  mercy.  These  schisms,  however,  had  an  indifferent  effect  in 
imparting  fresh  activity  to  the  rationalistic  spirit  of  the  Aryan  sages,  lying 
dormant  under  the  growing  incumbrances  of  the  ritualism  of  the  Sutras. 

The  central  idea  of  the  All  as  we  found  it  in  the  Veda  is  further 
developed  in  the  Upanishadas.  In  the  Sutra  period  several  Sutra  works 
were  composed  setting  forth  in  a  systematic  manner  the  main  teaching  of 
the  Upanishads.  Several  works  came  to  be  written  in  imitation  of  these 
subjects  closely  connected  with  the  main  issues  of  philosophy  and  meta¬ 
physics.  This  spirit  of  philosophic  activity  gave  rise  to  the  six  well-known 
Darsanas,  or  schools  of  philosophy.  Here  again  it  is  necessary  to  enter  the 
caution  that  the  Darsanas  do  not  historically  belong  to  this  period,  for  not¬ 
withstanding  this,  their  place  in  the  general  development  of  thought  and 
the  teachings  they  embody  are  as  old  as  the  Veda  or  even  older. 

The  six  Darsanas  are  Nyaya,  Vaiseshika,  Sankhya,  Xoga,  Mimansa, 
and  Vodanta,  more  conveniently  grouped  as  the  two  Nyayas,  the  two 
Sankhyas  and  the  two  Mimansas.  Each  of  these  must  require  at  least  a 
volume  to  itself,  and  all  I  can  do  in  this  place  is  to  give  the  merest  outline 
of  the  conclusions  maintained  in  each.  Each  of  the  Darsanas  has  that 
triple  aspect  which  we  found  at  the  outset  in  the  meaning  of  the  word 
religion,  and  it  will  be  convenient  to  state  the  several  conclusions  in  that 
order.  The  Nyaya  then  is  exclusively  concerned  with  the  nature  of  knowl¬ 
edge  and  the  instruments  of  knowledge,  and  while  discussing  these  it  sets 
forth  a  system  of  logic  not  yet  surpassed  by  any  existing  system  in  the 
West.  The  Vaiseshika  is  a  complement  of  the  Nyaya,  and  while  the  latter 
discusses  the  metaphysical  aspect  of  the  universe  the  former  works  out  the 
atomic  theory  and  resolves  the  whole  of  the  nameable  world  into  seven 
categories. 

So,  then,  physically  the  two  Nyayas  advocate  the  atomic  theory  of  the 
universe.  Ontologically  they  believe  that  these  atoms  move  in  accordance 


hjeligious  belief  of  tbe  Hindus. 


Ill 


with  the  will  of  an  extra-cosmic  personal  creature  called  Isvara.  Every 
being  has  a  soul  called  Jiva,  whose  attributes  are  desire,  intelligence,  pleas¬ 
ure,  pain,  -merit,  demerit,  etc.  Knowledge  arises  from  the  union  of  Jiva 
and  mind,  the  atomic  manas.  The  highest  happiness  lies  in  Jiva’s  becom¬ 
ing  permanently  free  from  its  attribute  of  misery.  This  freedom  can  be 
obtained  by  the  grace  of  Isvara,  pleased  with  the  complete  devotion  of  the 
Jiva.  The  Veda  and  the  Upanishadas  are  recognized  as  authority  in  so 
far  as  they  are  the  word  of  this  Iswara. 

The  Sankhyas  differed  entirely  from  the  Naiyayikas  in  that  they  repu¬ 
diated  the  idea  of  a  personal  creator  of  the  universe.  They  argued  that  if 
the  atoms  were  in  themselves  sufficiently  capable  of  forming  themselves 
into  the  universe,  the  idea  of  a  God  was  quite  superfluous.  And  as  to  intel¬ 
ligence  the  Sankhyas  maintained  that  it  is  inherent  in  nature.  These 
philosophers,  therefore,  hold  that  the  whole  universe  is  evolved  by  slow 
degrees,  in  a  natural  manner,  from  one  primordial  matter  called  mulapra- 
kriti,  and  that  purusa,  the  principle  or  intelligence,  is  always  co-ordinate 
with,  though  ever  apart  from  mulaprakriti.  Like  the  Naiyayikas,  they 
believe  in  the  multiplicity  of  purusas — souls — but  unlike  them  they  deny 
the  necessity  as  well  as  the  existence  of  an  extra-cosmic  God.  Whence, 
they  have  earned  for  themselves  the  name  of  atheistic  Sankhyas.  They 
resort  to  the  Vedas  and  Upanishads  for  support  so  far  as  it  may  serve  their 
purpose,  and  otherwise  accept  in  general  the  logic  of  the  ten  Naiyayikas. 

The  Sankhyas  place  the  summum  bonum  in  “life  according  to  nature.” 
They  endow  primordial  matter  with  three  attributes — passivity,  restless¬ 
ness,  and  crossness.  Prakrit!  continuous  in  endless  evolution  under  the 
influence  of  the  second  of  these  attributes,  and  the  purusa  falsely  takes  the 
action  upon  himself  and  feels  happy  or  miserable.  When  a  purusa  has  his 
prakriti  brought  to  the  state  of  passivity  by  analytical  knowledge  (which 
is  the  meaning  of  the  word  Sankhya),  he  ceases  to  feel  himself  happy  or 
miserable  and  remains  in  native  peace.  This  is  the  sense  in  which  those 
philosophers  understand  the  phrase,  “  life  according  to  nature.” 

The  other  Sankhya,  more  popularly  know  as  the  Yogo-Darsana,  accepts 
the  whole  of  the  cosmology  of  the  first  Sankhya,  but  only  adds  to  it  a  hypo¬ 
thetical  Isvara  and  largely  expands  the  ethical  side  of  the  teaching  by 
setting  forth  several  physical  and  psychological  rules  and  exercises  capa¬ 
ble  of  leading  to  the  last  state  of  happiness,  called  Kanivalya — life  accord¬ 
ing  to  nature.  This  is  theistic  Sankhya. 

The  two  Mimansas  next  call  our  attention.  These  are  the  orthodox 
Darsanas  par  excellence,  and  as  such  are  in  direct  touch  with  the  Veda  and 
the  Upanishads,  which  continue  to  govern  them  from  beginning  to  end. 
Mimansa  means  inquiry,  and  the  first  preliminary  is  called  Purva-Mimansa, 
the  second  Uttara-Mimansa.  The  object  of  the  first  is  to  determine  the 
exact  meaning  and  value  of  the  injunctions  and  prohibitions  given  out  in 
the  Veda,  and  that  of  the  second  is  to  explain  the  esoteric  teachings  of  the 
Upanishads.  The  former,  therefore  does  not  trouble  itself  about  the  nature 
of  the  universe  or  about  the  ideas  of  God  and  soul.  It  tells  only  of  Dharma, 
religious  merit,  which,  according  to  its  teaching,  arises  in  the  next  world 
from  a  strict  observance  of  the  Vedic  duties.  This  Mimansa  fitly  called  the 
purva,  a  preliminary  Mimansa,  we  may  thus  pass  over  without  any  further 
remark.  The  most  important  Darsana  of  all  is  by  far  the  Utra  or  final 
Mimansa,  popularly  knowns  as  the  Nedanta,  the  philosophy  taught  in  the 
Upanishads  as  the  end  of  the  Veda. 

The  Vedanta  emphasizes  the  idea  of  the  All,  the  universal  Atman  or 
Brahman,  set  forth  in  the  Upanishads,  and  maintained  the  unity  not  only  of 
the  cosmos  but  of  all  intelligence  in  general.  The  All  is  self -illumined,  all 
thought  (gnosis),  the  very  being  of  the  universe.  Being  implies  thought, 
and  the  All  may  in  Venuanta  phraseology  be  aptly  described  as  the  essence 
of  thought  and  being.  The  Vedanta  is  a  system  of  absolute  idealism  in 


112 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


which  subject  and  object  are  rolled  into  one  unique  consciousness,  the 
realization  whereof  is  the  end  and  aim  of  existence,  the  highest  bliss — Moksa. 
This  state  of  Moksa  is  not  anything  to  be  accomplished  or  brought  about 
— it  is  in  fact  the  very  being  of  all  existence,  but  experience  stands  in  the 
way  of  complete  realization  by  creating  imaginary  distinctions  of  subject 
and  object.  This  system  besides  being  the  orthodox  Darsana  is  philosoph¬ 
ically  an  improvement  upon  all  previous  speculations. 

The  Nyaya  is  superseded  by  the  Sanhya,  whose  distinction  of  matter 
and  intelligence  is  done  away  with  in  this  philosophy  of  absolute  idealism, 
which  has  endowed  the  phrase  “  life  according  to  nature  ”  with  an  entirely 
new  and  more  rational  meaning.  For  in  its  ethics,  this  system  teaches  not 
only  the  brotherhood  but  the  Atma-hood  Abheda,  oneness,  of  not  only  man 
but  of  all  beings,  of  the  whole  universe.  The  light  of  the  other  Darsanas 
pales  before  the  blaze  of  unity  and  love  lighted  at  the  altar  of  the  Veda  by 
this  sublime  philosophy,  the  shelter  of  minds  like  Plato,  Pythagoras,  Bruno, 
Spinoza,  Hegel,  Schopenhauer  in  the  West,  and  Krisna,  Vyasa,  Sankara 
and  others  in  the  East. 

We  can  not  but  sum  up  at  this  point.  Hinduism  adds  one  more  attri¬ 
bute  to  its  connotation  in  this  period,  viz . ,  that  of  being  a  believer  in  the 
truths  of  one  or  other  of  these  Darsanas,  or  of  one  or  other  of  the  three  anti- 
Brahmanical  schisms.  And  with  this  we  must  take  leave  of  the  great 
Darsana  sages  and  come  to  the  period  of  the  Puranas. 

4.  The  subtleties  of  the  Darsanas  were  certainly  too  hard  for  ordinary 
minds  and  some  popular  exposition  of  the  basic  ideas  of  philosophy  and 
religion  was  indeed  very  urgently  required.  And  this  necessity  began  to 
be  felt  the  more  keenly  as  Sanskrit  began  to  die  out  as  a  speaking  language 
and  the  people  to  decline  in  intelligence,  in  consequence  of  frequent  inroads 
from  abroad.  No  idea  more  happy  could  have  been  conceived  at  this  stage 
than  that  of  devising  certain  tales  and  fables  calculated  at  once  to  catch 
the  imagination  and  enlist  the  faith  of  even  the  most  ignorant,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  suggest  to  the  initiated  a  clear  outline  of  the  secret  doctrine 
of  old.  It  is  exactly  because  Orientalists  don’t  understand  this  double 
aspect  of  Pauranika  myths  that  they  amuse  themselves  with  philogical 
quibbles  and  talk  of  the  religion  of  the  Puranas  as  something  entirely 
puerile  and  not  deserving  the  name  of  religion.  We  ought,  however,  to 
bear  in  mind  that  the  Puranas  are  closely  connected  with  the  Vedas, 
the  Sutras,  and  the  Darsanas,  and  all  they  claim  to  accomplish  is  a  pop¬ 
ular  exposition  of  the  basic  ideas  of  philosophy,  religion,  and  morality  set 
forth  in  them. 

In  other  words,  the  Puranas  are  nothing  more  nor  less  than  broad,  clear 
commentaries  on  the  ancient  teaching  of  the  Vedas.  For  example,  it  is  not 
because  Vyasa,  the  author  of  the  Puranas,  forgot  that  Vishnu  was  the  name 
of  the  sun  in  the  Veda  that  he  talked  of  a  separate  god  of  that  name  in 
the  Puranas,  endowing  him  with  all  mortal  attributes.  This  is  how  the 
Orientalistic  method  of  interpretation  would  dispose  of  the  question.  The 
Hindus  have  better  confidence  in  the  insight  of  Vyasa,  and  could  at  once 
see  that  inasmuch  as  he  knew  perfectly  well  what  part  the  sun  plays  in  the 
evolution,  maintenance,  and  dissolution  of  the  world,  he  represented  him 
symbolically  as  God  Vishnu,  the  all-pervading,  with  Laksimi,  a  personifica¬ 
tion  of  the  life  and  prosperity  which  emanate  from  the  sun  for  his  comfort, 
with  the  anauta — popularly  the  snake  of  that  name,  but  esoterically  the 
endless  circle  of  eternity — for  his  couch,  and  with  the  eagle,  representing 
the  many  antaric  cycle,  for  his  vehicle.  There  is  in  this  one  symbol  suf¬ 
ficient  material  for  the  ignorant  to  build  their  faith  upon  and  nourish  the 
religious  sentiment,  and  for  the  initiate  to  see  in  it  the  true  secret  of  Vedic 
religion.  And  this  nature  of  the  Puranas  is  an  indirect  proof  that  the 
Vedas  are  not  mere  poetical  effusions  of  primitive  man  nor  a  conglomera¬ 
tion  of  solar  myths  disguised  in  different  shapes. 


RELIGIOUS  BELIEF  OF  THE  HINDUS. 


113 


The  cycles  just  referred  to  put  me  in  mind  of  another  aspect  of  Pura- 
nika  mythology.  The  theory  of  cycles  known  as  Kalpas,  Manvantaras,  and 
Yugas  is  clearly  set  forth  in  the  Puranas  and  appears  to  make  exorbitant 
demands  upon  our  credulity.  The  Kalpa  of  the  Puranas  is  a  cycle  of 
4,320,000,000  years,  and  the  world  continues  in  activity  for  one  Kalpa,  after 
which  it  goes  into  dissolution  and  remains  in  that  condition  for  another 
Kalpa,  to  be  followed  by  a  fresh  period  of  activity.  Each  Kalpa  has  four¬ 
teen  well-marked  subcycles  called  Manvantaras,  each  of  which  is  again 
made  up  of  four  periods  called  Yugas.  The  name  Manvantara  means  time 
between  the  Manus,  and  Manu  means  “with  one  mind,”  that  is  to  say, 
humanity,  the  whole  suggesting  that  a  Manvantara  is  the  period  between 
one  humanity  and  another  on  this  globe.  Whence  it  will  also  be  clear  why 
the  present  Manvantara  is  called  Vaivasvata,  “belonging  to  the  sun,”  for, 
as  is  well  established,  on  that  luminary  depends  the  life  and  being  of  man 
on  this  earth. 

This  theory  of  cycles  and  subcycles  is  amply  corroborated  by  modern 
geological  and  astronomical  researches,  and  considerable  light  may  be 
thrown  on  the  evolution  of  man  if  with  reason  as  our  guide  we  study  the 
aspect  of  the  Puranas.  The  theory  of  Simian  descent  is  confronted  in  the 
Puranas  with  a  theory  more  in  accord  with  reason  and  experience.  But  I 
have  no  time  to  go  into  the  details  of  each  and  every  Puranika  myth.  I 
can  only  assure  you,  gentlemen,  that  all  that  is  taught  in  the  Puranas  is 
capable  of  being  explained  consistently  in  accord  with  the  main  body  of 
ancient  theosophy  expounded  in  the  Vedas,  the  Sutras,  and  the  Darsanas. 
We  must  only  free  ourselves  from  what  Herbert  Spencer  calls  the  religious 
bias  and  learn  to  look  facts  honestly  in  the  face. 

I  must  say  a  word  here  about  idol  worship,  for  it  is  exactly  in  or  after 
the  Pauranika  period  that  idols  came  to  be  used  in  India.  It  may  be  said 
without  the  least  fear  of  contradiction,  that  no  Indian  idolator,  as  such, 
believes  the  piece  of  stone,  metal,  or  wood  before  his  eyes  to  be  his  God  in 
any  sense  of  the  word.  He  takes  it  only  as  a  symbol  of  the  all-pervading, 
and  uses  it  as  a  convenient  object  for  purposes  of  concentration,  which, 
being  accomplished,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  throw  away.  The  religion  of 
the  Tantras,  which  plays  an  important  part  in  this  period,  has  considerable 
influence  on  this  question,  and  the  symbology  they  taught  as  typical  of 
several  important  processes  of  evolution,  has  been  made  the  basic  idea  in 
the  formation  of  idols.  Idols,  too,  have,  therefore,  a  double  purpose  —  that 
of  perpetuating  a  teaching  as  old  as  the  world,  and  that  of  serving  as  con¬ 
venient  aids  to  concentration. 

These  interpretations  of  Pauranika  myths  And  ample  corroboration  in 
the  myths  that  are  met  with  in  all  ancient  religions  of  the  world;  and  these 
explanations  of  idol  worship  have  an  exact  parallel  application  to  the  wor¬ 
ship  of  the  Tau  in  Egypt,  of  the  cross  in  Christendom,  and  of  the  Kaba  in 
Mohammedanism. 

With  these  necessarily  brief  explanations  we  may  try  to  see  what 
influence  the  Puranas  have  had  on  Hinduism  in  general.  It  is  true  the 
Puranas  have  added  no  new  connotation  to  the  name,  but  the  one  very 
important  lesson  they  have  taught  the  Hindu  is  the  principal  of  universal 
toleration.  The  Puranas  have  distinctly  taught  the  unity  of  the  All,  and 
satisfactorily  demonstrated  that  every  creed  and  worship  is  but  one  of  the 
many  ways  to  the  realization  of  the  All.  A  Hindu  would  not  condemn  any 
man  for  his  religion,  for  he  has  well  laid  to  heart  the  celebrated  couplet  of 
the  Bhagavat:  “Worship,  in  whatever  form,  rendered  to  whatever  God, 
reaches  the  Supreme,  as  rivers,  rising  from  whatever  source,  all  flow  into 
the  ocean.” 

5.  And  thus,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  the  fifth  period,  the  Sampradayas. 
The  word  Sampradaya  means  tradition,  the  teaching  handed  down  from 
teacher  to  pupil.  The  whole  Hindu  religion,  considered  from  the  beginning 


114 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


to  the  present  time,  is  one  vast  field  of  thought,  capable  of  nourishing  every 
intellectual  plant,  of  whatever  degree  of  vigor  and  luxuriance.  The  one  old 
teaching  was  the  idea  of  the  All,  usually  known  as  the  Advaita  or  the 
Vedanta.  In  the  ethical  aspect  of  this  philosophy,  stress  has  been  laid  on 
knowledge  (gnosis)  and  free  action.  Under  the  debasing  influence  of  a  for¬ 
eign  yoke,  these  sober  paths  of  knowledge  and  action  had  to  make  room  for 
devotion  and  grace.  On  devotion  and  grace  rest  their  principal  ethical 
tenets.  Three  important  schools  of  philosophy  arose  in  the  period  after 
the  Puranas.  Besides  the  ancient  Advaita  we  have  the  Dvaita,  the  Vis- 
uddhadvaita,  and  the  Visishthadvaita  schools  of  philosophy  in  this  period. 
The  first  is  purely  dualistic  postulation,  the  separate  yet  co-ordinate  exist¬ 
ence  of  mind  and  matter.  The  second  and  third  profess  to  the  Unitarian, 
but  in  a  considerably  modified  sense  of  the  word. 

The  Visuddhadvaita  teaches  the  unity  of  the  cosmos,  out  it  insists  on 
the  All  having  certain  attributes  which  endow  it  with  the  desire  to  manifest 
itself  as  the  cosmos.  The  third  system  is  purely  dualistic,  though  it  goes 
by  the  name  of  modified  Unitarianism.  It  maintains  the  unity  of  chit 
(soul),  achet  (matter),  and  Isvara  (God),  each  in  its  own  sphere,  the  third 
number  of  this  trinity  governing  all  and  pervading  the  whole,  though  not 
apart  from  the  cosmos.  Thus  widely  differing  in  their  philosophy  from  the 
Advaita,  these  three  Sampradayas  teach  a  system  of  ethics  entirely  opposed 
to  the  one  taught  in  that  ancient  school  called  Dharma  in  the  Advaita. 
They  displaced  Jnana  by  Bhakti,  and  Karma  by  Prasada;  that  is  to  say,  in 
other  words,  they  placed  the  highest  happiness  in  obtaining  the  grace  of 
God  by  entire  devotion,  physical,  mental,  moral,  and  spiritual.  The  teach¬ 
ers  of  each  of  these  Sampradayas  are  known  as  Acharyas,  like  Sankara, 
the  first  great  Acharya  of  the  ancient  Advaita.  The  Acharyas  of  the  new 
Sampradayas  belong  all  to  the  11th  and  12th  centuries  of  the  Christian  era. 

Every  Acharya  develops  his  school  of  thought  from  the  Upanishads, 
the  Vedanta  Sutras,  and  from  that  sub-sublime  poem,  “The  Bhagvadgita,” 
the  crest  jewel  of  the  Maha  Bharata.  The  new  Acharyas,  following  the 
example  of  Sankara,  have  commented  upon  these  works;  and  have  thus 
applied  each  his  own  system  to  the  Veda. 

In  the  Sampradayas  we  see  the  last  of  the  pure  Hinduism,  for  the 
sacred  Devanigari  ceases  henceforth  to  be  the  medium  even  of  religious 
thought.  The  four  principal  Sampradayas  have  found  numerous  imitators, 
and  we  have  the  Saktas,  the  Saivas,  the  Pasupatas,  and  many  others,  all 
deriving  their  teaching  from  the  Vedas,  the  Darsanas,  the  Puranas,  and 
the  Tantras.  But  beyond  this  we  find  quite  a  lot  of  teachers:  Ramananda, 
Kabira,  Dadu,  Nanaka,  Chaitanya,  Sahajananda,  and  many  others  holding 
influence  over  small  tracts  over  all  India. 

None  of  these  have  a  claim  to  the  title  of  Acharya  or  the  founders  of  a 
new  school  of  thought,  for  all  that  these  noble  souls  did  was  to  explain  one 
or  another  of  the  Sampradayas  in  the  current  vernacular  of  the  people.  The 
teachings  of  these  men  are  called  Panthas  — mere  ways  to  religion  as 
opposed  to  the  traditional  teachings  of  the  Sampradayas. 

The  bearing  of  these  Sampradayas  and  Panthas,  the  fifth  edition  as  it 
were  of  the  ancient  faith,  on  Hinduism  in  general  is  not  worthy  of  note 
except  in  the  particular  that  thenceforth  every  Hindu  must  belong  to  one 
of  the  Sampradayas  or  Panthas. 

6.  This  brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  India  of  to-day  and  Hinduism 
as  it  stands  at  present.  It  is  necessary  at  the  outset  to  understand  the 
principal  forces  at  work  in  bringing  about  the  change  we  are  going  to 
describe.  In  the  ordinary  course  of  events  one  would  naturally  expect  to 
stop  at  the  religion  of  the  Sampradayas  and  Panthas.  The  advent  of  the 
English  followed  by  the  educational  policy  they  have  maintained  for 
half  a  century  has,  however,  worked  several  important  changes  in 
the  midst  of  the  people,  not  the  least  important  of  which  are  those 


RELIGIOUS  BELIEF  OF  THE  HINDUS. 


115 


which  effect  reli^fion.  Before  the  establishment  of  British  rule  and  the 
peace  and  security  that  followed  in  its  train,  people  had  forgotten  the 
ancient  religion  and  Hinduism  had  dwindled  down  into  a  mass  of  irrational 
superstition  reared  on  ill-understood  Pauranika  myths.  The  spread  of  edu¬ 
cation  set  people  to  thinking  and  a  spirit  of  “reformation”  swayed  the 
minds  of  all  active-minded  men. 

The  chance  work  was,  however,  no  reformation  at  all.  Under  the  aus¬ 
pices  of  materialistic  science,  and  education  guided  by  materialistic  princi¬ 
ples,  the  mass  of  superstition  then  known  as  Hinduism  was  scattered  to 
the  winds  and  atheism  and  skepticism  ruled  supreme.  But  this  state  of 
things  was  not  destined  to  endure  in  religious  India.  The  revival  of 
Sanskrit  learning  brought  to  light  the  immortal  treasures  of  thought  buried 
in  the  Vedas,  Upanishads,  Sutras,  Darsanas  and  Puranas,  and  the  true 
work  of  reformation  commenced  with  the  revival  of  Sanskirt.  Several 
pledged  their  allegiance  to  their  time-honored  philosophy. 

But  there  remained  many  bright  intellects  given  over  to  materialistic 
thought  and  civilization.  These  could  not  help  thinking  that  the  religion 
of  those  whose  civilization  they  admired  must  be  the  only  true  religion. 
Thus  they  began  to  read  their  own  notions  in  texts  of  the  Upanishads  and 
the  Vedas.  They  set  up  an  extra-cosmic  yet  all-pervading  and  formless 
creature  whose  grace  every  soul  desirous  of  liberation  must  attract  by  com¬ 
plete  devotion.  This  sounds  like  the  teaching  of  the  Visishthadvaita  Sam- 
pradaya,  but  it  may  safely  be  said  that  the  idea  of  an  extra-cosmic  personal 
creation  without  form  is  an  un-Hindu  idea.  And  so  also  is  the  belief  of 
these  innovators  in  regard  to  their  negation  of  the  principle  of  reincarna¬ 
tion.  The  body  of  this  teaching  goes  by  the  name  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj, 
which  has  drawn  itself  still  further  away  from  Hinduism  by  renouncing  the 
institutions  of  Varnas  and  the  established  law  of  marriage,  etc. 

The  society  which  next  calls  your  attention  is  the  Aryasamaja  of  Swami 
Dayananda.  This  society  subscribes  to  the  teaching  of  the  Nyaya-Darsana 
and  professes  to  revive  the  religion  of  the  Sutras  in  all  social  rites  and 
observances.  This  Samaja  claims  to  have  found  out  the  true  religion  of 
the  Aryas,  and  it  is  of  course  within  the  pale  of  Hinduism,  though  the  merit 
of  their  claim  yet  remains  to  be  seen. 

The  third  influence  at  work  is  that  of  the  Theosophical  Society.  It  is 
pledged  to  a  religion  contained  in  the  Upanishads  of  India,  in  the  Book  of 
the  Dead  of  Egypt,  in  the  teachings  of  Confucius  and  Lao,  Tse  in  China, 
and  of  Buddha  and  Zoroaster  in  Thibet  and  Persia,  in  the  Kabala  of  the 
Jews,  and  in  the  Suflsm  of  the  Mohammedans:  and  it  appears  to  be  full 
of  principles  contained  in  the  Advaita  and  Yoga  philosophies.  It  can  not 
be  gainsaid  that  this  society  has  created  much  interest  in  religious  studies 
all  over  India,  and  has  set  earnest  students  to  studying  their  ancient  books 
with  better  lights  and  fresher  spirits  than  before.  Time  alone  can  test  the 
outcome  of  this  or  any  other  movement.  The  term  Hinduism  then  has 
nothing  to  add  to  its  meaning  from  this  period  to  the  Samajas.  The 
Brahmo  Somaj  widely  differs  from  Hinduism  and  the  Aryasamaja  or  The¬ 
osophical  Society  does  not  profess  anything  new. 

To  sum  up,  then,  Hinduism  may  in  general  be  understood  to  connote 
the  following  principal  attributes:  (1.)  Belief  in  the  existence  of  a  spirit¬ 
ual  principle  in  nature  and  in  the  principle  of  reincarnation.  (2.)  Observ¬ 
ance  of  a  complete  tolerance  and  of  the  Samskaras,  being  in  one  of  the 
Varnas  and  Asramas,  and  being  bound  by  the  Hindu  law.  This  is  the 
general  meaning  of  the  term,  but  in  its  particular  bearing  it  implies:  (3.) 
Belonging  to  one  of  the  Daranas,  Sampradayas,  or  Panthas  or  to  one  of  the 
anti-Brahmanical  schisms. 

Having  ascertained  the  general  and  particular  scope  and  meaning  of 
Hinduism,  I  would  ask  you,  gentlem-en  of  this  august  parliament,  whether 
there  is  not  in  Hinduism  material  sufficient  to  allow  of  its  being  brought  in 


116 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


contact  with  the  other  great  religions  of  the  world  by  subsuming  them  all 
under  one  common  genius? 

In  other  words,  is  it  not  possible  to  enunciate  a  few  principles  of  uni¬ 
versal  religion  which  every  man  who  professes  to  be  religious  must  accept, 
apart  from  his  being  a  Hindu  or  a  Buddhist,  a  Mohammedan  or  a  Pharsee,  a 
Christian  or  a  Jew? 

If  religion  is  not  wholly  that  something  which  satisfies  the  cravings  of 
the  emotional  nature  of  man,  but  is  that  rational  demonstration  of  the  cos¬ 
mos,  which  shows  at  once  the  why  and  wherefore  of  existence,  provides  the 
eternal  and  all-embracing  foundation  of  natural  ethics  and  by  showing  to 
humanity  the  highest  ideal  of  happiness  realizable,  excites  and  shows  the 
means  of  satisfying  the  emotional  part  of  man;  if,  I  say,  religion  is  all  this, 
all  questions  of  particular  religious  professions  and  their  comparative  value 
must  resolve  themselves  into  simple  problems  workable  with  the  help  of 
unprejudiced  reason  and  intelligence.  In  other  words,  religion,  instead  of 
being  a  mere  matter  of  faith,  might  well  become  the  solid  province  of 
.  reason,  and  a  science  of  religion  may  not  be  so  much  a  dream  as  is  imagined 
by  persons  pledged  to  certain  conclusions.  Holding,  therefore,  these  views 
on  the  nature  of  religion,  and  having  at  heart  the  great  benefit  of  a  common 
basis  of  religion  for  all  men,  I  would  submit  the  following  simple  principles 
for  your  consideration : 

1.  Belief  in  the  existence  of  an  ultramaterial  principle  in  nature  and  in 
the  unity  of  the  all. 

2.  Belief  in  reincarnation  and  salvation  by  action. 

These  two  principles  of  a  possible  universal  religion  might  stand  or  fall 
on  their  merits  apart  from  the  consideration  of  any  philosophy  or  revelation 
that  upholds  them.  I  have  every  confidence  no  philosophy  would  reject 
them,  no  science  would  gainsay  them,  no  system  of  ethics  would  deny 
them,  no  religion  which  professes  to  be  philosophic,  scientific,  or  ethical 
ought  to  shrink  back  from  them.  In  them  I  see  the  salvation  of  man  and 
the  possibility  of  that  universal  love  which  the  world  is  so  much  in  need 
of  at  the  present  moment. 


ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  DIVINE  BEING. 

W.  T.  HARRIS,  UNITED  STATES  COMMISSIONER  OF  EDUCATION. 

When  Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  chairman  of  the  afternoon 
session,  presented  to  the  audience  yesterday  afternoon,  W.  T. 
Harris,  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education,  he  compli¬ 
mented  him  upon  his  earnestness  in  the  quest  of  truth,  and 
added  that,  although  the  learned  gentleman  belonged  to  the 
United  States,  he  had  all  the  credentials  necessary  to  class  him 
with  Brahmans  of  the  highest  caste. 

The  first  thinker  who  discovered  an  adequate  proof  of  the  existence  of 
God  was  Plato.  He  devoted  his  life  to  thinking  out  the  necessary  condi¬ 
tions  of  independent  being,  or,  in  other  words,  the  form  of  any  whole  or 
totality  of  being. 

Dependent  being  implies  something  else  than  itself  as  that  on  which  it 
depends.  It  can  not  be  said  to  derive  its  being  from  another  dependent  or 
derivative  being,  because  that  has  no  being  of  its  own  to  lend  it.  A  whole 
series  of  connected  dependent  beings  must  derive  their  origin  and  present 


ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  DIVINE  BEING. 


117 


subsistence  from  an  independent  being — that  is  to  say,  from  what  exists  in 
and  through  itself  and  imparts  its  being  to  others  or  derived  beings.  Hence 
the  independent  being,  which  is  presupposed  by  the  dependent  being,  is 
creative  and  active  in  the  sense  that  it  is  self-determined  and  determines 
others. 

Plato  in  most  passages  calls  this  presupposed  independent  being  by  the 
word  idea,  ex  sos,  or  idea.  He  is  sure  that  there  are  as  many  ideas  as  there 
are  total  beings  in  the  universe.  He  reasons  that  there  are  two  kinds  of 
motion  —  that  which  is  derived  from  some  other  mover,  and  that  which  is 
derived  from  self  —  thus  the  self- moved  and  the  moved -through-others 
include  all  kinds  of  beings.  But  the  moved-through-others  presupposes 
the  self-moved  as  the  source  of  its  own  motion.  Hence  the  explanation  of 
all  that  exists  or  moves  must  be  sought  and  found  in  the  self-moved. 
(Tenth  book  of  Plato’s  laws.)  In  his  dialogue,  named  “  The  Sophist,”  he 
argues  that  ideas  or  independent  beings  must  possess  activity,  and,  in 
short,  be  thinking  or  rational  beings. 

This  great  discovery  of  the  principle  that  there  must  be  independent 
being  if  there  is  dependent  being  is  the  foundation  of  philosophy  and  also 
of  theology.  Admit  that  there  may  be  a  world  of  dependent  beings,  each 
one  of  which  depends  on  another,  and  no  one  of  them  nor  all  of  them 
depend  on  an  independent  being,  and  at  once  philosophy  is  made  impossible 
and  theology  deprived  of  its  subject-matter.  But  such  admission  would 
destroy  thought  itself. 

Let  it  be  assumed,  for  the  sake  of  considering  where  it  would  lead,  that 
all  existent  beings  are  dependent;  that  no  one  possesses  any  other  being 
than  derived  being.  Then  it  follows  that  each  one  borrows  its  being  from 
others  that  do  not  have  any  being  to  lend.  Each  and  all  are  dependent  and 
must  first  obtain  being  from  another  before  they  can  lend  it.  If  it  is  said 
that  the  series  of  dependent  beings  is  such  that  the  last  depends  upon  the 
first  again,  so  that  there  is  a  circle  of  dependent  beings,  then  it  has  to  be 
admitted  that  the  whole  circle  is  independent,  and  from  this  strange  result 
it  follows  that  the  independence  of  the  whole  circle  of  being  is  something 
transcendent— a  negative  unity  creating  and  then  annulling  again  the  par¬ 
ticular  beings  forming  the  members the  series.  • 

This  theory  is  illustrated  in  the  doctrine  of  the  correlations  of  forces. 
The  action  of  force  number  one  gives  rise  to  force  number  two  and  so  on  to 
the  end.  But  this  implies  that  the  last  of  the  series  gives  rise  to  the  first  one 
of  the  series,  and  the  whole  becomes  a  self-determined  totality  or  independ¬ 
ent  being.  Moreover,  the  persistent  force  is  necessarily  different  from  any 
one  of  the  series;  it  is  not  heat,  nor  light,  nor  electricity,  nor  gravitation, 
nor  any  other  of  the  series,  but  the  common  ground  of  all,  and  hence  not 
particularized  like  any  one  of  them.  It  is  the  general  force  whose  office  it 
is  to  energize  and  produce  the  series — originating  one  force  and  annulling 
it  again  by  causing  it  to  pass  into  another.  Thus  the  persistent  force  is 
not  one  of  the  series,  but  transcends  all  of  the  particular  forces;  they  are 
derivative;  it  is  original,  independent,  and  transcendent.  It  demands  as 
the  next  step  of  explanation  the  exhibition  of  the  necessity  of  its  produc¬ 
tion  of  just  this  series  of  particular  forces  as  involved  in  the  nature  of  the 
self-determined  or  absolute  force.  It  involves,  too,  the  necessary  conclusion 
that  a  self-determined  force  which  originates  all  of  its  special  determina¬ 
tions  and  cancels  them  all  is  a  pure  Ego  or  self -hood. 

For  consciousness  is  the  name  given  by  us  to  that  kind  of  being  which 
can  annul  all  of  its  determinations.  For  it  can  annul  all  objective  deter¬ 
mination  and  have  left  only  its  own  negative  might  while  it  descends 
creatively  to  particular  thoughts,  volitions,  or  feelings.  It  can  drop  them 
instantly  by  turning  its  gaze  upon  its  pure  self  as  the  creator  of  those 
determinations.  This  turn  upon  itself  is  accomplished  by  filling  its  object¬ 
ive  field  with  the  negation  or  annulment — this  is  its  own  act  and  in  it 
realizes  its  personal  identity  and  its  personal  transcendence  limitations. 


118 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Hence  we  may  see  that  the  doctrines  of  correlation  of  forces  presupposes 
a  personality  creating  and  transcending  the  series  of  forces  correlated.  If 
the  mind  undertakes  to  suppose  a  total  of  dependent  or  derivative  beings  it 
ends  by  reaching  an  independent,  self-determined  being  which,  as  pure 
subject,  transcends  its  determinations  as  object,  and  is  therefore  an  Ego 
or  person. 

Again,  the  insight  which  established  this  doctrine  of  independent  beings 
or  Platonic  “  ideas  ”  is  not  fully  satisfied  when  it  traces  dependent  or  deriv¬ 
ative  motion  back  to  any  intelligent  being  as  its  source;  there  is  a  further 
step  possible,  namely,  from  a  world  of  many  ideas  to  an  absolute  idea  as  the 
divine  author  of  all. 

For  time  and  space  are  of  such  a  nature  that  all  beings  contained  by 
them — ^namely,  all  extended  and  successive  beings  are  in  necessary  mutual 
dependence,  and  hence  in  one  unity.  This  unity  of  dependent  beings  in 
time  and  space  demands  one  transcendent  being.  Hence  the  doctrine  of 
the  idea  of  ideas — the  doctrine  of  a  divine  being,  who  is  rational  and 
personal,  and  who  creates  beings  in  time  and  space  and  in  order  to  share 
his  fullness  of  being  with  a  world  of  created  beings — created  for  the  special 
purpose  of  sharing  his  blessedness. 

This  is  the  idea  of  the  supreme  goodness,  and  Plato  comes  upon  it  as  the 
highest  thought  of  his  system.  In  the  Timaeus  he  speaks  of  the  absolute 
as  being  without  envy  and  therefore  as  making  the  world  as  another  blessed 
God. 

In  this  Platonic  system  of  thought  we  have  the  first  authentic  survey  of 
human  reason  Human  reason  has  two  orders  of  knowing— one  the  know¬ 
ing  of  dependent  beings  and  the  other  the  knowing  of  independent  beings. 
The  first  is  the  order  of  knowing  through  the  senses;  the  second  the  order 
of  knowing  by  logical  presupposition.  I  know  by  seeing,  hearing,  tasting, 
touching  things  and  events.  I  know  by  seeing  what  these  things  and 
events  logically  imply  or  presuppose  that  there  is  a  great  First  Cause,  a  per¬ 
sonal  reason  who  reveals  a  gracious  purpose  by  creating  finite  beings  in 
time  and  space. 

This  must  be  or  else  human  reason  is  at  fault  in  its  very  foundations. 
This  must  be  so  or  else  it  must  be  that  there  is  dependent  being  which  has 
nothing  to  depend  on.  Human  reason,  then,  we  may  say  from  this  insight 
of  Plato,  rests  upon  this  knowledge  of  transcendental  being — a  being  that 
transcends  all  determinations  of  extent  and  succession  such  as  appertain 
to  space  and  time,  and  therefore,  that  transcends  both  time  and  space. 
This  transcendent  being  is  perfect  fullness  of  being,  while  the  beings  in 
time  and  space  are  partial  or  imperfect  beings  in  the  sense  of  being  embry¬ 
onic  or  undeveloped,  being  partially  realized  and  partially  potential. 

At  this  point  the  system  of  Aristotle  can  be  understood  in  its  harmony 
with  the  Platonic  system.  Aristotle,  too,  holds  explicitly  that  the  beings  in 
the  world  which  derive  motion  from  other  beings  presuppose  a  first  mover. 
But  he  is  careful  to  eschew  the  first  expression  self-moved  as  applying  to 
the  prime  mover.  God  is  himself  unmoved,  but  he  is  the  origin  of  motion 
in  others.  This  was  doubtless  the  true  thought  of  Plato,  since  he  made 
the  divine  eternal  and  good. 

In  his  metaphysics  (book  eleventh,  chapter  seven)  Aristotle  unfolds  his 
doctrine  that  dependent  beings  presuppose  a  divine  being  whose  activity  is 
pure  and  knowing.  He  alone  is  perfectly  realized — the  schoolmen  call  this 
technically  “pure  act”— all  other  being  partly  potential,  not  having  fully 
grown  to  its  perfection.  Aristotle’s  proof  of  the  divine  existence  is  sub¬ 
stantially  the  same  as  that  of  Plato — an  ascent  from  dependent  being  by  the 
discovery  of  presuppositions  to  the  perfect  being  who  presupposes  nothing 
else — than  the  identification  of  the  perfect  or  dependent  being  with  think¬ 
ing,  personal,  willing  being. 

This  concept  of  the  divine  being  is  wholly  positive  as  far  as  it  goes, 


ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  DIVINE  BEING. 


119 


and  nothing  of  it  needs  to  be  withdrawn  after  further  philosophic  reflec¬ 
tion  has  discussed  anew  the  logical  presuppositions.  More  presuppositions 
may  be  discovered — new  distinctions  discerned  where  none  were  perceived 
before — but  those  additions  only  make  more  certain  the  fundamental  theory 
explained  first  by  Plato  and  subsequently  by  Aristotle.  This  may  be  seen 
by  a  glance  at  the  theory  of  Christianity,  which  unfolds  itself  in  the  minds 
of  great  thinkers  of  the  first  six  centuries  of  our  era.  The  object  of  Chris¬ 
tian  theologians  was  to  give  unity  and  system  to  the  new  doctrine  of  the 
divine — human  nature  of  God  taught  by  Christ.  They  discovered  one  by 
one  the  logical  presuppositions  and  announced  them  in  the  creed. 

The  Greeks  had  seen  the  idea  of  the  Logos  or  eternally  begotten  son,  the 
Word  that  was  in  the  beginning  and  through  which  created  beings  arose  in 
time  and  space.  But  how  the  finite  and  imperfect  arose  from  the  infinite 
and  perfect  the  Greek  did  not  understand  so  well  as  the  Christian. 

The  Hindu  had  given  up  the  solution  altogether  and  denied  the  problem 
itself.  The  perfect  can  not  be  conceived  as  making  the  imperfect— it  is  too  | 
absurd  to  think  that  a  good  being  should  make  a  bad  being.  Only  Brah¬ 
man  the  absolute  exists  and  all  else  is  illusion — it  is  Maya. 

How  the  illusion  can  exist  is  too  much  to  explain.  The  Hindu  has  only 
postponed  the  problem  and  not  set  it  aside.  His  philosophy  remains  in 
that  contradiction.  The  finite  including  Brahma  himself,  who  philoso¬ 
phizes,  is  an  illusion.  An  illusion  recognizes  itself  as  an  illusion^ — an  illu¬ 
sion  knows  true  being  and  discriminates  itself  from  false  being.  Such  is 
the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Sankhya  philosophy,  and  the  Sankhya  is 
the  fundamental  type  of  all  Hindu  thought. 

The  Greek  escapes  from  this  contradiction.  He  sees  that  the  absolute 
can  not  be  empty,  indeterminate,  pure,  being  devoid  of  all  attributes,  with¬ 
out  consciousness.  Plato  and  Aristotle  see  that  the  absolute  must  be  pure 
form — that  is  to  say,  an  activity  which  gives  form  to  itself — a  self-deter¬ 
mined  being  with  subject  and  object  the  same,  hence  a  self-knowing  and 
self-willed  being.  Hence  the  absolute  cannot  be  an  abstract  unity  like 
Brahman,  but  must  be  a  self-determined  or  a  unity  that  gives  rise  to  duality 
within  itself  and  recovers  its  unity  and  restores  it  by  recognizing  itself  in 
its  object.  . 

The  absolute  as  subject  is  the  first — the  absolute  as  object  is  the  second. 
It  is  Logos.  God’s  object  must  exist  for  all  eternity,  because  He  is  always 
a  person  and  conscious.  But  it  is  very  important  to  recognize  that  the 
Logos,  God’s  object,  is  Himself,  and  hence  equal  to  Himself,  and  also  self- 
conscious.  It  is  not  the  world  in  time  and  space.  To  hold  that  God  thinks 
Himself  as  the  world  is  pantheism — it  is  pantheism  of  the  left  wing  of 
the  Hegelians. 

To  say  that  God  thinks  Himself  as  the  world  is  to  say  that  He  discovers 
in  Himself  finite  and  perishable  forms,  and  therefore  makes  them  objective. 
The  schoolmen  say  truly  that  in  God  intellect  and  will  are  one.  This 
means  that  in  God  His  thinking  makes  objectively  existent  what  it  thinks. 
Plato  saw  clearly  that  the  Logos  is  perfect  and  not  a  world  of  change  and 
decay.  He  could  not  explain  how  the  world  of  change  and  decay  is 
derived  except  from  the  goodness  of  the  Divine  Being  who  imparts  gratui¬ 
tously  of  His  fullness  of  being  to  a  series  of  creatures  who  have  being  only 
in  part. 

But  the  Christian  thinking  adds  two  new  ideas  to  the  two  already 
found  by  Plato.  It  adds  to  the  Divine  First  and  the  Second  (the  Logos), 
also  a  Divine  Third,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  a  fourth  not  divine,  but  the  process 
of  the  third — calling  it  the  processio.  This  idea  of  process  explains  the 
existence  of  a  world  of  finite  beings,  for  it  contains  evolution,  development, 
or  derivation.  And  evolution  implies  the  existence  of  degrees  of  less  and 
more  perfection  of  growth.  The  procession  thus  must  be  in  time,  but  the 
time  process  must  have  eternally  gone  on  because  the  third  has  eternally 
proceeded  and  been  proceeding. 


120 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  thought  underneath  this  theory  is  evidently  that  the  Second  Per¬ 
son  or  Logos  in  knowing  himself  or  in  being  conscious  knows  himself  in 
two  phases,  first,  as  completely  generated  or  perfect,  and  this  is  the  holy 
spirit  and,  secondly,  he  knows  himself  as  related  to  the  First  as  his  eternal 
origin.  In  thinking  of  his  origin  or  genesis  from  the  Father  he  makes 
objective  a  complete  world  of  evolution  containing  at  all  times  all  degrees 
of  development  or  evolution  and  covering  every  degree  of  imperfection  from 
pure  space  and  time  up  to  the  invisible  church. 

This  recognition  of  his  derivation  is  also  a  recognition  on  the  part  of  the 
First  of  his  own  act  of  generating  the  Second^ — it  is  not  going  on,  but  has 
been  eternally  completed,  and  yet  both  the  Divine  First  and  the  Divine 
Second  must  think  it  when  they  think  of  their  relation  to  one  another. 
Recognition  is  the  intellectual  of  the  First,  and  Second  is  the  mutual  love 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  this  mutual  love  is  the  procession  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

But  the  procession  is  not  a  part  of  the  Holy  Trinity;  it  is  the  creation  in 
time  and  space  of  an  infinite  world  of  imperfect  beings  developing  into  self¬ 
activity  and  as  self-active  organizing  institutions-— the  family,  civil  society, 
the  state  and  the  church.  The  church  is  the  New  Jerusalem  described  by 
St.  John,  the  apostle,  who  has  revealed  this  doctrine  of  the  third  person  as 
an  institutional  person — the  spirit  who  makes  possible  all  institutional 
organism  in  the  world  and  who  transcends  them  all  as  the  perfect  who 
energizes  in  the  imperfect  to  develop  it  and  complete  it. 

Thus  stated,  the  Christian  thought  is  expressed  in  the  symbol  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  explains  fully  the  relations  of  the  world  of  imperfect  beings 
and  makes  clear  in  what  way  the  goodness  or  grace  of  God  makes  the  world 
as  Plato  and  Aristotle  taught. 

The  world  is  a  manifestation  of  divine  grace — a  spectacle  of  the  evolu¬ 
tion  or  becoming  of  individual  existence  in  all  phases,  inorganic  and  organic. 
Individuality  begins  to  appear  even  in  specific  gravity  and  in  ascending 
degrees  in  cohesion  and  crystallization.  In  the  plant  it  is  unmistakable.  In 
the  animal  it  begins  to  feel  and  perceive  itself.  In  man  it  arrives  at  self- 
consciousness  and  moral  action  and  recognizes  its  own  place  in  the 
universe.  , 

God,  being  without  envy,  does  not  grudge  any  good;  he  accordingly 
turns,  as  Rothe  says,  the  emptiness  of  non-being  into  a  reflection  of  himself 
and  makes  it  everywhere  a  spectacle  of  his  grace. 

Of  the  famous  proof  of  divine  existence,  St.  Anselm’s  holds  the  first 
place.  But  St.  Anselm’s  proof  can  not  be  understood  without  recurring  to 
the  insight  of  Plato.  In  his  Proslogium  St.  Anselm  finds  that  there  is  but 
one  thought  which  underlies  all  others — one  thought  universally  presup¬ 
posed,  and  this  he  describes  as  the  thought  of  that  than  which  there  can 
be  nothing  greater.  “Id  quo  nihil  majus  cogitari  potest.”  This  assuredly 
is  Plato’s  thought  of  the  totality.  Everything  not  a  total  is  less  than  the 
totality.  But  the  totality  is  the  greatest  possible  being. 

The  essential  thing  to  notice,  however,  is  that  St.  Anselm  perceives  that 
this  one  thought  is  objectively  valid  and  not  a  mere  subjective  notion  of 
the  thinker.  No  thinker  can  doubt  that  there  is  a  totality — he  can  be  per¬ 
fectly  sure  that  the  plus  the  not  me  include  all  that  there  is.  Gaunillo, 
in  the  lifetime  of  St.  Anselm,  and  Kant  in  recent  times  have  tried  to 
refute  the  argument  by  alleging  the  general  proposition — the  conception 
of  a  thing  does  not  imply  its  corresponding  existence.  The  proposition  is 
true,  except  in  the  case  of  this  one  ontological  thought  of  the  totality  of 
the  thoughts  that  can  be  logically  deduced  from  it.  The  second  order  of 
knowing,  by  presumptions,  implies  an  existence  corresponding  to  each  con¬ 
cept.  St.  Anselm  knew  that  the  person  who  denied  the  objective  validity 
of  this  idea  of  the  totality  must  presuppose  its  truth  right  in  the  very  act 
of  denying  it.  If  there  be  an  Ego  that  thinks,  even  if  it  be  the  Ego  of  a 


ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  DIVINE  BEING. 


121 


fool  (insipiens)  who  says  in  his  heart,  “  There  is  no  God,”  it  must  be  certain 
that  its  self  plus  its  not  self  makes  a  totality  and  that  this  totality  surely 
exists.  The  existence  of  his  Ego  is  or  may  be  contingent,  but  the  totality 
is  certainly  not  contingent  but  necessary.  This  is  an  ontological  necessity 
and  the  basis  of  all  further  philosophical  and  theological  thoughts. 

St.  Anselm  does  not,  it  is  true,  follow  out  this  thought  to  its  contempla¬ 
tion  in  his  Proslogium  nor  in  his  Monologium.  He  leaves  it  there  with  the 
idea  of  a  necessary  being  who  is  supreme  and  perfect  because  he  contains 
the  fullness  of  being. 

He  undoubtedly  saw  the  further  implication,  namely,  that  the  totality 
is  an  independent  being  and  self-existent  because  it  is  self-active.  He  saw 
this  so  clearly  that  he  did  not  think  it  worth  while  to  stop  and  unfold  it. 
But  he  did  speak  of  it  as  a  necessary  existence  contrasted  with  a  contingent 
existence.  “  Everywhere  else  besides  God,”  he  says,  “  can  be  conceived  not 
to  exist.’’ 

Descartes,  in  hie  third  Meditation,  has  repeated  with  some  modification 
the  demonstration  of  St.  Anselm.  He  holds,  in  substance,  that  the  idea  of 
a  perfect  being  is  not  subjective,  but  objective — we  see  that  he  is  dealing 
with  the  necessary  objectivity  of  the  idea  of  totality.  The  expression, 
“  perfect  being,”  is  entirely  misunderstood  by  most  v/riters  in  the  history  of 
philosophy — it  must  be  taken  only  in  the  sense  of  independent  being- 
being — for  itself — being  that  can  be  what  it  is  without  support  from 
another — hence  perfectly  self-determined  being.  The  expression,  “perfect,” 
points  directly  to  Aristotle’s  invented  word,  entelechy,  whose  literal  mean¬ 
ing  is  the  having  of  perfection  itself.  The  word  is  invented  to  express  the 
thought  of  the  independent  presupposed  by  dependent  being. 

Perfect  being,  as  Aristotle  teaches,  is  pure  energy — all  of  his  potentiali¬ 
ties  are  realized — ^hence  it  is  not  subject  to  change  nor  is  it  passive  or  reci¬ 
pient  of  anything  from  without — it  is  pure  form,  or  rather  self -formative. 
Kead  in  the  light  of  Plato’s  idea  and  Aristotle’s  entelechy,  St.  Anselm  and 
Descarte’s  proofs  are  clear  and  intelligible,  and  are  not  touched  by  Kant’s 
criticism.  In  his  philosophy  of  religion  and  elsewhere,  Hegel  has  pointed 
out  the  source  of  Kant’s  misapprehension.  Gaunilo  instanced  the  island 
Atlantis  as  a  conception  which  does  not  imply  a  corresponding  reality. 
Kant  instanced  a  hundred  dollars  as  a  conception  which  did  not  imply  a 
corresponding  reality  in  his  pocket.  But  neither  the  island  Atlantis,  nor  any 
other  is  and  neither  a  hundred  dollars — in  short,  no  finite  dependent  being 
is  at  all  a  necessary  being,  and  hence  can  not  be  deduced  from  its  concept. 
But  each  and  every  contingent  being  presupposes  the  existence  of  an  inde- 
'  pendent  being — a  self-determined  being — an  absolute  divine  reason. 

St.  Anselm  proved  the  depth  of  his  thought  by  advancing  a  new  theory 
of  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  satisfaction,  not  of  the  claims  of  the  devil,  but 
as  the  satisfaction  of  the  claims  of  God’s  justice  for  sin.  Although  we  do 
not  trace  out  his  full  thought  in  the  Proslogium  we  can  see  the  depth  and 
clearness  of  his  thinking  in  this  new  theory  of  atonement.  For,  in  order  to 
understand  it  philosophically,  the  thinker  must  make  clear  to  himself  the 
logical  necessity  for  the  exclusion  of  all  forms  of  finitude  of  dependent 
being  from  the  thought  of  the  Divine  Reason  who  knows  Himself  in  the 
Logos.  To  think  an  imperfection  is  to  annul  it — hence  God’s  thought  of  an 
imperfect  being  annuls  it.  ‘This  logical  statement  corresponds  to  the  politi¬ 
cal  definition  of  the  idea  of  justice. 

Justice  gives  to  a  being  its  dues — it  completes  it  by  adding  to  it  what  it 
lacks.  Add  to  an  imperfect  being  what  it  lacks  and  you  destroy  its  indi¬ 
viduality.  This  is  justice  instead  of  grace.  Grace  bears  with  the  imper¬ 
fect  being  until  it  completes  itself  by  its  own  act  of  self-determination. 
But,  in  order  that  a  world  of  imperfect  beings,  sinners,  may  have  this  field 
of  probation,  a  perfect  being  must  bear  their  imperfection.  The  divine 
Logos  must  harbor  in  his  thought  all  the  stages  of  genesis  or  becoming  and 


122 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

thereby  endowed  beings  in  a  finite  world,  with  reality  and  self-existence. 
Thus  the  conception  of  St.  Anselm  was  a  deep  and  true  insight. 

The  older  view  of  Christ’s  atonement  as  a  ransom  paid  to  Satan  is  not 
so  irrational  as  it  seems,  if  we  divest  it  of  the  personification  which  figures 
the  negative  as  a  co-ordinate  person  with  God.  God  only  is  absolute  per¬ 
son.  His  pure  not-me  is  chaos,  but  not  a  personal  devil.  In  order  that 
God’s  grace  shall  have  the  highest  possible  manifestation,  he  turns  his 
not-me  into  a  reflection  of  himself  by  making  a  series  of  ascending  stages 
out  of  dependence  and  nonentity  into  independence  and  personal  individ¬ 
uality.  But  the  process  of  reflection  by  creation  in  time  and  space  involves 
God’s  tenderness  and  long-suffering  —it  involves  a  real  sacrifice  in  the 
Divine  Being— for  he  must  hold  and  sustain  in  existence  by  His  creative 
thought  the  various  stages  of  organic  beings — plants  and  animals  are  mere 
caricatures  of  the  divine — then  it  must  support  and  nourish  humanity  in  its 
wickedness  and  sin — a  deeper  alienation  than  even  that  of  minerals,  plants, 
and  animals,  because  it  is  a  willful  alienation  of  a  higher  order  of  beings. 

Self-sacrificing  love  is,  therefore,  the  concept  of  the  atonement;  it  is,  in 
fact,  the  true  concept  of  the  divine  gift  of  being  of  infinite  things;  it  is  not 
merely  religion,  it  is  philosophy  or  necessary  truth.  But  it  is  very  import¬ 
ant  so  to  conceive  nature  as  not  to  attach  it  to  the  idea  of  God  by  them  in 
Himself;  such  an  idea  is  pantheism.  Nature  does  not  form  a  person  of  the 
trinity.  It  is  not  the  Logos,  as  supposed  by  the  left  wing  of  the  Hegelians. 
And  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  nature  is  not  an  accident  in  God’s  purposes  as 
conceived  by  theologians,  who  react  too  far  from  the  pantheistic  view. 
Nature  is  eternal,  but  not  self-existent;  it  is  the  procession  of  the  holy 
spirit  and  arises  in  the  double  thought  of  the  first  person  and  the  Logos  or 
the  timeless  generation  which  is  logically  involved  in  the  fact  of  God’s  con¬ 
sciousness  of  himself  as  eternal  reason. 

The  thought  of  God  is  a  regressive  thought — it  is  an  ascent  from  the 
dependent  to  that  on  which  it  depends.  It  is  called  dialectical  by  Plato  in 
the  sixth  book  of  the  Republic.  “  The  Dialectic  Method,”  says  he,  “  ascends 
from  what  has  a  mere  contingent  or  hypothetic  existence  to  the  first  prin¬ 
ciple  by  proving  the  inefficiency  of  all  except  the  first  principle.” 

This  is  the  second  order  of  knowing  —  the  discovery  of  the  ontological 
presuppositions.  The  first  order  of  knowing  sees  things  and  events  by  the 
aid  of  the  senses,  the  second  order  of  knowing  sees  the  first  cause.  The 
first  order  of  knowing  attains  to  a  knowledge  of  the  perishable,  the  second 
order  attains  to  the  imperishable.  The  idea  of  God  is,  as  Kant  has  explained, 
the  supreme  directive  or  regulative  idea  in  the  mind.  It  is,  moreover,  as 
Plato  and  St.  Anselm  saw,  the  most  certain  of  all  our  ideas,  the  light  in  all 
our  seeing. 


IDEALISM  THE  NEW  RELIGION. 

DR.  ADOLF  BRODBECK  OF  HANOVER,  GERMANY,  “A  REPRESENTA¬ 
TIVE  MODERN  SCIENTIST.” 

ft 

The  blunt  declarations  concerning  both  the  old  religions  and 
the  new  gospel,  which  he  champions,  created  a  decided  sensa¬ 
tion.  In  his  preliminary  remarks,  Dr.  Brodbeck  announced 
that  some  of  his  views  would  appear  strange  to  many,  and 
in  this  he  spoke  truly.  He  was  the  representative,  he  said. 


Idealism  the  new  religion. 


123 


of  a  new  form  of  religion  that  was  spreading  rapidly,  not  only 
in  Germany  but  in  all  other  civilized  countries.  Although 
the  disciples  of  the  new  religion  had  been  severely  persecuted 
by  their  enemies,  they  were  happy,  because  they  still  believed 

in  God,  and  tried  hard  to  be  good. 

It  is  an  open  secret  that  millions  of  people  in  our  civilized  countries 
have  partially  given  up  Christianity  and,  with  it,  religion.  Millions  of 
others  cling  to  the  old  belief  only  because  there  is  nothing  better  there. 
Again  millions  are  believers  in  Christianity  or  other  religions  because  they 
have  been  educated  in  those  lines  and  do  not  know  better.  The  time  has 
come  for  a  new  form  of  religion  in  which  the  painful  discord  between  mod¬ 
ern  civilization  and  old  beliefs  disappear  and  bright  harmony  is  placed 
instead. 

What  is  good  can  be  left,  other  things  can  be  reformed,  thus  bringing 
fresh  life  into  dead  forms;  other  things  again  are  to  be  abolished  entirely, 
and,  lastly,  new  factors  have  to  spring  up.  It  would,  however,  be  a  great 
mistake  to  think  that  only  against  Christianity  the  new  religion  is  directed; 
it  is  directed  against  all  other  religions  as  far  as  they  differ  from  the  new 
religion. 

We  are  not  heathens,  not  Jews,  nor  Mohammedans,  nor  Buddhists,  nor 
Christians,  and,  more  especially,  neither  Catholics,  nor  Protestants,  nor 
Methodists,  nor  holders  of  any  other  form  of  Christianity.  We  also  do  not 
revive  any  old  religion  that  may  have  existed  or  still  exists.  The  new  relig¬ 
ion  is  also  not  a  mixture  or  synopsis  of  previous  religions.  The  new  religion 
is  also  not  a  philosophical  system  of  any  kind.  It  is  not  atheism,  not  pan¬ 
theism,  not  theism,  not  deism,  not  materialism,  not  spiritualism,  not  natur¬ 
alism,  not  realism,  not  mysticism,  not  freemasonry;  nor  is  it  any  form  of 
so-called  philosophical  idealism. 

It  is  not  rationalism  and  not  supranaturalism;  also  not  scepticism  or 
agnosticism.  It  is  not  optimism  and  not  pessimism;  also  not  stoicism  and 
not  epicureism;  nor  is  it  any  combination  of  those  philosophical  doctrines. 
It  is  also  not  positiveism  and  not  Darwinism  or  evolutionism.  It  is  also 
not  moralism,  and  is  also  not  synonymous  with  philanthropism  or  humani- 
tarianism. 

In  short,  the  new  religion  is  something  new.  Its  name  is  idealism.  Its 
confessors  are  called  idealists.  The  aim  of  this  new  religion  is  soon 
explained.  Its  chief  aim  is  idealism;  that  is,  the  striving  for  the  ideal,  the 
perfection  in  everything  for  the  ideal  of  mankind,  especially  of  each  indi¬ 
vidual;  further,  for  the  ideal  of  science  and  art,  for  the  ideal  of  civilization, 
for  the  ideal  of  all  virtues,  for  the  ideal  of  family,  community,  society,  and 
humanity  in  all  forms. 

All  those  who  work  already  in  this  line,  or  are  willing  to  work  for  it,  are 
our  friends,  and,  in  fact,  our  members.  Every  political  man  who  does  his 
best  for  the  benefit  of  his  people  is  our  friend.  Every  earnest  and  sincere 
scientist  is  our  assistant.  Every  noble  artist  is  our  helpmate.  Every 
honest  business  man  and  manufacturer,  every  respectable  and  hard-work¬ 
ing  man  or  woman,  are  our  co-workers.  All  good  children  are  our  best 
friends,  and  we  are  theirs.  A  noble  father,  a  careful  mother,  are  inclosed 
in  our  holy  circle.  The  honest  poor,  the  sick,  and  widows  and  orphans,  the 
deserted  and  lonely  people  are  especially  welcome,  and  shall  benefit  from 
our  practical  idealism,  which  means  not  consolation  for  the  future,  but 
practical  help  for  this  life. 

All  masters  and  teachers,  tutors  and  governesses,  are  our  fellows,  if  they 
work  in  the  spirit  of  our  idealism.  Even  all  priests  of  all  religions  are  our 
friends,  so  far  as  they  theoretically  and  practically  agree  with  our  principles. 


124 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


All  the  rich  and  wealthy  are  our  friends,  if  they  practically  agree  to  our 
religion. 

The  new  religion  is  not  agressive,  but  creative  and  reforming.  It  has 
nothing  to  do  with  anarchism  or  revolutionism.  It  works  not  with  force, 
but  with  organization,  example,  doctrine.  If  attacked,  it  defends  itself 
with  all  means  permitted  by  our  principles,  and  if  undermined  by  secret 
agitation  or  open  crime  it  does  not  give  way.  Faithful  to  idealism  unto 
death  is  our  device.  Our  enemies  are  the  dogmatic  in  all  forms;  our  ene¬ 
mies  are  also  all  who  are  opposed  to  idealism;  that  is,  especially  the  lazy  and 
unjust.  We  hate  hypocrisy  in  all  its  forms,  cruelty  and  vice,  and  crimes  of 
all  sorts.  We  are  not  for  absolute  abstaining  from  stimulants,  as  long  as 
science  has  not  absolutely  decided  against  them;  but  we  are  friendly  to  all 
temperance  societies. 

We  are  not  in  favor  of  extremes;  in  most  cases  virtue  is  the  middle 
between  extremes.  We  do  not  profess  to  have  any  certain  knowledge  of 
things  beyond  this  life.  We  believe  that  there  is  an  absolute  power  over 
which  we  have  no  control.  The  true  essence  of  this  power  we  do  not  know. 
With  some  reserve  the  words  “providence,”  “almighty,”  “creator,”  might 
be  used;  but  we  do  not  believe  that  there  exists  an  absolute  personal  being 
as  a  kind  of  individual,  as  this  is  against  true  philosophy  and  is  a  form  of 
anthropomorphism. 

We  do  not  make  any  man  or  woman  to  be  a  god,  nor  do  we  believe  in  a 
god  becoming  man  ;  but  we  assume  that  there  are  great  differences  in  men, 
and  that  some  do  more  for  the  benefit  of  mankind  and  true  civilization 
than  others,  but  it  is  not  advisable  to  ascribe  that  to  special  merits  of  such 
a  person.  If  somebody  is  born  a  genius  and  finds  favorable  conditions  of 
development,  it  is  not  his  merit.  We  believe  in  the  great  value  of  a  good 
example  for.followers  more  than  in  doctrines.  But  we  do  not  worship  any¬ 
body,  nor  any  single  object,  nor  any  product  of  human  imagination  as  being 
God. 

We  do  not  know  how  things  originated,  or  if  they  did  originate  at  all, 
so  we  also  do  not  know  what  will  be  the  last  end  and  aim  of  everything 
existing,  if  there  is  anything  like  last  end  and  aim  at  all.  At  any  rate  those 
are  open  questions,  and  science  is  allowed  to  discuss  them  freely.  We  do 
not  believe  that  there  is  a  resurrection  of  human  individuals.  We  do  not 
believe  that  there  is  immortality  of  the  individual  as  such.  We  leave  it  to 
science  to  decide  how  far  there  can  be  anything  like  existence  after  death. 

We  do  not  believe  in  heaven  as  the  dwelling  of  individuals  after  death  ; 
astronomy  is  against  such  a  belief.  We  do  not  believe  in  hell,  nor  a  per¬ 
sonal  leader  of  it,  nor  in  purgatory.  But  we  acknowledge  willingly  the 
relative  truths  of  those  and  similar  dogmas.  We  do  not  believe  that  once 
everything  was  good  and  perfect  in  this  world.  We  do  not  believe  that  all 
evils  came  into  the  world  through  man’s  fault,  although  a  great  many  of 
them  did.  We  do  not  consider  the  world  irreparable.  We  take  everything 
as  it  is  and  try  to  improve  it  if  possible.  We  do  not  believe  in  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  absolute  perfection  of  anybody  or  anything. 

We  do  not  think  that  every  good  deed  finds  its  proper  reward,  nor  do 
we  think  that  every  wrong  deed  is  properly  punished.  But  as  a  whole  we 
believe  that  doing  good  deeds  brings  about  good  things,  and  that  wrong¬ 
doing  is  a  failure  in  the  end.  What  is  once  done  can  never  be  undone  by 
any  x^ower;  the  only  thing  is  that  it  can  be  practically  forgotten  and,  in 
some  cases,  thS  bad  consequences  avoided. 

We  believe  that  what  is  meant  by  duty,  responsibility,  and  similar  words 
does  not  depend  on  the  theoretical  question  if  there  is  free  will  or  not,  or 
in  what  sense  and  degree  there  is  free  will. 

We  do  not  know  where  we  came  from  nor  where  we  go;  we  only  know 
that  we  are  here  on  this  planet,  and  that  we  must  take  things  as  they  are, 
and  that  we  must  do  our  best  in  everything,  and  in  doing  this  we  are  happy 
as  far  as  happiness  reasonably  can  be  expected  to  be  attained  by  man. 


IDEALISM  THE  NEW  RELIGION, 


125 


We  do  not  hate  Darwinism  or  similar  theories,  but  will  leave  it  entirely 
to  science  to  decide  in  those  and  similar  questions.  We  do  not  expect  too 
much  from  this  life  and  world,  so  we  are  not  disappointed  at  the  end. 

Prayer  we  admit  only  as  reverent  immersion  in  the  great  mystery  of  this 
life  and  world,  and  as  devotion  to  the  unchangeable  laws  of  the  world,  and 
as  practical  acknowledgement  of  the  belief  that  in  doing  good  we  are  in 
true  accord  with  the  good  spirit  in  us,  in  men,  and  in  the  world  in  general. 
Prayer  for  anything  that  is  against  the  natural  course  of  things  we  think 
unreasonable.  In  the  same  way  as  prayers,  also,  all  religious  songs  and 
hymns  ought  to  be  treated. 

If  there  are  no  schools  idealism  tries  to  establish  them;  a  general  know¬ 
ledge  of  nature  and  history  is  most  desirable  for  everybody  as  a  foundation 
for  all  other  knowledge,  and  harmonious  education  of  all  essential  sides  of 
our  being,  bodily  and  mentally,  we  consider  the  ideal  of  education.  But 
this  does  not  exclude  special  and  earnest  preparation  for  the  different  pur¬ 
poses  of  civilized  life,  either  theoretical  or  technical,  or  practical,  or  a  com¬ 
bination  of  either.  We  warn  against  overwork  in  education.  We  do  not 
hide  established  facts  from  everybody.  But  we  think  that  certain  things 
ought  not  to  be  taught  before  the  proper  time  of  their  appreciation  has 
come.  In  social  as  well  as  in  political  things  we  believe  that  there  must  be 
order  and  liberty  combined.  We  do  net  think  that  all  members  of  human 
society  are  equally  able  for  social  or  political  roles.  We  do  not  believe  that 
good  as  well  as  bad  qualities  of  body  and  mind  can  be  transferred  naturally 
from  one  generation  to  the  other. 

We  think  that  the  ideal  of  social  and  political,  of  scientific  and  artistic, 
of  industrial  and  commercial  and  any  other  branch  of  civilized  life  can  best 
be  attained  if  exclusively  individual  qualifications  and  no  others  give  man 
his  degree  in  the  organism  of  civilized  life. 

We  believe  that  many  things  in  our  civilization  are  and  will  be  imper¬ 
fect.  But  it  is  unwise  to  change  or  abolish  something  as  long  as  we  are 
unable  to  put  something  decidedly  better  instead.  We  are  not  in  favor  of 
war  if  it  ever  can  be  avoided  without  disregarding  honor  and  duty  of  honor¬ 
able  existence.  We  are  friendly  to  all  organizations  for  general  peace  and 
for  peaceful  and  useful  intercourse  of  all  nations  of  the  world. 

We  believe  that  the  new  religion,  called  idealism,  can  and  ought  to  be 
adopted  by  all  nations  and  people;  that  it  does  not  depend  on  climate,  nor 
on  certain  degrees  of  civilization.  But  we  believe  that  in  different  coun¬ 
tries  and  times  it  will  be  individualized  differently.  Especially  we  believe 
that  the  forms  of  organization,  of  worship,  prayers,  hymns,  of  preaching 
and  similar  things,  will  assume  different  aspects  in  different  countries  and 
times  without  interfering  with  the  unity  in  essential  points. 

We  do  believe  that  hard  work  is  not  a  curse,  but  a  benefit  for  man,  for 
the  worker  himself  as  well  as  for  others.  We  believe  that  the  ideal,  the 
perfection  of  man,  is  not  only  a  matter  of  knowledge,  but  also  of  practical 
good  work.  To  strive  theoretically  and  practically  in  everything  for  that 
which  is  true  and  good  is  the  ideal  of  man;  that  is  our  firm  belief.  W^e 
believe  that  self-respect  is  necessary;  this  is  the  true  egoism,  if  there  must 
be  egoism.  We  believe  that  love  is  also  necessary  for  everything.  But  we 
believe  that  love  alone,  either  to  God  or  to  our  fellow -creatures  or  to  both, 
is  not  a  sufficient  fundamental  principle  tor  thorough  religion. 

We  believe  that  making  money  is  useful  for  many  things,  and  even 
necessary  for  those  who  have  none,  at  least  as  long  as  money  exists  at  all. 
But  we  believe  that  this  is  not  an  aim  in  itself,  but  that  it ’should  be  only  a 
means  for  honest  living  and  doing  good  and  fostering  all  kinds  of  progress 
in  human  things.  We  believe  that  man  is  not  born  only  to  suffer,  nor  only 
to  work,  but  also  to  enjoy  reasonably  this  life.  We  believe  that  bodily 
exercise  is  necessary  during  our  whole  life,  and  part  of  the  new  religion. 
We  believe  that,  as  a  rule,  only  in  a  sound  body  a  sound  soul  can  exist,  or 


126 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


that  what  is  meant  by  the  word  soul.  We  believe  that  solemn  ceremonies 
and  certain  regular  days  are  something  reasonable  and  useful,  as  long  as 
they  are  not  considered  the  essence  of  religion,  but  are  symbols  and  orna¬ 
ments  of  idealism. 

We  believe  that  everything  goes  always  according  to  certain  laws  in 
nature,  in  history,  in  each  individual;  even  that  which  we  call  an  accident. 
But  we  are  not  fatalists  nor  quietists.  We  believe  in  the  actual  value  of 
our  own  activity.  We  believe  that  all  men,  male  and  female,  are  born  of  a 
mother,  live  shorter  or  longer,  and  die  at  the  end  of  their  life  and  thereby 
finish  their  individual  circle.  We  do  not  fear  death,  nor  do  we  fear  life. 

We  believe  that  everything  should  be  done  to  make  children  happy  and 
healthy  as  long  and  as  much  as  they  ever  can  be,  and  we  hold  that  this  is 
a  special  task  of  our  religion.  We  strive  and  work  hard  for  all  that  we 
believe.  We  try  everywhere  to  make  that  better  which  is  good,  to  avoid 
that  which  is  bad,  and  to  mend  that  which  can  be  mended.  We  believe 
that  everything  must  be  done  to  keep  up  health  in  ourselves,  and  in  all 
others,  as  far  as  possible,  and  to  help  and  restore,  if  possible,  the  sufferers. 

We  believe  that  many  things  are  mysterious,  and  will,  probably,  always 
be  so;  but  we  believe,  also,  that  science  has  a  right  and  duty  to  investigate 
everything,  and  to  state  openly  the  case.  We  believe  that  enthusiasm  is  a 
great  thing  and  a  part  of  true  religion,  namely,  enthusiasm  for  the  wonders 
of  nature,  for  great  men  and  women^for  noble  and  fine  arts;  and  enthusiasm 
for  the  ideal  in  everything,  for  the  ideas  of  perfection,  truth,  justice,  beauty, 
holiness,  and  similar  ideas. 

We  believe  that  the  better  a  man’s  character  is,  the  better  is  his  work; 
the  same  with  a  woman.  We  believe  that  personal  improvement  in  all 
respects  is  the  base  of  all  other  improvements  and  progress.  We  believe 
that  the  power  of  being  good  is  increasing  steadily  by  constant  work  on 
ourselves,  but  we  think  that  up  to  the  last  moment  of  our  life  this  work 
must  be  kept  up,  if  we  are  not  to  be  in  danger  of  falling  back. 

We  believe  that  a  change  for  the  better  is  in  some  persons  a  matter  of  a 
moment,  or  a  few  hours  or  days;  in  others  a  matter  of  weeks,  months,  or 
years,  according  to  individuality  and  circumstances.  We  believe  that  for 
some  people  it  is  easier  to  be  good  or  to  become  good  and  to  remain  good 
than  for  others.  We  believe  that  true  religion  must  be  practiced  privately 
as  well  as  openly  and  together  with  others.  All  our  activity  for  good,  for 
perfection,  can  be  considered  as  the  work  of  an  absolute  or  some  working 
in  us,  and,  so  to  speak,  for  us. 

We  believe  that  without  self-restraint  of  each  individual  no  union,  no 
harmony,  can  exist  among  men.  We  believe  that  in  some  cases  even  wealth 
and  life  must  be  sacrificed  for  the  benefit  of  man,  but  it  is  not  every  man’s 
desire  to  be  so  heroic.  We  believe  that  those  who  possess  the  greatest 
power  of  self-restraint  are  the  fittest  for  ruling  over  others.  We  believe 
that  the  harder  the  struggle  for  self-improvement  is,  the  greater  the 
moral  value  of  an  individual  is. 

Natural  things  we  do  not  consider  sinful  in  themselves,  but  only  if  they 
imply  an  injustice  against  others,  or  if  they  are  against  the  principles  of 
health  or  moral  dignity.  We  believe  that  the  purer  a  person’s  mind  and 
manners  the  better  he  or  she  is  fitted  for  investigation  of  the  mysteries  of 
science,  art  and  of  life,  and  for  working  for  the  benefit  of  man.  We  believe 
that  true  religion  can  exist  very  well  without  any  hope  of  a  future  individ¬ 
ual  existence  after  death,  and  we  even  think  that  true  religion  excludes 
such  a  hope. 

We  believe  that  it  is  not  always  necessary  to  go  back  in  prayer  to  the 
absolute  ground  of  everything  that  ever  was,  is,  and  will  be;  as  for  most 
people  it  is  impossible  to  realize  such  a  grand  idea,  and  even  for  the  wisest 
and  best  it  is  seldom  that  they  can  reach  it  approximately.  Therefore 
it  is  also  allowed  to  pray  in  the  above  stated  sense  to  individualizations  of 


Idealism  the  new  religion. 


127 


the  absolute  ground  and  fullness  of  everything — for  instance  to  the  sun, 
which  is  in  many  ways  our  lifegiver;  to  the  earth,  to  the  idea  of  the  human 
race,  to  the  ideal  of  our  nation,  family,  or  men,  or  women,  to  virtue,  science, 
art;  but  all  that  only  as  far  as  those  things  and  powers  can  be  supposed  to 
be  true  revelations  of  God. 

In  short,  we  believe  that  no  name  given  by  man  will  ever  express  the 
infinite  secret. 

We  believe  that  everything  now  existing  does  change,  but  can  not  abso¬ 
lutely  be  destroyed  Thus  we  believe  that  even  our  sun,  earth,  moon, 
will  once  be  destroyed,  but  probably  in  order  to  begin  in  new  shapes  a  new 
existence.  But  as  to  all  that  we  leave  to  science  to  decide,  if  possible,  when 
and  how  it  will  take  place. 

At  the  close  of  the  exercises,  Chairman  Jones  said,  “I  think 
you  will  agree  with  me  that  the  hospitality  of  this  platform  has 
been  vindicated,  and  that  the  aim  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions 
to  study  all  exhibits  of  the  spectrum  has  been  realized  to-day. 
We rer  the  testimony  of  any  one  missing,  the  spirit  and  intent 
of  this  parliament  would  have  fallen  short  of  its  highest  ideal.  ” 


'<4i 


*  €  V  '  t,  *  *’'  * 


Tlir?,^;) 

If*v  f* 


MOST  REV.  DIONYSIOS  LATAS 
Archbishop  of  Zante,  Greece. 


A 


■t 


? 


n 

c 


CHAPTEE  HI. 


THIRD  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  13th, 


THE  NATURE  OF  MAN. 

The  extensive  programme  of  the  third  day^s  proceedings  of 
the  parliament  required  three  sessions,  and  many  phases  of 
religious  thought  and  life  were  under  review.  Especial  interest 
centered  in  the  discourses  of  P.  0.  Mozoomdar,  Archbishop 
Latas,  and  Pung  Kwang  Yu.  The  archbishop  gave  a  fascinat¬ 
ing  account  of  the  early  history  of  Christianity  in  Greece.  At 
times  it  was  difficult  to  follow  him,  but  his  musical  barytone 
voice  rang  through  the  vast  auditorium,  and  his  earnest  gestures 
elucidated  whatever  was  uncertain  in  his  speech.  The  address 
of  Kinza  Euige  Hirai  on  the  “Position  of  Japan  Towards 
Christianity,”  was  loudly  applauded,  and  when  he  had  finished. 
Dr.  Barrows  grasped  his  hand  and  Jenkin  L.  J ones  threw  his  arms 
around  his  neck,  the  audience  waving  hats  and  handkerchiefs  in 
the  excess  of  enthusiasm.  In  presenting  the  eminent  Chinaman, 
Pung  Kwang  Yu,  Dr.  Barrows  spoke  of  him  as  representing  an 
empire  toward  which  America  has  not  been  just.  An  outburst 
of  applause,  for  several  minutes,  followed  the  statement,  and  the 
Chinese  diplomat  arose  and  bowed  his  acknowledgments.  When 
the  address  of  Eight  Eev.  Eenchi  Shibrata  was  read  by  Dr. 
Barrows,  the  distinguished  stranger,  clothed  in  the  light  silken 
robes  of  the  flowery  kingdom,  stood  beside  the  speaker.  With 
each  outburst  of  applause  the  high -priest  made  a  light  bow,  and 
then  resumed  his  statue-like  attitude.  The  sacred  mountain  of 
Japan,  dedicated  to  the  Shinto  gods,  was  represented  by  a  fine 

painting  that  hung  at  the  back  of  the  platform.  When  the 

133 


134 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


reading  closed,  a  wave  of  applause  broke  forth  all  over  the  house, 
Distinguished  men  and  women  gathered  round  Mr.  Shibrata  and 
shook  his  hand,  and  women  climbed  over  tables  to  pay  their 
compliments  to  the  worthy  Oriental.  In  the  whirlwind  of 
enthusiasm  everybody  in  the  hall  wanted  to  shake  his  hand,  and 
he  tendered  the  audience  an  informal  reception  for  twenty 
min-utes. 

The  Hall  of  Columbus,  at  the  third  session,  was  crowded  to 
its  extreme  limit.  The  morning  session  was  opened  with  a 
significant  and  touching  scene.  Followers  of  Christ,  Jews  and 
Greeks,  Brahmans  and  Buddhists,  devotees  of  Confucius  and 
Mohammed,  all  joined  in  cinging  “Nearer  My  God  to  Thee.’^ 
Dr.  J.  H.  Barrows  presided  in  uho  morning.  Rev.  Dr.  W.  C. 
Roberts  in  the  afternoon.  The  first  session  was  opened  with 
silent  prayer,  after  which  Protap  Chuder  Mozoomdar,  of  Cal¬ 
cutta,  led  in  the  universal  prayer,  “  Our  Father  Who  Art  in 
Heaven.”  Mr.  Mozoomdar  was  introduced  as  one  whose  heart 
is  in  sympathy  with  the  great  work  of  unification  of  the  human 
brotherhood  and  who  has  shown  deep  interest  in  this  great 
movement  by  the  long  journey  he  has  made  and  by  the  activity 
of  his  life  in  the  cause  of  the  new  religion. 


VOICE  FROM  NEW  INDIA. 

REV.  P.  C.  MOZOOMDAR. 

Mr.  President.,  Representatives  of  Nations  and  Religions:  I  told  you 
the  other  day  that  India  is  the  mother  of  religion;  the  land  of  evolution.  I 
am  going,  this  morning,  to  give  you  an  example,  or  demonstrate  the 
truth  of  what  I  said.  The  Brahmo-Somaj  of  India,  which  I  have  the  honor 
to  represent,  is  that  example.  Our  society  is  a  new  society;  our  religion  is 
a  new  religion,  but  it  comes  from  far,  far  antiquity,  from  the  very  roots  of 
our  national  life,  hundreds  of  centuries  ago. 

Sixty-three  years  ago  the  whole  land  of  India  —  the  whole  country  of 
Bengal  —  was  full  of  a  mighty  clamor.  The  great  jarring  noise  of  a  hetero¬ 
geneous  polytheism  rent  the  stillness  of  the  sky.  The  cry  of  widows;  nay, 
far  more  lamentable,  the  cry  of  those  miserable  women,  who  had  to  be 
burned  on  the  funeral  pyre  of  their  dead  husbands,  desecrated  the  holiness 
of  God’s  earth. 

We  had  the  Buddhist,  goddess  of  the  country,  the  mother  of  the  people, 
ten-handed,  holding  in  each  hand  the  weapons  for  the  defense  of  her  chil¬ 
dren.  We  had  the  white  goddess  of  learning,  playing  on  her  Vena,  a 
ptringed  instrument  of  music,  the  strings  of  wisdom,  because,  my  friends, 


VOICE  FROM  NEW  INDIA. 


135 


all  wisdom  is  musical;  where  there  is  a  discord  there  is  no  deep  wisdom 
The  goddess  of  good  fortune,  holding  in  her  arms,  not  the  horn,  but  the 
basket  of  plenty,  blessing  the  nations  of  India,  was  there;  and  the  god  with 
the  head  of  an  elephant,  and  the  god  who  rides  on  a  peacock — martial 
men  are  always  fashionable,  you  know,  and  the 33,000 of  gods  and  goddesses 
besides.  I  have  my  theory  about  the  mythology  of  Hinduism,  but  this  is 
not  the  time  to  take  it  up. 

Amid  the  din  and  clash  of  this  polytheism  and  so-called  evil,  amid  all 
the  darkness  of  the  times,  there  arose  a  man,  a  Brahman,  pure  bred  and 
pure  born,  whose  name  was  Rajah  Ram  Dohan  Roy.  In  his  boyhood  he 
had  studied  the  Arabic  and  Persian;  he  had  studied  Sanskrit,  and  his.own 
mother  was  a  Bengalee.  Before  he  was  out  of  his  teens  he  made  a  journey 
to  Thibet  and  learned  the  wisdom  of  the  Llamas. 

Before  he  became  a  man  he  wrote  a  book  proving  the  falsehood  of  all 
polytheism  and  the  truth  of  the  existence  of  the  living  God.  This  brought 
upon  his  head  persecution,  nay,  even  such  serious  displeasure  of  his  own 
parents  that  he  had  to  leave  his  home  for  awhile  and  live  the  life  of  a  wan¬ 
derer.  In  1830  this  man  founded  a  society  known  as  the  Brahmo-Somaj; 
Brahma,  as  you  know,  means  God.  Brahmo  means  the  worshiper  of  God, 
and  Somaj  means  society;  therefore  Brahmo-Somaj  means  the  society  of 
the  worshipers  of  the  one  living  God.  While  on  the  one  hand  he  estab¬ 
lished  the  Brahmo-Somaj,  on  the  other  hand  he  co-operated  with  the  British 
government  to  abolish  the  barbarous  custom  of  suttee,  or  the  burning  of 
widows  with  their  dead  husbands.  In  1832  he  traveled  to  England,  the 
very  first  Hindu  who  ever  went  to  Europe,  and  in  1833  he  died,  and  his 
sacred  bones  are  interred  in  Bristol,  the  place  where  every  Hindu  pilgrim 
goes  to  pay  his  tribute  of  honor  and  reverence. 

This  monotheism,  the  one  true  living  God  —  this  society  in  the  name  of 
this  great  God  —  what  were  the  underlying  principles  upon  which  it  was 
established?  The  principles  were  those  of  the  old  Hindu  scriptures.  The 
Brahmo-Somaj  founded  this  monotheism  upon  the  inspiration  of  the  Vedas 
and  the  Upanishads.  When  Rajah  Ram  Dohan  Roy  died  his  followers  for 
awhile  found  it  nearly  impossible  to  maintain  the  infant  association.  But 
the  spirit  of  God  was  there.  The  movement  sprang  up  in  the  fullness  of 
time.  The  seed  of  eternal  truth  was  sown  in  it;  how  could  it  die?  Hence 
in  the  course  of  time  other  men  sprang  up  to  preserve  it  and  contribute 
toward  its  growth.  Did  I  say  the  spirit  of  God  was  there?  Did  I  say  the 
seed  of  eternal  truth  was  there?  There !  Where? 

All  societies,  all  churches,  all  religious  movements,  have  their  founda¬ 
tion,  not  without,  but  within  the  depths  of  the  human  soul.  Where  the 
basis  of  a  church  is  outside,  the  floods  shall  rise,  the  rain  shall  beat,  and 
the  storm  shall  blow,  and  like  a  heap  of  sand  it  will  melt  into  the  sea. 
Where  the  basis  is  within  the  heart,  within  the  soul,  the  storm  shall  rise, 
the  rain  shall  beat,  and  the  flood  shall  come,  but,  like  a  rock,  it  neither 
wavers  nor  falls.  So  that  movement  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  shall  never  fall. 
Think  for  yourselves,  my  brothers  and  sisters,  upon  what  foundation  your 
house  is  laid. 

In  the  course  of  time,  as  the  movement  grew,  the  members  began  to 
doubt  whether  Hindu  scriptures  were  really  infallible.  In  their  souls,  in 
the  depth  of  their  intelligence,  they  thought  they  heard  a  voice,  which, 
here  and  there,  at  first  in  feeble  accents,  contradicted  the  deliverances  of 
the  Vedas  and  the  Upanishads.  What  shall  be  our  theological  principles? 
Upon  what  principles  shall  our  religion  stand?  The  small  accents  in  which 
the  question  first  was  asked  became  louder  and  louder,  and  were  more  and 
more  echoed  in  the  rising  religious  society,  until  it  became  the  most  prac¬ 
tical  of  all  problems — upon  what  book  shall  true  religion  stand  ? 

Briefly,  they  found  that  it  was  impossible  that  the  Hindu  scriptures 
should  be  the  only  records  of  true  religion.  They  found  that  the  spirit  was 


136 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


the  great  source  of  confirmation,  the  voice  of  God  was  the  great  judge,  the 
soul  of  the  in  dweller  was  the  revealer  of  truth,  and,  although  there  were 
truths  in  the  Hindu  scriptures,  they  could  not  recognize  them  as  the  only 
infallible  standard  of  spiritual  reality.  So,  twenty-one  years  after  the 
foundation  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj,  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  the 
Hindu  scriptures  was  given  up. 

Then  a  further  question  came.  The  Hindu  scriptures  only  not  infallible! 
Are  there  not  other  scriptures  also?  Did  I  not  tell  you  the  other  day  that 
on  the  imperial  throne  of  India  Christianity  now  sat  with  the  Gospel  of 
Peace  in  one  hand  and  the  scepter  of  civilization  in  the  other?  The  Bible 
had  penetrated  into  India;  its  pages  were  unfolded,  its  truths  were  read 
and  taught.  The  Bible  is  the  book  which  mankind  shall  not  ignore 
Recognizing,  therefore,  on  the  one  hand,  the  great  inspiration  of  the  Hindu 
scriptures,  we  could  not  but  on  the  other  hand  recognize  the  inspiration 
and  the  authority  of  the  Bible.  And  in  1861  we  published  a  book  in  which 
extracts  from  all  scriptures  were  given  as  the  book  which  was  to  be  read  in 
the  course  of  our  devotions. 

Our  monotheism,  therefore,  stands  upon  all  scriptures.  That  is  our 
theological  principle,  and  that  principle  did  not  emanate  from  the  depths 
of  our  own  consciousness,  as  the  donkey  was  delivered  out  of  the  depths  of 
the  German  consciousness;  it  came  out  as  the  natural  result  of  the  in-dwell¬ 
ing  of  God’s  spirit  within  our  fellow  believers.  No,  it  was  not  the  Christian 
missionary  that  drew  our  attention  to  the  Bible;  it  was  not  the  Moham¬ 
medan  priests  who  showed  us  the  excellent  passages  in  the  Koran;  it  was 
no  Zoroastrian  who  preached  to  us  tPe  greatness  of  his  Zend-Avesta;  but 
there  was  in  our  hearts  the  God  of  infinite  reality,  the  source  of  inspiration 
of  all  the  books,  of  the  Bible,  of  the  Koran,  of  the  Zend-Avesta,  who  drew 
our  attention  to  his  excellencies  as  revealed  in  the  record  of  holy  experience 
everywhere.  By  his  leading  and  by  his  light  it  was  that  we  recognized 
these  facts,  and  upon  the  rock  of  everlasting  and  eternal  reality  our  the¬ 
ological  basis  was  laid. 

What  is  theology  without  morality?  What  is  the  inspiration  of  this 
book  or  the  authority  of  that  prophet  without  personal  holiness — the  clean¬ 
liness  of  this  God-made  temple  and  the  cleanliness  of  the  deeper  temple 
within.  Soon  after  we  had  got  through  our  theology  the  question  stared 
us  in  the  face  that  we  were  not  good  men,  pure  minded,  holy  men,  and  that 
there  were  innumerable  evils  around  us,  in  our  houses,  in  our  national 
usages,  in  the  organization  of  our  society.  The  Brahmo-Somaj,  therefore 
next  laid  its  hand  upon  the  reformation  of  society.  In  1851  the  first  inter¬ 
marriage  was  celebrated.  Intermarriage  in  India  means  the  marriage  of 
persons  belonging  to  different  castes.  Caste  is  a  sort  of  Chinese  wall  that 
surrounds  every  household  and  every  little  community,  and  beyond  the 
limits  of  which  no  audacious  man  or  woman  shall  stray.  In  the  Brahmo- 
Somaj  we  ask  “  shall  this  Chinese  wall  disgrace  the  freedom  of  God’s  chil¬ 
dren  forever?”  Break  it  down;  down  with  it,  and  away. 

Next  my  honored  leader  and  friend,  Keshub  Chunder  Sen,  so  arranged 
that  marriage  between  different  castes  should  take  place.  The  Brahmans 
were  offended.  Wiseacres  shook  their  heads;  even  leaders  of  the  Bramo- 
Somaj  shrugged  up  their  shoulders  and  put  their  hands  into  their  pockets. 
“These  young  firebrands,”  they  said  “are  going  to  set  fire  to  the  whole  of 
society.”  But  intermarriage  took  place,  and  widow  marriage  took  place. 

Do  you  know  what  the  widows  of  India  are?  A  little  girl  of  ten  or 
twelve  years  happens  to  lose  her  husband  before  she  knows  his  features 
very  well,  and  from  that  tender  age  to  her  dying  day  she  shall  go  through 
penances  and  austerities  and  miseries  and  loneliness  and  disgrace,  which 
you  tremble  to  hear  of.  I  do  not  approve  of  or  understand  the  conduct  of 
a  woman  who  marries  a  first  time,  and  then  a  second  time,  and  then  a  third 
time,  and  then  a  fourth  time — who  marries  as  many  times  as  there  are 


VOICE  FROM  NEW  INDIA. 


137 


seasons  in  the  year.  I  do  not  understand  the  conduct  of  such  men  and 
women.  But  I  do  think  that  when  a  little  child  of  eleven  loses  what  men 
call  her  husband,  and  who  has  never  been  a  wife  for  a  single  day  of  her 
life,  to  put  her  to  the  wretchedness  of  a  life-long  widowhood  and  inflict 
upon  her  miseries  which  would  disgrace  a  criminal,  is  a  piece  of  inhuman¬ 
ity  which  can  not  too  soon  be  done  away  with.  Hence  intermarriages  and 
widow  marriages.  Our  hands  were  thus  laid  upon  the  problem  of  social 
and  domestic  improvement,  and  the  result  of  that  was  that  very  soon  a 
rupture  took  place  in  the  Brahmo-Somaj.  We  young  men  had  to  go — we, 
with  all  our  social  reform — and  shift  for  ourselves  as  we  best  might.  When 
these  social  reforms  were  partially  completed  there  came  another  question. 

We  had  married  the  widow;  we  had  prevented  the  burning  of  widows; 
what  about  our  personal  purity,  the  sanctiflcation  of  our  own  consciences, 
the  regeneration  of  our  own  souls?  What  about  our  acceptance  before  the 
awful  tribunal  of  the  God  of  infinite  justice?  Social  reform  and  the  doing 
of  public  good  is  itself  only  legitimate  when  it  develops  into  the  all- 
embracing  principle  of  personal  purity  and  the  noliness  of  the  soul. 

My  friends,  I  am  often  afraid,  I  confess,  when  I  contemplate  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  European  and  American  society,  where  your  activities  are  so  mani¬ 
fold,  your  work  is  so  extensive  that  you  are  drowned  in  it  and  you  have 
little  time  to  consider  the  great  questions  of  regeneration,  of  personal 
sanctification,  of  trial  and  judgment  and  of  acceptance  before  God.  That 
is  the  question  of  all  questions.  A  right  theological  basis  may  lead  to 
social  reform,  but  a  right  line  of  public  activity  and  the  doing  of  good  is 
bound  to  lead  to  the  salvation  of  the  doer’s  soul  and  the  regeneration  of 
public  men. 

After  the  end  of  the  work  of  our  social  reform  we  were  therefore  led 
into  this  great  subject.  How  shall  this  unregenerate  nature  be  regener¬ 
ated;  this  defiled  temple,  what  waters  shall  wash  it  into  a  new  and  pure 
condition?  All  these  motives  and  desires  and  evil  impulses,  the  animal 
inspirations,  what  will  put  an  end  to  them  all,  and  make  man  what  he  was, 
the  immaculate  child  of  God,  as  Christ  was,  as  all  regenerated  men  were? 
Theological  principle  first,  moral  principle  next,  and  in  the  third  place  the 
spiritual  principle  of  Brahmo-Somaj. 

Devotions,  repentance,  prayer,  praise,  taith;  throwing  ourselves  entirely 
and  absolutely  upon  the  spirit  of  -God  and  upon  His  saving  love.  Moral 
aspirations  do  not  mean  holiness;  a  desire  of  being  good  does  not  mean  to 
be  good.  The  bullock  that  carries  on  its  back  hundredweights  of  sugar 
does  not  taste  a  grain  of  sweetness  because  of  its  unbearable  load.  And 
all  our  aspirations,  and  all  our  fine  wishes,  and  all  our  fine  dreams,  and  fine 
sermons,  either  hearing  or  speaking  them — going  to  sleep  over  them  or 
listening  to  them  intently — these  will  never  make  a  life  perfect.  Devotion 
only,  prayer,  direct  perception  of  God’s  spirit,  communion  with  Him,  abso¬ 
lute  self-abasement  before  His  majesty;  devotional  fervor,  devotional 
excitement,  spiritual  absorption,  living  and  moving  in  God — that  is  the 
secret  of  personal  holiness. 

And  in  the  third  stage  of  our  career,  therefore,  spiritual  excitement,  long 
devotions,  intense  fervor,  contemplation,  endless  self-abasement,  not  merely 
before  God,  but  before  man,  became  the  rule  of  our  lives.  God  is  unseen; 
it  does  not  harm  anybody  or  make  him  appear  less  respectable  if  he  says 
to  God,  “I  am  a  sinner;  forgive  me.”  But  to  make  your  confessions  before 
man,  to  abase  yourselves  before  your  brothers  and  sisters,  to  take  the  dust 
off  the  feet  of  holy  men,  to  feel  that  you  are  a  miserable,  wretched  object 
in  God’s  holy  congregation — that  requires  a  little  self-humiliation;  a  little 
moral  courage.  Our  devotional  life,  therefore,  is  twofold,  bearing  reverence 
and  trust  for  God  and  reverence  and  trust  for  man;  and  in  our  infant  and 
apostolical  church  we  have,  therefore,  often  immersed  ourselves  into  spirit¬ 
ual  practices  which  would  seem  absurd  to  you  if  I  wore  to  relate  them  in 
your  hearing. 


138 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  last  principle  I  have  to  take  up  is  the  progressiveness  of  the 
Brahmo-Somaj.  Theology  is  good;  moral  resolutions  are  good;  devotional 
fervor  is  good.  The  problem  is,  how  shall  we  go  on  ever  and  ever  in  an 
onward  way,  in  the  upper  path  of  progress  and  approach  toward  divine 
perfection?  God  is  infinite;  what  limit  is  there  in  His  goodness  or  His 
wisdom  or  His  righteousness?  All  the  scriptures  sing  His  glory;  all  the 
prophets  in  the  Heaven  declare  His  majesty;  all  the  martyrs  have  reddened 
the  world  with  their  blood  in  order  that  His  holiness  might  be  known. 
God  is  the  one  infinite  good;  and,  after  we  had  made  our  three  attempts  of 
theological;  moral,  and  spiritual  principle  the  question  came  that  God  is 
the  one  eternal  and  infinite,  the  inspirer  of  all  humankind.  The  part  of 
our  progress  then  lay  toward  allying  ourselves,  toward  affiliating  ourselves 
with  the  faith  and  the  righteousness  and  wisdom  of  all  religions  and  all 
mankind. 

Christianity  declares  the  glory  of  God;  Hinduism  speaks  about  His 
infinite  and  eternal  excellence;  Mohammedanism,  with  fire  and  sword, 
proves  the  almightiness  of  His  will;  Buddhism  says  how  joyful  and  peace¬ 
ful  He  is.  He  is  the  God  of  all  religions,  of  all  denominations,  of  all  lands, 
of  all  scriptures,  and  our  progress  lay  in  harmonizing  these  various  systems, 
these  various  prophecies  and  developments  into  one  great  system.  Hence 
the  new  system  of  religion  in  the  Brahmo-Somaj  is  called  the  New  Dispen¬ 
sation.  The  Christian  speaks  in  terms  of  admiration  of  Christianity;  so 
does  the  Hebrew  of  Judaism;  so  does  the  Mohammedan  of  the  Koran;  so 
does  the  Zoroastrian  of  the  Zend-Avesta.  The  Christian  admires  his  prin¬ 
ciples  of  spiritual  culture;  the  Hindu  does  the  same,  the  Mohammedan 
does  the  same. 

But  the  Brahmo-Somaj  accepts  and  harmonizes  all  these  precepts,  sys¬ 
tems,  principles,  teachings,  and  discipline,  and  makes  the  minto  one  system, 
and  that  is  his  religion.  For  a  whole  decade,  my  friend,  Kashub  Chunder 
Sen,  myself,  and  other  apostles,  have  traveled  from  village  to  village,  from 
province  to  province,  from  continent  to  continent,  declaring  this  new  dis¬ 
pensation  and  the  harmony  of  all  religious  prophesies  and  systems  unto  the 
glory  of  the  one  true,  living  God.  But  we  are  a  subject  race;  we  are  unedu¬ 
cated;  we  are  incapable;  we  have  not  the  resources  of  money  to  get  men  to 
listen  to  our  message.  In  the  fullness  of  time  you  have  called  this  august 
Parliament  of  Religions,  and  the  message  that  we  could  not  propagate  you 
have  taken  into  your  hands  to  propagate.  We  have  made  that  the  gospel 
of  our  very  lives,  the  ideal  of  our  very  being. 

I  do  not  come  to  the  sessions  of  this  parliament  as  a  mere  student,  not 
as  one  who  has  to  justify  his  own  system.  I  come  as  a  disciple,  as  a  fol¬ 
lower,  as  a  brother.  May  your  labors  be  blessed  with  prosperity,  and  not 
only  shall  your  Christianity  and  your  America  be  exalted,  but  the  Brahmo- 
Somaj  will  feel  most  exalted;  and  this  poor  man  who  has  come  such  a  long 
distance  to  crave  your  sympathy  and  your  kindness  shall  feel  himself  amply 
rewarded. 

May  the  spreatl  of  the  new  dispensation  rest  with  you  and  make  you  our 
brothers  and  sisters.  Representatives  of  all  religions,  may  all  your  religions 
merge  into  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  in  the  brotherhood  of  man,  that 
Christ’s  prophecy  may  be  fulfilled,  the  world’s  hope  may  be  fulfilled,  and 
mankind  may  become  one  kingdom  with  God,  our  Father. 


FOUNDATION  OF  THE  ORTHODOX  GREEK  CHURCH. 

ARCHBISHOP  OF  ZANTE. 

After  the  immense  audience  had  sung,  under  the  leadership 
of  Dr.  Niccolls,  “  Nearer  My  God,  To  Thee,”  the  Most  Rev. 


FOUNDATION  OF  THE  ORTHODOX  GREEK  CHURCH.  139 

Dionysios  Latas,  Archbishop  of  Zante,  was  introduced  and 
spoke  extemporaneously  as  follows : 

Reverend  Ministers  of  the  Eminent  Name  of  God,  the  Creator  of  the 
World  and  of  Man:  Ancient  Greece  prepared  the  way  for  Christianity,  and 
rendered  smooth  the  path  for  the  diffusion  and  propagation  of  it  in  the 
world.  Greece  undertook  to  develop  Christianity  and  formed  and  system¬ 
atized  a  Christian  Church;  that  is  the  Church  of  the  East,  the  original 
Christian  Church,  which  for  this  reason  historically  and  justly  may  be 
called  the  Mother  of  the  Christian  Churches.  The  original  establishment 
of  the  Greek  Church  directly  referred  to  the  presence  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
his  apostles.  The  coming  of  the  Messiah,  from  which  the  God  was  to  orig¬ 
inate  in  this  world,  was  at  a  fixed  point  of  time,  as  the  Apostle  Paul  said 
it  was  to  be.  The  fullness  of  this  point  of  time  ancient  Greece  was  pre¬ 
destined  to  point  out  and  determine.  Greece  had  so  developed  letters,  arts, 
sciences,  philosophy,  and  every  other  form  of  progress  that  in  comparison 
with  it  all  other  nations  were  exhausted.  For  this  reason  the  inhabitants 
of  that  happy  land  used  rightly  and  properly  to  say:  “Whoever  is  not  a 
Greek  is  a  barbarian.”  But  while  at  that  time  under  Plato  and  Aristotle, 
Greek  philosophy  had  arrived  at  the  highest  phase  of  its  development, 
Greece  at  that  very  period,  after  these  great  philosophers,  began  to  decline 
and  fail.  The  Macedonian  and  Roman  armies  gave  a  definite  blow  to  the 
political  independence  and  national  liberty  of  Greece,  but  at  the  same  time 
opened  up  to  Greece  a  new  career,of  spiritual  life  and  brought  them  into 
immediate  contact  and  intercommunication  with  other  nations  and  peoples 
of  the  earth. 

Tracing  the  efiPect  of  Grecian  philosophy  of  the  Neo-Platonic 
school  upon  the  faith  which  came  from  the  East,  the  arch¬ 
bishop  continued: 

When  the  Roman  Empire  began  to  fall  Christianity  had  to  undertake 
the  great  struggle  of  acquiring  a  superiority  over  all  other  religions  that  it 
might  demolish  the  partition  walls  which  separated  race  from  race,  nation 
from  nation.  It  is  the  work  of  Christianity  to  bring  all  men  into  one 
spiritual  family,  into  the  love  of  one  another,  and  into  the  belief  of  one 
supreme  God.  Mary,  the  most  blessed  of  all  humankind,  appears  and 
brings  forth  the  expected  divine  nature  revealed  to  Plato.  She  brings  forth 
the  fulfillment  of  the  ideals  of  the  gods  of  the  different  peoples  and  nations 
of  the  ancient  world.  She  brings  forth  at  last  that  One  whose  name,  whose 
shadow  came  down  into  the  world  and  overshadowed  the  souls,  the  minds, 
the  hearts  of  all  men  and  removed  the  mystery  from  every  philosophy  and 
philosophic  system. 

In  this  permanent  idea  and  the  tendencies  of  the  different  peoples  in 
such  a  time  and  religion,  I  may  say  two  voices  are  heard.  One,  though  it 
is  from  Palestine,  re-echoed  into  Egypt,  and  especially  to  Alexandria,  and 
through  parts  of  Greece  and  Rome.  Another  voice  from  Egypt  re-echoed 
through  Palestine,  and  through  it  over  all  the  other  countries  and  peoples 
of  the  East.  And  the  voices  from  Palestine,  having  Jerusalem  as  their 
focus  and  center,  re-echoed  the  voice  back  again  to  the  Grecians  and  the 
Romans.  And  there  it  was  that  this  doctrine  fell  amidst  the  Greek  nations, 
the  Grecian  element  of  character,  Greek  letters,  and  the  sound  reasoning 
of  different  systems  of  Greek  philosophy. 

Surely  in  the  regeneration  of  the  different  peoples  there  had  been  a 
divine  revelation  in  the  formation  of  all  humankind  into  one  spiritual 
family  through  the  goodness  of  God.  In  one  family  equal,  without  any 
distinctions  b^etween  the  mean  and  the  great,  without  distinction  of  climate 


140 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


or  race,  without  distinction  of  national  destiny  or  inspiration,  of  name  or 
nobility,  of  family  ties.  And  all  the  beauties  which  ever  clustered  around 
the  ladder  of  Jacob,  or  were  given  to  it  by  the  men  of  Judea,  were  given  by 
the  prophets  to  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the  cave  of  Bethlehem.  But  Greece 
gave  Christianity  the  letters,  gave  the  art,  gave  as  I  may  say  the  enlighten¬ 
ment  with  which  the  gospel  of  Christianity  was  invested,  and  jjresented 
itself  then,  and  now  presents  itself  before  all  nations. 

After  presenting  other  historical  facts  bearing  upon  early 

Christianity,  the  archbishop  continued: 

It  suffices  me  to  say  that  no  one  of  you,  I  believe,  in  the  presence  of 
these  historical  documents  will  deny  that  the  original  Christian,  the  first 
Christian  Church  was  the  Church  of  the  East,  and  that  is  the  Greek  Church. 
Surely  the  first  Christian  Churches  in  Asia  Minor,  Egyx)t,  and  Assyria  were 
instituted  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ  and  for  the  most  part  in  Greek  com¬ 
munities.  All  those  are  the  foundation  stones  on  which  the  present  Greek 
Church  is  based.  The  apostles  themselves  preached  and  wrote  in  the  Greek 
letters  and  all  the  teachers  and  writers  of  the  gospel  in  the  East,  the  con¬ 
temporaries  and  the  successors  of  the  apostles  were  teaching,  preaching 
and  writing  in  the  Greek  language.  Especially  the  two  great  schools,  that 
of  Alexandria  and  that  of  Antioch,  undertook  to  develop  Christianity  and 
form  and  systematize  a  Christian  Church.  The  great  teachers  and  writers 
of  these  two  schools,  whose  names  are  very  well  known,  labored  courageously 
to  defend  and  determine  forever  the  Christian  doctrine  and  to  constitute 
under  divine  rules  and  forms  a  Christian  Church. 

The  Greek  Christian,  therefore,  may  be  called  historically  and  justly 
the  treasurer  of  the  first  Christian  doctrine,  fundamental,  evangelical 
truths.  It  may  be  called  the  art  which  bears  the  spiritual  manna  and 
feeds  all  those  who  look  to  it  in  order  to  obtain  from  it  the  richness  of  the 
ideas  and  the  unmistakable  reasoning  of  every  Christian  doctrine,  of  every 
evangelical  truth,  of  every  ecclesiastical  sentiment. 

After  this,  my  oration  about  the  Greek  Church,  I  have  nothing  more  to 
add  than  to  extend  my  open  arms  and  embrace  all  those  who  attend  this 
meeting  of  the  ministers  of  the  world.  I  embrace,  as  my  brothers  in  Jesus 
Christ,  as  my  brothers  in  the  divinely  inspired  gospel,  as  my  friends  in 
eminent  ideas  and  sentiments,  all  men;  for  we  have  a  common  Creator,  and 
consequently  a  common  father  and  God.  And  I  pray  you  lift  with  me  for  a 
moment  the  mind  toward  the  divine  essence,  and  say  with  me,  with  all 
your  minds  and  hearts  a  prayer  to  Almighty  God. 

And  then  the  magnificent  old  Greek  archbishop  lifted  his  hands 
and  his  eyes  heavenward  and  to  the  invisible  God,  who  at  the 
moment  seemed  almost  visible,  and  led  the  great  assembly  in 
prayer.  He  said; 

Most  High,  omnipotent  King,  look  down  upon  humankind;  enlighten 
us  that  we  may  know  Thy  will,  Thy  ways.  Thy  holy  truths  Bless  and  mag¬ 
nify  the  reunited  peoples  of  the  world  and  the  great  people  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  whose  greatness  and  kindness  have  invited  us  from  the 
remotest  parts  of  the  earth  in  this  their  Columbian  year  to  see  with  them 
an  evidence  of  their  progress  in  the  wonderful  achievements  of  the  human 
mind  and  the  human  soul. 


MAN  FROM  A  CATHOLIC  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


141 


MAN  FROM  A  CATHOLIC  POINT  OF  VIEW. 

VERY  REV.  WILLIAM  BYRNE,  D.  D. 

Man,  according  to  the  Catholic  idea,  is  the  crown  and  perfection  of  all 
things  in  the  visible  creation.  He  is  created  with  a  noble  purpose  and  a 
high  destiny,  in  the  image  of  God  and  after  His  own  likeness.  He  is 
endowed  with  the  power  of  intellect  and  will,  setting  him  above  all  created 
things  of  earth  and  making  him  godlike  in  his  nature.  He  longs  to  reach 
the  higher  and  better  things  to  which,  by  an  imperative  and  ever-urgent 
law,  he  necessarily  aspires.  He  has  cravings  of  the  soul  which  no  created 
thing  is  adequate  to  satisfy.  The  greater  his  natural  endowments,  the 
higher  their  cultivation,  the  broader  his  knowledge,  the  more  ample  and 
penetrating  his  intellectual  swing  and  reach,  the  deeper  and  more  exhaust¬ 
ing  will  be  the  sense  of  a  purpose  unfulfilled,  of  unsatisfied  yearning  and 
baffled  hope.  Splendid  intellectual  gifts  and  exceptional  mental  training; 
moral  refinement,  culture,  and  wealth;  social  pre-eminence  and  command¬ 
ing  political  power;  great  civic  achievements,  the  resounding  trumpets  of 
war,  and  the  most  coveted  prize  of  fortune — all  these-but  serve  to  accentu¬ 
ate  and  render  more  sensitively  acute  those  wasting  longings  and  the 
fruitless  reaching  out  after  an  object  that  will  satisfy  the  cravings  of  the 
soul  and  satiate  the  hunger  of  the  heart. 

The  Catholic  says  man  has  a  high  destiny  that  he  can  reach,  a  noble 
purpose  that  he  can  achieve;  that  he  may  enjoy  here  on  earth  a  serene 
peace  and  constantly  look  forward  to  the  surpassing  joy  of  living  forever 
in  the  smile  of  God  and  ecstasy  of  His  love.  That  such  conviction,  how¬ 
ever,  and  confident  hope  have  never  been  reached,  nor  can  be,  by  the  unaided 
powers  of  man,  the  cry  of  discontent  and  fruitless  endeavor  that  has  gone 
up  from  the  heart  of  man  from  the  beginning,  and  the  bootless  groping  in 
the  dark  in  search  of  an  oracle  to  answer  the  questions  of  the  soul,  dispel 
its  mists,  and  tranquilize  its  misgivings,  abundantly  prove. 

Man  will  be  religious.  It  is  a  necessity  and  the  law  of  his  being,  and  if 
he  can  not  rise  to  God,  he  will  strive  to  draw  down  God  to  himself.  “  Lord, 
teach  me  to  know  myself,  teach  me  to  know  Thee,”  was  the  prayer  that 
went  up  from  the  soul  of  the  great  Bishop  of  Hippo,  and  the  prayer  to  which 
he  gave  utterance  has  ever  been  the  universal  cry  of  the  heart  to  man  — to 
know  one’s  self,  to  know  God.  God  and  self  are  the  two  cardinal  objects 
of  man’s  knowledge  to  which  all  his  intellectual  efforts  converge  and  upon 
which  they  terminate.  Once  reason  has  dawned  on  him  and  the  mind 
opens  and  expands  to  the  significance  and  deep  meaning  of  all  he  sees 
round  about  him,  to  the  order  and  beauty,  the  variety  and  splendor,  and 
the  lavish  profusion  of  visible  blessings,  a  knowledge  of  which  is  borne 
in  upon  him  by  eye  and  ear,  and  every  avenue  of  sense,  he  asks  himself  and 
must  ask  himself  the  question:  Whence  all  these  strange  surroundings 
bearing  upon  them  the  tokens  of  a  higher  intelligence  and  the  evidence  of 
law  and  order,  purpose  and  design?  And  he  must  ask  himself  the  still 
more  momentous  question:  Whence  do  I  come?  Whither  am  I  going?  Am 
I,  as  the  pantheist  says,  the  most  perfect  manifestation  of  the  divine 
essence,  spirit  of  its  spirit,  and  intellect  of  its  intellect?  Or,  to  go  to  the  other 
extreme  of  the  scale  less  fiattering  to  the  pride  and  vanity  of  man,  am  I  but 
matter  and  sense,  with  a  soul  wholly  dependent  upon  and  the  product  of 
the  digestive  organs  and  a  complex  system  of  nerves  with  functions  center¬ 
ing  in  the  brain? 

The  supernatural  element  in  man  is  precisely  what  the  world  is  losing 
sight  of  in  its  eager  and  absorbing  pursuits  of  what  gratifies  sense  and 
brings  to  the  natural  man  an  exhilirating,  insidious,  and  evanescent  enjoy¬ 
ment  ;  and,  without  the  supernatural,  there  can  be  no  adequate  explana¬ 
tion  of  man’s  existence  here  on  earth,  no  interpretation  of  life  that  will 


142 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


satisfy  the  reason,  no  object  that  will  give  full  swing  to  the  powers  of  the 
soul  or  bring  peace  and  serene  contentment  to  the  heart. 

This  has  been  the  Catholic  view  of  man  from  the  beginning,  and  its 
importance  can  not  be  overestimated.  It  lies  at  the  very  root  of  religion,  and 
any  error  or  shadow  of  error  here  vitiates  and  distorts  the  entire  circle  of 
relations  of  man  to  his  God.  The  ideas  of  man  and  God  are  correlative  and 
inseparable— they  come  and  go  together,  and  a  defective  knowledge  of  the 
one  necessarily  implies  an  imperfect  understanding  of  the  other.  The 
power  of  apprehending  and  understanding  the  relations  between  cause  and 
effect,  of  adapting  and  adjusting  means  to  an  end  is,  if  not  the  very  defini¬ 
tion  of  intelligence  and  free  will,  at  least  their  adequate  description.  And 
in  this  man  is  like  unto  God,  whose  presence,  shut  out  from  us  by  the  veil 
of  the  visible  universe  is  luminously  revealed  in  the  laws  by  which  that 
universe  is  governed,  and  in  the  order  and  beauty  which  bring  the  opera¬ 
tion  of  these  laws  within  the  domain  of  sense,  and  through  sense  to  the 
intelligence  of  man.  Such,  according  to  the  Catholic  idea,  is  the  nobility, 
such  the  dignity  and  pre-eminence  of  man.  He  is  set  as  a  king  over  the 
created  things  of  earth,  yet  responsible  for  the  use  of  them  to  the  God  who 
gave  him  so  loyal  a  supremacy. 

Intellect  and  will  and  the  immortality  of  the  soul  are,  the  Catholic  says, 
the  three  natural  endowments  which  in  man  are  the  image  of  God.  These 
perfections  all  men  have  in  common  with  Adam.  But  Adam  had  a  super- 
added  perfection.  He  was,  as  the  Council  of  Trent  says,  “holy  and  just,” 
or  pleasing  to  God.  This  supernatural  perfection  is  called,  and  is  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  fact,  sanctifying  grace,  which  made  Adam’s  likeness  to  God  pure, 
more  perfect  and  transcending  than  any  natural  gift,  no  matter  how  excel¬ 
lent,  in  that  it  lifted  him  above  his  own  nature  into  a  higher  and  diviner 
life  and  established  him  in  the  love  and  friendship  of  God.  We  are  told  by 
St.  Paul  that  as  one  man  by  his  offense  wrought  the  condemnation  of  all, 
so  did  our  Lord  by  his  justice  work  the  justification  of  all.  What  Adam 
forfeited  Christ  regained.  What  Christ  regained,  St.  Paul  tells  us,,  is  the 
privilege  of  being  the  sons  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ,  and  of  this, 
he  says,  the  Holy  Ghost  giveth  testimony.  Christ,  therefore,  restored  what 
had  been  lost,  purchased  with  his  blood;  what  had  been  forfeited  by  sin. 
Through  him  man  regained  the  sonship  and  friendship  of  God,  and  is,  or 
can  be  if  he  will,  constituted  in  the  supernatural  life  of  grace.  Hence  these 
privileges,  being  a  restoration  of  what  had  been,  were  t^he  prerogatives  of 
Adam.  That  man  was  so  lifted  up  into  a  serener  atmosphere  and  a  diviner 
life,  and  made  in  a  sense  godlike,  is  not  merely  an  opinion  of  theologians, 
but  an  integral  part  of  the  teaching  of  the  Church. 

And  this  brings  out  clearly  the  distinction  and  difference  between  pan¬ 
theism  and  the  teaching  of  Catholic  theology.  The  fundamental  error  of 
pantheism  is  the  necessary  identity  and  equality  of  the  divine  nature  and 
the  human,  and  the  consequent  deification  of  man;  whereas.  Catholic  the¬ 
ology  teaches  that  the  participation  of  the  divine  nature,  through  grace,  is 
in  no  wise  due  to  man,  is  no  part  of  the  integrity  of  his  nature,  and  could 
not  become  man’s  by  any  effort  or  exercise  of  his  aptitudes  and  powers. 
But  that  which  is  not  due  to  him,  and  which  he  could  of  himself  in  no  way 
attain,  is  the  free,  spontaneous,  and  gracious  gift  of  God. 

God  put  Adam  on  trial,  as  He  had  done  the  angels.  He  put  his  humility 
to  the  proof.  He  gave  him  an  opportunity  to  show  himself  worthy  his 
inheritance  and  manifold  benedictions.  He  exacted  but  a  nominal 
acknowledgement,  by  which  He  reserved  His  right,  His  very  generosity  and 
goodness,  which  should  have  filled  the  heart  of  Adam  with  an  unceasing 
song  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  and  an  abiding  memory  of  his  surpassing 
privileges,  seem,  if  I  may  use  the  word,  a  temptation  to  his  weakness,  in 
spite  of  the  many  stays  and  supports  by  which  his  will  was  steadied  and 
strengthened.  Forgetting  his  lowly  estate,  and  unmindful  of  his  blessings 


MAN  FROM  A  CATHOLIC  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


143 


he  wantonly  transj^ressed  the  light  command  that  had  been  laid  upon  him 
as  a  test  of  his  fidelity  and  gratitude.  And  man’s  first  sin  was  committed 
and  the  human  race,  in  its  head,  was  cut  off  from  the  friendship  of  God 
and  cast  out  from  an  inheritance  of  countless  benedictions.  Original  jus¬ 
tice  was  forfeited,  and  so  it,  as  its  opposite,  succeeded  original  sin,  which 
thereby  became  the  heritage  of  all  mankind.  The  transgression  of  the  law 
in  Adam  was  our  sin.  We  are  not,  indeed,  guilty  of  Adam’s  actual  and 
personal  sin,  since  our  wills  had  no  part  in  its  commission;  nor  can  original 
sin  in  Adam’s  descendants  be  called  sin  in  the  strict  and  rigorous  sense  of 
that  word.  These  terms  denote  the  state  to  which  Adam’s  sin  reduced  his 
children.  The  act  by  which  sin  is  committed  is  one  thing;  but  the  state  to 
which  man  is  reduced  by  the  commission  of  that  sin  is  quite  another.  The 
one  was  transitory  in  character;  the  other  is  permanent,  and  man  is  rightly 
called  a  sinner  as  long  as  he  abides  in  a  state  which  is  the  consequence  of 
sin.  Adam,  by  his  act  of  disobedience,  turned  from  God  and  forfeited  his 
supernatural  prerogative  of  sanctifying  grace,  and  his  posterity,  in  conse¬ 
quence,  is  born  into  the  state  of  deprivation  or  original  sin,  which  was  the 
penalty  of  his  offense.  Excepting  that  the  blessed  Virgin,  who,  by  special 
privilege  and  because  of  her  high  office,  had  the  fullness  of  grace  from  the 
first  moment  of  her  existence,  all  the  children  of  Adam  at  their  birth  an  • 
under  the  disability  of  his  transgression.  He  was  the  head  of  the  humai. 
family,  and  in  him  was  contained  the  whole  human  race. 

Man  having  forfeited  the  supernatural  life,  it  was  impossible  for  him  by 
his  own  efforts  to  again  enter  upon  it.  It  was  simply  beyond  his  powers. 
His  condition  was  one  of  deprivation,  of  what  was  not  a  part  of  his 
nature,  to  which,  as  man,  he  had  no  right  or  claim,  and  which  he  could  not 
regain  by  any  power  of  his  own.  Yet  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  man’s 
nature  was  by  such  loss  corrupted  or  poisoned  in  its  root.  His  intellect 
was  still  intact  in  all  its  natural  powers,  though  less  luminous,  less  pene¬ 
trating,  and  more  liable  to  error  because  of  the  absence  of  the  supernatural 
light  that  had  been  put  out  in  the  soul.  His  will  was  vacillating  and 
unsteady,  yet  free  and  potent  to  choose  between  right  and  wrong,  good  and 
evil.  He  was  incapable  in  his  foreign  state,  of  making  reparation  for  his 
offense  or  recovering  sanctifying  grace.  God  might  have  left  man  in  this 
condition  of  exile  with  the  evidences  and  tokens  upon  him  of  high  lineage 
and  noble  descent,  yet  disinherited  and  stripped  of  his  supernatural  gifts 
and  with  only  the  hope  of  such  reward  as  his  natural  virtues  might  merit. 
But  in  His  great  mercy,  which  is  beyond  bound  or  measure,  God  restored 
to  him  his  forfeited  privileges  and  gave  him  the  means  of  again  living  a 
supernatural  life  and  of  entering  into  the  eternal  inheritance  for  which 
such  life  is  a  preparation.  “His  exceeding  charity,”  says  St.  Paul,  “where¬ 
with  he  loved  us  when  we  were  dead  in  sin,  hath  quickened  us  together  in 
Christ,  by  whose  grace  you  are  saved.”  Again:  God  could  have  waved 
His  right  to  a  satisfaction  involving  the  death  of  his  divine  son,  but  this 
He  did  not  see  fit  to  do.  In  His  infinite  wisdom  He  required  an  atonement 
adequate  to  the  offense  committed,  and  this  could  be  made  only  by  one 
equal  in  dignity  to  Himself.  And  this  is  precisely  what  was  accomplished 
in  the  incarnation  of  the  son  of  God.  Heaven  and  earth  touched,  “mercy 
and  truth  met,  justice  and  peace  kissed;”  God  and  man  were  linked 
together  in  the  bonds  of  indissoluble  union.  The  sufferings  and  blood  of 
Christ,  though  only  His  human  nature  suffered,  had  a  divine  value,  because 
the  acts  take  on  the  character  of  the  person,  and  the  person  who  suffered 
was  divine.  By  this  mystery  of  love  the  right  of  man  to  enter  again  into  his 
forfeited  inheritance  was  purchased.  In  Christ  the  heavenly  harmony  of 
our  nature  was  restored. 

Christ,  of  His  own  free  will  and  divine  condescension,  wrought  the 
redemption  of  the  human  race,  and  He  is  therefore  free  to  convey  its  fruits 
to  man  in  any  way  He  in  His  wisdom  sees  fit.  The  primary  and  sovereign 


144 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


ruio  of  1x4  iof  and  practice  in  all  things  pertaining  to  the  economy  of  God 
with  man  is,  the  Catholic  holds,  the  will  of  Christ,  and  not  what  seems  lit 
ting  or  best,  or  most  reasonable  to  us.  The  will  of  Christ,  once  it  is  known, 
must  be  the  supreme  rule  and  guide.  Hence,  relying  on  the  words  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  on  the  living  voice  and  universal  and  unbroken 
tradition  of  the  church  from  the  beginning,  the  Catholic  says  that  Christ 
instituted  certain  specific  rites,  now  called  sacraments,  as  means  and 
instruments  to  convey  the  fruits  of  the  redemption  to  the  soul;  that  the 
initial  sacrament,  by  which  the  supernatural  life  is  born  in  man,  is  bap¬ 
tism,  and  that  this  life  is  nourished,  increased,  and  perfected  by  the 
in-dwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  soul,  by  the  generosity  of  our  own 
hearts  and  wills,  and  by  the  graces  conveyed  through  the  other  six  sacra¬ 
ments  and  the  aids  they  supply,  according  to  the  dispositions,  the  needs, 
and  the  conditions  of  men  and  of  society.  Through  this  supernatural  gift 
man  takes  on  a  new  nature  and  begins  a  new  life. 

But  this  life,  so  precious  and  so  full  of  promise,  so  elevated,  ennobling, 
and  refining,  giving  so  luminous  an  interpretation  of  man  and  his  surround¬ 
ings,  and  leading  on  to  life  eternal,  may  be  enfeebled  by  neglect  of  its 
privileges,  and  wholly  lost  by  mortal  sin.  Sin  and  sanctifying  grace  are  as 
opposite  as  darkness  and  light.  The  presence  of  sin  is  the  extinction  of  the 
spiritual  life.  In  the  moment  that  mortal  sin  enters  the  soul  through 
deliberate  consent  of  will,  the  in-dwelling  spirit  of  God  and  sanctifying 
grace  depart,  and  the  soul  is  spiritually  dead.  The  treasure  of  great  price 
thus  bartered  for  some  bauble  of  lust  or  pride,  by  a  merciful  and  gracious 
dispensation  of  Christ  may  be  restored  through  an  act  of  perfect  love  of 
God  or  through  divinely  inspired  sorrow  and  the  grace  of  the  sacrament  of 
penance.  For  one  guilty  of  sin  committed  after  baptism,  the  sacrament  of 
penance  does  precisely  what  baptism  does  for  one  yet  in  original  sin — in 
this  sense,  that  it  restores  and  renews  the  supernatural  life  in  a  soul  that  is 
spiritually  dead. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  Catholic  idea  of  man  is  this:  That  he  is 
instinctively  sux^ernatural  in  his  capacities  and  powers,  his  attitudes  and 
cravings,  his  aspirations  and  aims,  and  that  he  was  so  constituted  froimthe 
beginning;  that  no  created  object  can  fill  the  void  of  his  heart  or  still  the 
cry  of  his  soul;  that  he  can  not  work  out  his  evident  destiny  or  accomplish 
the  purpose  of  his  creation  without  being  grafted  into  the  Spiritual  Vine, 
which  is  Christ,  and  drawing  from  it  the  sap  and  the  sustenance  of  his 
spiritual  existence.  To  the  Catholic  the  supernatural  is  the  true  and  only 
adequate  interpretation  of  man’s  life;  to  him  every  thought,  word,  and 
action  has  a  supernatural  and  momentous  significance,  the  knowledge  and 
will  of  the  agent  being  the  measure  of  their  malice  or  their  merit.  To  him 
they  have  no  real  value  unless  they  are  in  conformity  with  the  law  of  God, 
luminous  in  his  intellect,  written  in  his  heart,  and  articulate  in  his  con¬ 
science.  His  whole  being  is  encompassed  by  the  supernatural  and  by  a  sense 
of  responsibility  to  his  Creator  and  God.  He  believes  that  the  intellect,  if 
not  taught  of  God  through  the  living  and  magisterial  voice  of  the  church, 
the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  will  cease  to  be  a  light  and  a  guide  to 
the  will,  and,  being  once  perverted,  will  be  the  cause  and  source  of  count¬ 
less  errors  of  judgment  and  practical  life.  To  him  divine  truth  and  a 
divinely  appointed  teacher  are  a  first  principle. 

To  the  Catholic,  the  acceptance  of  God  as  a  divine  teacher,  and  a  belief 
in  His  revelation,  lie  at  the  basis  of  religion  and  are  the  beginning  of  all 
justification.  Faith,  and  the  truths  it  contains  as  proposed  by  the  church, 
the  custodian  of  divine  truth  and  its  living  voice  and  infallible  interpreter, 
an  exact,  precise,  dogmatic  faith,  a  living,  active,  energetic  and  practical 
faith,  pervades  his  whole  being  and  influences  and  gives  character  to  his 
least  as  well  as  his  most  significant  action.  And  next,  as  a  consequence  of 
faith  and  the  body  of  truth  it  contains,  come  the  commandments  of  God, 


RABBI  K.  KOHLER, 

N«w  Ywk. 


HUMAN  BROTHERHOOD, 


145 


or  those  rules'of  conduct  which  guide  and  direct  him  in  justice  and  truth 
and  in  his  manifold  duties  and  varied  relations  to  God  and  man.  And  then, 
to  follow  the  logical  order,  comes  grace,  in  which  every  man  born  into  this 
world  lives  and  moves;  which  encompasses  him  as  an  atmosphere;  which 
God  gives  in  amplest  measure  to  every  man  who  sincerely  wishes  to  be  con¬ 
verted  and  live;  which  is  an  antecedent  condition  to  the  supernatural  life, 
its  beginning,  its  cause,  its  sustaining  principle,  and  its  perfection,  and 
which  unites  man  to  God  as  a  child  to  his  Etennal  Father  by  a  bond  as  inti¬ 
mate  as  is  possible  between  the  Creator  and  His  creature.  By  this  rule, 
says  the  Catholic,  shall  man  live;  by  this  rule  shall  he  be  judged. 


HUMAN  BROTHERHOOD  AS  TAUGHT  BY  THE 
RELIGIONS  BASED  ON  THE  BIBLE. 

DR.  K.  KOHLER  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Thanks  to  our  common  education  and  our  religious  and  social  progress 
and  enlightenment,  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  man  is  so  natural  and  familiar 
to  us  that  we  scarcely  stop  to  consider  by  what  great  struggles  and  trials  it 
has  been  brought  home  to  us.  We  can  not  help  discerning  beneath  all 
differences  of  color  and  custom  the  fellow-man  and  brother.  We  perceive 
in  the  savage  looks  of  the  Fiji  Islander,  or  hear  in  the  shrill  voice  of  the 
South  African  the  broken  records  of  our  history;  but  we  seldom  realize  the 
long  and  tedious  road  we  had  to  walk  until  we  arrived  at  this  stage.  We 
speak  of  the  world  as  a  unit — a  beautiful  order  of  things,  a  great  cosmos. 
Open  the  Bible  and  you  will  find  creation  still  divided  into  a  realm  of  life 
above  and  one  below — into  heaven  and  earth,  and  only  the  unity  of  God 
comprising  the  two  otherwise  widely  separated  and  disconnected  worlds,  to 
lend  them  unity  of  purpose,  and  finally  bring  them  under  the  sway  of 
one  empire  of  law.  Neither  does  the  idea  of  man,  as  a  unit,  dawn  upon  the 
mind  of  the  uncivilized.  Going  back  to  the  inhabitants  of  ancient  Chaldea, 
you  see  man  divided  into  groups  of  blackheads  (the  race  of  Ham)  and  red¬ 
heads  (Adam);  the  former  destined  to  serve,  the  other  to  rule.  And  follow 
man  to  the  very  height  of  ancient  civilization,  on  the  beautiful  soil  of 
Hellas,  where  man,  with  his  upward  gaze  drinks  in  the  light  and  the  sweet¬ 
ness  of  the  azure  sky  to  refiect  it  on  surrounding  nature,  on  art  and  science, 
you  still  find  him  clinging  to  these  old  lines  of  demarcation.  Neither  Plato 
nor  Aristotle  would  regard  the  foreigner  as  an  equal  to  the  Greek,  but  con¬ 
sider  him  forever,  like  the  brute,  fated  to  do  the  slave’s  work  for  the  born 
master — the  ruling  race. 

Let  us  not  forget  that  prejudice  is  older  than  man.  We  have  it  as  an 
inheritance  from  the  brute.  The  cattle  that  browse  together  in  the  field 
and  the  dogs  that  fight  with  each  other  in  the  street  will  alike  unite  in 
keeping  out  the  foreign  intruder,  either  by  hitting  or  by  biting,  since  they 
can  not  resort  to  blackmailing.  So  did  men  of  different  blood  or  skin  in 
primitive  ages  face  one  another  only  for  attack.  Constant  warfare  bars  all 
intercourse  with  men  outside  of  the  clan.  How,  then,  under  such  con¬ 
ditions,  is  the  progress  of  culture,  the  interchange  of  goods  and  products 
of  the  various  lands  and  tribes  brought  about  to  arouse  people  from  the 
stupor  and  isolation  of  savagery? 

The  Ethiopians  have  still  no  other  name  for  man  than  that  of  Sheba- 
Sabean.  Obviously  the  white  race  of  conquerors  from  the  land  of  Sheba 
refused  the  black-heads  they  found  on  entering  Ethiopia  the  very  title  of 
man,  not  to  mention  the  rights  and  privileges  of  such.  Yet  how  remarkable 
to  find  the  oldest  fairs  on  record  held  in  that  very  land  of  Sheba,  in  South 


146 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Arabia,  famous  from  remotest  times  for  its  costly  spices  and  its  precious 
metals.  Under  the  protection  of  the  god  of  light  the  savage  tribes  would 
deposit  their  gold  upon  the  tables  of  rock  and  exchange  them  for  the  goods 
of  the  traders,  being  safe  from  all  harm  during  the  festive  season  of  the 
fair.  Under  such  favorable  conditions  the  stranger  took  shelter  under  the 
canopy  of  peace  spread  over  a  belligerent  world  by  the  specter  of  commerce. 
What  a  wide  and  wonderful  vista  over  the  centuries  from  the  first  fairs  held 
in  the  balsam  forests  of  South  Arabia  to  the  World’s  Pair  upon  the  fairy¬ 
land  created  by  modern  art  out  of  the  very  prairies  of  the  Western  hemi¬ 
sphere.  And  vet  the  tendency,  the  object  is  the  same— a  peace  league 
among  the  races,  a  bond  of'covenant  among  men. 

It  is  unwise  on  the  part  of  the  theologian  to  underrate  the  infiuence  of 
commerce  upon  both  culture  and  religion.  Religion  is  at  the  outset  always 
exclusive  and  isolating.  Commerce  unites  and  broadens  humanity.  In 
widening  the  basis  of  our  social  structure  and  establishing  the  unity  of 
mankind,  trade  had  as  large  a  share  as  religion.  The  Hebrews  were  a  race 
of  shepherds,  who  were  transformed  into  farmers  on  the  fertile  soil  of 
Canaan.  In  both  capacities  they  were  too  much  attached  to  their  land, 
being  dependent  either  upon  the  grass  to  pasture  their  flocks  or  upon  the 
crops  to  feed  their  households,  to  extend  their  views  and  interests  beyond 
their  own  territory.  When,  therefore,  Moses  gave  them  the  laws  of  right¬ 
eousness  and  truth  upon  which  humanity  was  to  be  built  anew,  he  did  not 
venture  to  preach  at  once  in  clear  and  unmistakable  terms  the  great  fun¬ 
damental  principle  of  the  unity  and  brotherhood  of  man.  He  simply  caught 
them:  Hate  not  thy  brother  in  thine  heart.  Bear  no  grudge  against  the 
children  of  thy  people,  but  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,  I  am  the 
lord.”  He  would  not  tell  them:  “  Hove  all  men  on  earth  as  thy  brethren,” 
for  the  reason  that  there  could  be  no  brotherhood  so  long  as  both  the  mate¬ 
rial  and  religious  interests  collided  in  every  way,  and  truth  and  justice 
themselves  demanded  warfare  and  struggle.  Monotheism  was  more  than 
any  other  religion  an  isolating  power  at  first. 

It  was  in  times  of  prosperity  and  peace,  when  J ews  were  first  brought 
into  contact  with  the  great  trading  nation  of  Phoenicia,  that  the  idea  of 
man  widened  with  the  extension  of  their  knowledge  of  the  earth,  and  they 
beheld  in  the  people  of  the  hot  and  the  cold  zone,  in  the  black  and  blende- 
haired  men,  in  the  Caucasian  and  African  races,  offsf  lings  of  the  jame 
human  ancestors,  branches  of  the  same  parent  stock — children  of  Adam. 
At  the  great  fairs  of  Babylon  and  Tyre,  where  the  merchants  of  the 
various  countries  and  remote  islands  came  with  their  worldly  goods  for 
their  selfish  ends,  a  higher  destiny,  the  great  hand  of  Divine  Providence, 
was  weaving  the  threads  to  knit  the  human  race  together.  And  in  one  of 
those  solemn  moments  of  history *some  of  the  lofty  seers  of  Judah  caught 
the  spirit  and  spelled  forth  the  message  of  lasting  import:  “Once  all  the 
nations  will  send  their  treasures  of  gold  and  s^jices  and  their  products 
of  human  skill  and  wisdom  on  horseback  and  dromedaries,  on  wagons  and 
ships,  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  yet  not  for  mere  barter  and  gain,  but  as 
tokens  of  homage  to  the  Man  of  Israel  whose  name  shall  be  the  sign  and 
banner  of  the  great  brotherhood  of  man.”  This  is  the  idea  pervading  the 
latter  part  of  Isaiah.  No  sordid  trading  after  the  fashion  of  Canaanites, 
but  truth  and  knowledge  will  be  freely  offered  on  the  sacred  heights  of 
Jerusalem.  Such  was  the  vision  of  Zachariah,  prompted  by  the  sight  of 
the  fairs  held  in  the  holy  city.  (See  Movers  Phonizion,  11,  3, 145.)  It  was 
the  idea  of  the  great  truce  of  God  amidst  the  perpetual  strife  of  the 
nations  which  they  conceived  of  and  forecast  when  announcing  the  time 
when  “  swords  shall  be  turned  into  plowshares  and  war  shall  be  no  more.” 

Cut  loose  from  the  rest  of  the  Biblical  writings,  many  a  ijassage  con¬ 
cerning  God  and  man  still  has  an  exclusively  national  character,  betraying 
narrowness  of  view.  But  presented  and  read  in  its  entirety,  the  Bible 


HUMAN  BROTHERHOOD 


147 


begins  and  ends  with  man.  Do  not  the  x^rophets  weep,  pray,  and  hope  for 
the  Gentiles  as  well  as  for  Israel?  Do  not  the  Psalms  voice  the  longing  and 
yearning  of  man?  What  is  Job  but  the  type  of  suffering,  struggling,  and 
self-asserting  man?  It  is  the  wisdom,  the  doubt,  and  the  pure  love  of  man 
that  King  Solomon  voices  in  prose  and  poetry.  Neither  is  true  priesthood 
nor  prophecy  monopolized  by  the  tribe  of  Abraham.  Behold  Melchisedec, 
Salem’s  priest,  holding  his  hand  to  bless  the  patriarch.  Do  not  Balaam’s 
prophetic  words  match  those  of  any  of  Israel’s  seers?  None  can  read 
the  Bible  with  symx^athetic  spirit  but  feel  that  the  wine  garnered  therein  is 
stronger  than  the  vessel  containing  it;  that  the  Jew  who  speaks  and  acts, 
preaches  and  prophesies,  therein  represents  the  interests  and  princij^les  of 
humanity.  When  the  Book  of  Books  was  handed  forth  to  the  world  it  was 
offered  in  the  words  of  God  to  Abraham  to  be  a  blessing  to  all  families  of 
man  on  earth;  it  was  to  give  man  one  God,  one  hope,  and  one  goal  and 
destiny.  Only  the  monotheistic  faith  of  the  Bible  established  the  bonds  of 
human  brotherhood.  It  was  the  consciousness  of  God’s  in-dwelling  in  man 
or  the  Biblical  teaching  of  man’s  being  God’s  child  that  rendered  hum¬ 
anity  one. 

Even  though  the  golden  rule  has  been  found  in  Confucius  as  well  as  in 
Buddha,  in  Plato  as  in  Socrates,  it  never  engendered  true  love  of  man  as 
brother  and  fellow-worker  among  their  people  beyond  their  own  small  cir¬ 
cles.  The  Chinese  sage,  with  his  sober  realism,  never  felt  or  fostered  the 
spirit  of  self-surrender  to  a  great  cause  beyond  his  own  state  and  ruler. 
And  if  the  monk  Gautama  succeeded  by  his  preaching  on  the  world’s 
vanities,  in  bridling  the  passions  and  softening  the  temper  of  millions, 
planting  love  and  compassion  into  every  soul  throughout  the  East,  and 
dotting  the  lands  with  asylums  and  hospitals  for  the  rescue  of  man  and 
beast,  he  also  checked  the  progress  of  man  while  loathing  life  as  misery 
without  comfort,  as  a  burden  of  woe  without  hope  of  relief,  dissolving  it 
into  a  purposeless  dream,  an  illusion  evanescing  into  nothing. 

Neither  Pindar  nor  Plato  ever  conceived  of  a  divine  plan  of  the  doings 
of  man.  No  Thucydides  nor  Herodotus  ever  inquired  after  the  beginnings 
and  ends  of  human  history  or  traced  the  various  people  back  to  one  cradle 
and  one  offspring.  Not  until  Alexander,  the  Macedonian,  with  his  con¬ 
quests  interlinked  the  East  and  the  West,  did  the  idea  of  humanity  loom  ux) 
before  the  minds  of  the  cultured  as  it  did  before  Judea’s  sages  and  seers. 
Only  when  antiquity’s  xwide  was  lowered  to  the  dust  and  xjhilosopher  and 
priest  found  their  strength  exhausted,  man,  suffering,  sorrowing,  weexiing, 
sought  refuge  from  the  approaching  storm,  yearning  for  fellowshixj  and 
brotherhood  in  the  common  woe  and  misery  of  a  world  shattered  within 
and  without.  But  then,  neither  stoic,  in  his  over-bearing  pride  and  self¬ 
admiration,  nor  the  cynic,  with  his  contemptuous  sneer,  could  make  life 
worth  living. 

It  was  the  Bible  offered  first  by  Jew,  then  by  Christian,  and,  in  some¬ 
what  modified  tones,  by  Moslem,  that  gave  man  with  the  benign  ruler  of 
the  ages  also  a  common  scope  and  x^lan,  a  common  x^rosxject  and  hope. 
While  to  the  Greek — from  whom  we  have  borrowed  the  very  name  of  ethics 
— goodness,  righteousness,  virtue  were’objects  of  admiration  like  any  xjiece 
of  nature  and  of  art,  beautiful  and  pleasing,  and  like  itself  a  xfiaything,  the 
Bible  made  life  with  all  its  efforts  solemn  and  sacred,  a  divine  reality.  Here 
at  once  men  arose  to  be  co-workers  of  God,  the  successive  ages  became 
stages  of  the  world’s  great  drama,  each  country,  each  home,  each  soul  an 
object  of  divine  care,  each  man  an  image  of  the  Divine  Father. 

There  is  no  partiality  with  God.  The  weaker  member  of  the  human 
household,  therefore,  must  be  treated  with  greater  compassion  and  love, 
and  every  inequality  adjusted  as  far  as  our  xwwers  reach.  “If  thou  seest 
one  in  distress,  ask  not  who  he  is.  Even  though  he  be  thine  enemy,  he  is 
still  thy  brother,  appeals  to  thy  symx)athy,  thou  canst  not  hide  thine  eyes; 


148 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


I,  thy  God,  see  thee.”  Can,  alongside  of  this  Mosaic  law,  the  question  be 
yet  asked:  Who  is  my  neighbor  ?  Thou  may est  not  love  him  because  he 
hateth  thee.  Yet,  as  fellow-man,  thou  must  put  thyself  into  his  place,  and 
thou  darest  no  longer  harm  nor  hate  him.  Even  if  he  be  a  criminal,  he  is 
thy  brother  still,  claiming  sympathy  and  leniency.  Sinner  or  stranger, 
slave  or  sufferer,  skejjtic  or  saint,  he  is  son  of  the  same  Father  in  heaven. 
The  God  who  hath  once  redeemed  thee  will  also  redeem  him. 

Are  these  princii)les  and  maxims  of  the  New  Testament?  I  read  them 
in  the  Old.  I  learned  them  from  the  Talmud.  I  found  their  faint  echo  in 
the  Koran.  The  Merciful  One  of  Mohammed  enjoins  charity  and  com¬ 
passion  no  less  than  does  the  Holy  One  of  Isaiah  and  the  Heavenly  Father 
of  Jesus.  We  have  been  too  rash,  too  harsh,  too  uncharitable  in  judging 
other  sects  and  creeds.  “We  men  judge  nations  and  classes  too  often  by 
the  bad  examples  they  produce;  God  judges  them  by  their  best  and  noblest 
types,”  is  an  exquisite  saying  of  the  rabbis.  Is  there  a  race  or  a  religion 
that  does  not  cultivate  one  great  virtue  to  unlock  the  gates  of  bliss  for  all 
its  followers?  Hear  the  Psalmist  exclaim:  “ This  is  the  gate  of  the  Lord; 
the  righteous  enter  into  it.”  No  priest,  nor  Levite,  nor  Israel's  people  enjoy 
any  privilege  there.  The  kind  Samaritan,  as  Jesus  puts  it  in  his  jjarable; 
the  good  and  just  among  all  men,  as  the  rabbis  express  it  (Sifra  Achre 
Moth.  13)  find  admission.  No  monopoly  of  salvation  for  any  creed.  Right¬ 
eousness  opens  the  door  for  all  the  nations. 

Is  this  platform  not  broad  enough  to  hold  every  creed?  Must  not  every 
system  of  ethics  find  a  place  in  this  great  brotherhood  with  whatever  vir¬ 
tue  or  ideal  it  emphasizes?  Is  here  not  scope  given  for  every  honest 
endeavor  and  each  human  craving  for  whatever  cheers  and  inspires,  enno¬ 
bles  and  refines  man,  for  every  vocation,  profession,  or  skill;  for  whatever 
lifts  dust-born  man  to  higher  standards  of  goodness,  to  higher  states  of 
blessedness? 

Too  long,  indeed,  have  Chinese  walls,  reared  by  nations  and  sects,  kept 
man  from  his  brother,  to  rend  humanity  asunder.  Will  the  principle  of 
toleration  suffice?  Or  shall  Lessing’s  parable  of  the  three  rings  plead  for 
equality  of  church,  mosque,  and  synagogue?  What,  then,  about  the  rest 
of  the  creeds,  the  great  Parliament  of  Religions?  And  what  a  poor  plea 
for  the  Father,  if,  from  love,  he  cheats  his  children,  to  find  at  the  end  he  has 
but  cheated  himself  of  their  love.  No;  either  all  the  rings  are  genuine 
and  have  the  magic  power  of  love,  or  the  Father  is  himself  a  fraud.  Trust 
and  love,  in  order  to  enrich  and  uplift,  must  be  firm  and  immutable,  as 
God  himself.  If  truth,  love,  and  justice  be  the  goal,  they  must  be  my  fel¬ 
low-man’s  as  well  as  mine  And  should  not  every  act  and  every  step  of 
man  and  humanity  lead  onward  to  Zion’s  Hill,  which  shall  stand  high 
above  all  mounts  of  vision  and  aspiration,  above  every  single  truth  and 
knowledge,  faith  and  hope,  the  Mountain  of  the  Lord? 


MUCH  TO  ADMIRE  IN  ALL  MEN. 

DR.  W.  C.  ROBERTS,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

The  honorary  chairman  of  the  afternoon  session  was  Rev. 
Dr.  W.  C.  Roberts  of  New  York,  formerly  president  of  the  Lake 
Forest  University.  He  made  a  brief  speech  at  the  opening  of 
the  meeting,  in  which  he  said: 

The  brotherhood  of  man  is  to  me  a  most  precious  thought.  It  has 
been  my  pleasure  to  travel  over  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe,  to  mingle 


CONFUCIANISM. 


149 


with  a  large  number  of  nationalities,  and  I  have  found,  in  all  of  them, 
something  to  admire,  something  to  emulate,  and  among  them  many  to  love. 
And,  therefore,  it  is  that  I  take  great  interest  in  this  Religious  Congress, 
where  I  have  the  pleasure  of  seeing  the  representatives  of  different  nation¬ 
alities.  I  have  been  on  their  soil  in  many  cases  and  have  been  kindly  re¬ 
ceived;  and,  therefore,  I  am  delighted  to  see  that  they  are  received  kindly 
on  our  soil.  It  has  been  asked  of  me  more  than  once  how  I  could  recon¬ 
cile  the  idea  of  a  Congress  of  Religions  with  the  Christian  religion.  I  had 
no  difficulty  whatever  with  this.  God  has  given  two  reflations,  one  in 
nature  that  displays  His  power  and  Godhead,  and  the  other  in  His  rational 
creatures,  where  we  find  much  concerning  His  own  moral  character.  And 
we  find  that  these  friends  who  have  come  to  us  from  China  and  India  and 
the  islands  of  the  sea  have  been  studying  this  very  revelation  of  God  in  our 
nature,  and  I  am  inclined  to  think  that,  with  their  keen  interest,  they  have 
gone  deeper  into  the  study  than  we  have,  because  we  have  accepted  the 
verbal  revelation  that  has  been  given  us  and  have  let  that  suffice  for  many 
things. 

They  have  not  that  and,  therefore,  have  gone  more  thoroughly  into  the 
other  phase  of  divine  revelation.  In  so  far,  therefore,  as  they  give  the  right 
interpretation  of  that  revelation  of  God  in  human  nature,  those  of  us  who 
are  called  Christians  are  with  them.  We  can  not  disagree  with  them  as 
long  as  they  give  the  right  interpretation  of  God’s  writing  in  our  nature. 
There  we  are  on  a  common  platform  together.  Those  of  us  who  are  Chris¬ 
tians  only  differ  from  them  in  the  interpretation  again.  We  believe  we  have 
a  clearer  revelation  from  heaven  that  throws  light  on  that  revelation  con¬ 
fined  with  them  to  nature,  and  if  we  understand  it  in  that  light  we  feel  that 
we  may  get  in  advance  of  these  friends  who  have  been  studying  through 
the  ages,  man’s  revelation  in  man. 

We  believe  our  interpretations  are  based  on  the  revelation  God  has  given 
us  and,  therefore,  we  have  only  something  above  and  beyond  that  other 
revelation.  The  two  phases  are  here  and  they  are  united  on  this  platform; 
and  so  I  am  delighted  to  find  the  whole  revelation  of  God  represented  by 
these  friends  that  have  come  to  us  from  abroad  and  those  that  belong  to 
our  own  land. 


CONFUCIANISM. 

PUNG  KWANG  YU,  A  SCHOLAK  OF  CHINA,  A  DISCIPLE  OF  CONFUCIUS, 
SECRETARY  OF  THE  CHINESE  LEGATION  AT  WASHINGTON. 

All  Chinese  reformers  of  ancient  and  modern  times  have  either  exer¬ 
cised  supreme  authority  as  political  heads  of  the  nation  or  filled  high  posts 
as  ministers  of  state.  The  only  notable  exception  is  Confucius.  “Man,” 
says  Confucius  in  the  Book  of  Rites,  “is  the  product  of  heaven  and  earth, 
the  union  of  the  active  and  passive  principles,  the  conjunction  of  the  soul 
and  spirit,  and  the  ethereal  essence  of  the  five  elements.”  Again  he  says: 
“Man  is  the  heart  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  the  nucleus  of  the  five  elements, 
formed  by  assimilating  food,  by  distinguishing  sounds,  and  by  the  action  of 
light.” 

Now,  the  heaven  and  earth,  the  active  and  passive  principles,  and  the 
soul  and  spirit  are  dualisms  resulting  from  unities.  The  product  of  heaven 
and  earth,  the  union  of  the  active  and  passive  principles,  the  conjunction 
of  the  soul  and  spirit,  are  unities  resulting  from  dualisms.  Man,  being  the 
connecting  link  between  unities  and  dualisms,  is  therefore  called  the  heart 
of  heaven  and  earth.  By  reason  of  his  being  the  heart  of  heaven  and 
earth,  humanity  is  his  natural  faculty  and  love  his  controlling  emotion. 


150 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


“Humanity,”  says  Confucius,  “is  the  characteristic  of  man.”  On  this 
account  humanity  stands  at  the  head  of  the  five  faculties,  humanity,  recti¬ 
tude,  profjriety,  understanding,  and  truthfulness.  Humanity  must  have  the 
social  relations  for  its  sj^here  of  action.  Love  must  begin  at  home. 

What  are  the  social  relations  ?  They  are  the  sovereign  and  subject, 
parent  and  child,  husband  and  wife,  elder  and  younger  brothers  and  friends. 
These  are  called  the  five  relations  or  natural  relations.  As  the  relation  of 
husband  and  wife  must  have  been  recognized  before  that  of  sovereign  or 
subject,  or  that  of  parent  or  child,  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife  is, 
thernfore,  the  first  of  the  social  relations.  The  relations  of  husband  and 
wife  bear  a  certain  analogy  to  that  of  “  kien  ”  and  “  kium.”  The  word  kien 
may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  heaven,  sovereign,  parent  or  husband.  As  the 
earth  is  subservient  to  heaven,  so  is  the  subject  subservient  to  the  sovereign, 
the  child  to  the  parent  and  the  wife  to  the  husband.  .  These  three  main¬ 
stays  of  the  social  structure  have  their  origin  in  the  law  of  nature,  and  do 
not  owe  their  existence  to  the  invention  of  men. 

The  emotions  are  but  the  manifestations  of  the  soul’s  faculties  when 
acted  upon  by  external  objects.  There  are  seven  emotions,  namely:  Joy, 
anger,  grief,  fear,  hate,  and  desire.  The  faculties  of  the  soul  derive  their 
origin  from  nature  and  are  therefore  called  natural  faculties;  the  emotions 
emanate  from  man  and  are  therefore  called  human  emotions. 

Humanity  sums  up  the  virtues  of  the  five  natural  faculties.  Filial  duty 
lies  at  the  foundation  of  humanity.  The  sense  of  propriety  serves  to 
regulate  the  emotions.  The  recognition  of  the  relation  of  husband  and 
wife  is  the  first  step  in  the  cultivation  and  develoi)ment  of  humanity.  The 
principles  that  direct  human  progress  are  sincerity  and  charity,  and  the 
principles  that  carry  it  forward  are  devotion  and  honor.  “  Do  not  unto 
others,”  says  Confucius,  “  whatsoever  ye  would  not  that  others  should  do 
unto  you.”  Again  he  says: 

A  noble-minded  man  has  four  rules  to  regulate  his  conduct:  To  serve  one’s 
parents  in  such  a  maimer  as  is  required  of  a  son;  io  serve  one’s  sovereign  in  such 
a  manner  as  is  required  of  a  subject:  to  serve  one’s  elder  brother  in  such  a  man¬ 
ner  as  is  required  of  a  younger  brother;  to  set  an  example  of  dealing  with  one’s 
friends  in  such  a  manner  as  is  required  of  fiaends. 

This  succinct  statement  x)uts  in  a  nutshell  all  the  requirements  of  sin¬ 
cerity,  charity,  devotion,  and  honor;  in  other  words  of  humanity  itself. 
Therefore,  all  natural  virtues  and  established  doctrines  that  relate  to  the 
duties  of  man  in  his  relations  to  society  must  have  their  origin  in  humanity. 
On  the  other  hand  the  princijjle  that  regulates  the  actions  and  conduct  of 
men  from  beginning  to  end  can  be  no  other  than  projjriety. 

What  are  the  rules  of  propriety?  The  Book  of  Rites  treats  of  such 
as  relate  to  ceremonies  on  attaining  majority,  marriages,  funerals,  sac¬ 
rifices,  court  receptions,  banquets,  the  worship  of  heaven,  the  observance 
of  stated  feasts,  the  sj)here  of  woman,  and  the  education  of  youth..  The 
rules  of  propriety  are  based  on  rectitude  and  should  be  carried  out  with 
understanding,  so  as  to  show  their  truth,  to  the  end  that  humanity  may 
appear  in  its  full  splendor.  The  aim  is  to  enable  the  five  innate  qualities 
of  the  soul  to  have  full  and  free  play,  and  yet  to  enable  each  in  its  action 
to  promote  the  action  of  the  rest.  If  we  were  to  go  into  details  on  this  sub¬ 
ject  and  enlarge  on  the  various  lines  of  thought  as  they  present  themselves 
we  should  find  that  myriads  of  words  and  thousands  of  paragraphs  would 
not  suffice,  for  then  we  should  have  to  deal  with  such  problems  as  relate  to 
the  observation  of  facts,  the  systematization  of  knowledge,  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  right  principles,  the  rectification  of  the  heart,  the  disciplining  of 
self,  the  regulation  of  the  family,  the  government  of  the  nation,  and  the 
pacification  of  the  world.  Such  are  the  elements  of  instruction  and  self- 
education  which  Confucianists  consider  as  essential  to  make  man  what  he 
ought  to  be. 


CONFUCIANISM. 


151 


Now,  man  is  only  a  species  of  naked  animal.  He  was  naturally  stricken 
with  fear  and  went  so  far  as  to  worship  animals  against  which  he  was  help¬ 
less.  To  this  may  be  traced  the  origin  of  religious  w^orship.  It  was  only 
man,  however,  that  nature  had  endowed  with  intelligence.  On  this  account 
he  could  take  advantage  of  the  natural  elements,  and  his  primary  object 
was  to  increase  the  comforts  and  remove  the  dangers  of  life.  As  he  passed 
from  a  savage  to  a  civilized  state  he  initiated  movements  for  the  education 
of  the  rising  generation  by  defining  the  relations  and  duties  of  society,  and 
by  laying  special  emphasis  on  the  disciplining  of  self.  Therefore,  man 
is  called  the  “  nucleus  of  the  five  elements  and  the  ethereal  essence  of  the 
five  elements  formed  by  assimilating  food,  by  distinguishing  sounds  and  by 
the  action  of  light.”  Herein  lies  the  dignity  of  human  nature.  Herein  we 
recognize  the  chief  characteristic  that  distinguishes  man  from  animals. 

The  various  tribes  of  feathered,  haired,  scaled,  or  shelled  animals,  to 
be  sure,  are  not  entirely  incapable  of  emotion.  As  emotions  are  only 
phenomena  of  the  soul’s  different  faculties,  animals  may  be  said  to  possess, 
to  a  limited  degree,  faculties  similar  to  the  faculties  of  man,  and  are  there¬ 
fore  entirely  devoid  of  the  pure  essence  of  nature.  From  the  beginning  of 
the  creation  the  intelligence  of  animals  has  remained  the  same,  and  will 
doubtless  remain  the  same  until  the  end  of  time.  They  are  incapable  of 
improvement  or  progress.  This  shows  that  the  substance  of  their  organi¬ 
zation  must  be  derived  from  the  imperfect  and  gross  elements  of  the  earth, 
so  that  when  it  unites  with  the  ethereal  elements  to  form  the  faculties,  the 
spiritual  qualities  can  not  gain  full  play,  as  in  the  case  of  man.  “  In  the 
evolution  of  the  animated  creation,”  says  Confucius,  in  connection  with  this 
subject,  “  nature  can  only  act  upon  the  substance  of  each  organized  being, 
and  bring  out  its  innate  qualities.  She,  therefore,  furnishes  proper  nour¬ 
ishment  to  those  individuals  that  stand  erect  and  trample  upon  those  indi¬ 
viduals  that  lie  prostrate.”  The  idea  is  that  nature  has  no  fixed  purpose. 

As  for  man,  he  also  has  natural  imperfections.  This  is  what  Con- 
fucianists  call  essential  imperfections  in  the  constitution.  The  reason  is 
that  the  organizations  which  different  individuals  have  received  from  the 
earth  are  very  diverse  in  character.  It  is  but  natural  that  the  faculties  of 
different  individuals  should  develop  abilities  and  capabilities  which  are 
equally  diverse  in  degrees  and  kinds.  It  is  not  that  different  individuals 
have  received  from  nature  different  measures  of  intelligence. 

Man  only  can  remove  the  imperfections  inherent  in  the  substance  of  his 
organization  by  directing  his  mind  to  intellectual  pursuits,  by  abiding  in 
virtue,  by  following  the  dictates  of  humanity,  by  subduing  anger,  and  by 
restraining  the  appetites.  Lovers  of  mankind,  who  have  the  regeneration  of 
the  world  at  heart,  would  doubtless  consider  it  desirable  to  have  some 
moral  panacea  which  could  completely  remove  all  the  imperfections  from 
the  organic  substance  of  the  human  species,  so  that  the  whole  race  might 
be  reformed  with  ease  and  expedition.  But  such  a  method  of  procedure 
does  not  seem  to  be  the  way  in  which  nature  works.  She  only  brings  out 
the  innate  qualities  of  every  substance.  Still  it  is  worth  while  to  cherish 
such  a  desire  on  account  of  its  tendency  to  elevate  human  nature,  though 
we  know  it  to  be  impossible  of  fulfillment,  owing  to  the  limitations  of  the 
human  organization. 

Man  is  then  endowed  with  faculties  of  the  highest  dignity.  Yet  there 
are  those  who  so  far  degrade  their  manhood  as  to  give  themselves  up  to  the 
unlimited  indulgence  of  those  appetites  which  they  have  in  common  with 
birds,  beasts,  and  fishes,  to  the  utter  loss  of  their  moral  sense  without 
being  sensible  of  their  degradation,  perhaps.  In  case  they  have  really 
become  insensible  then  even  heaven  can  not  possibly  do  anything  with 
them.  But  if  they,  at  any  time  become  sensible  of  their  condition,  they 
must  be  stricken  with  a  sense  of  shame,  not  unmingled,  perhaps,  with  fear 
and  trembling.  If,  after  experiencing  a  sense  of  shame,  mingled  with  fear 


152 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


and  trembling,  they  repent  of  their  evil  doings,  then  they  become  men 
again  with  their  humanity  restored.  This  is  a  doctrine  maintained  by  all 
the  schools  of  Confucianists. 

“Reason,”  says  Confucius  in  his  notes  to  the  Book  of  Changes,  “con¬ 
sists  in  the  proper  union  of  the  active  and  passive  principles  of  nature.” 
Again  he  says:  “What  is  called  spirit  is  the  inscrutable  state  of  ‘yin’  and 
‘yang,’  or  the  passive  and  active  principles  of  nature.”  Now,  “yang”  is 
heaven,  or  ether.  Whenever  ether,  by  condensation,  assumes  a  substantive 
form  and  remains  suspended  in  the  heavens,  there  is  an  admixture  of  the 
active  and  passive  principles  of  nature,  with  the  active  principal  predomi¬ 
nating.  “Yin,”  or  the  passive  principle,  of  nature  is  earth  or  substance. 
Whenever  a  substance  which  has  the  property  of  absorbing  ether  is  attracted 
to  the  earth  there  is  an  admixture  of  the  active  and  passive  principles  of 
nature,  with  the  passive  principle  predominating. 

As  the  sunrises  in  the  East  and  sets  in  the  West,  its  going  and  coming 
making  one  day,  so  the  quantity  of  ether  which  the  earth  holds  varies  from 
time  to  time.  Exhaltation  follows  absorption;  systole  succeeds  diastole. 
It  is  these  small  changes  that  produce  day  and  night.  As  the  sun  travels 
also  from  North  to  South  and  makes  a  complete  revolution  in  one  year,  so 
the  quantity  of  ether  which  the  earth  holds  varies  from  time  to  time. 
Exhalation  follows  absorption ;  systole  succeeds  diastole.  It  is  these  great 
changes  that  produce  heat  and  cold.  The  movements  of  the  active  and 
passive  principles  of  the  universe  bear  a  certain  resemblance  to  the  move¬ 
ments  of  the  sun.  There  are  periods  of  rest,  periods  of  activity,  periods  of 
expansion,  and  periods  of  contraction.  The  two  principles  may  sometimes 
repel  each  other,  but  can  never  go  beyond  each  other’s  influences.  They 
may  also  attract  each  other,  but  do  not  by  this  means  spend  their  force. 
They  seem  to  permeate  all  things  from  beginning  to  end.  They  are  invisible 
md  inaudible,  yet  it  can  not  be  said  for  this  reason  they  do  not  exist.  This 
is  what  is  meant  by  inscrutability,  and  this  is  what  Confucius  calls  spirit. 

Still  it  is  necessary  to  guard  against  confounding  this  conception  of 
spirit  with  that  of  nature.  Nature  is  an  entirely  active  element  and  must 
needs  have  a  passion  element  to  operate  upon  in  order  to  bring  out  its 
energy.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  an  error  to  confound  spirit  with 
matter.  Matter  is  entirely  passive  and  must  needs  have  some  active  ele¬ 
ment  to  act  upon  it  in  order  to  concentrate  its  virtues.  It  is  to  the  action 
and  reaction,  as  well  as  to  the  mutual  sustentation  of  the  essences  of  the 
active  and  passive  principles  that  the  spirit  of  anything  owes  its  being.  In 
case  there  is  no  union  of  the  active  and  passive  principles,  the  ethereal  and 
substantive  elements  lie  separate,  and  the  influences  of  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  can  not  come  into  conjunction.  This  being  the  case,  whence  can 
spirits  derive  their  substance?  Thus  the  influences  of  the  heavens  and 
material  objects  must  act  and  react  upon  each  other,  and  enter  into  the 
composition  of  each  other,  in  order  to  enable  every  material  object  to  incor¬ 
porate  a  due  proportion  of  energy  with  its  virtues.  Each  object  is  then  able 
to  assume  its  proper  form,  whether  large  or  small,  and  acquire  the  prop¬ 
erties  peculiar  to  its  constitution,  to  the  end  that  it  may  fulfill  its  functions 
in  the  economy  of  nature. 

For  example,  the  spirits  of  mountains,  hills,  rivers,  and  marshes  are 
invisible;  we  see  only  the  manifestations  of  their  power  in  winds,  clouds, 
thunders,  and  rains.  The  spirits  of  birds,  quadrupeds,  insects,  and  fishes 
are  invisible;  we  see  only  the  manifestations  of  their  power  -in  flying,  run¬ 
ning,  burrowing,  and  swimming.  The  spirits  of  terrestrial  and  aquatic 
plants  are  invisible;  we  see  only  the  manifestations  of  their  power  in  flow¬ 
ers,  fruits,  and  the  various  tissues.  The  spirit  of  man  is  invisible,  yet  when 
we  consider  that  the  eyes  can  see,  the  ears  can  hear,  the  mouth  can  distin¬ 
guish  flavors,  the  nose  can  smell,  and  the  mind  can  grasp  what  is  most 
minute  as  well  as  what  is  most  remote,  how  can  we  account  for  all  this  ? 


CONFUCIANISM. 


153 


In  the  case  of  man,  the  spirit  is  in  a  more  concentrated  and  better  dis¬ 
ciplined  state  than  the  rest  of  the  created  things.  On  this  account  the 
spirit  of  man  after  death,  though  separated  from  the  body,  is  still  able  to 
retain  its  essential  virtues,  and  does  not  become  easily  dissipated.  This  is 
the  ghost,  or  disembodied  spirit. 

The  followers  of  Taoism  and  Buddhism  often  speak  of  immortality  and 
everlasting  life.  Accordingly  they  subject  themselves  to  a  course  of  dis¬ 
cipline,  in  the  hope  that  they  may  by  this  means  attain  to  that  happy 
Buddhistic  or  Taoistic  existence.  They  aim  merely  to  free  the  spirit  from 
the  limitations  of  the  body.  Taoist  and  Buddhist  priests  often  speak  of 
the  rolls  of  spirits  and  the  records  of  souls,  and  make  frequent  mention  of 
heaven  and  hell.  They  seek  to  inoculate  that  the  good  will  receive  their 
due  reward  and  the  wicked  will  suffer  eternal  punishment.  They  mean  to 
convey  the  idea  of  course,  that  rewards  and  punishments  will  be  dealt  out 
to  the  spirits  of  men  after  death  according  to  their  deserts.  Such  beliefs 
doubtless  had  their  origin  in  attempts  to  influence  the  actions  of  men  by 
appealing  to  their  likes  and  dislikes.  The  purpose  of  inducing  men  to  do 
good  and  forsake  evil  by  presenting  in  striking  contrast  a  hereafter  to  be 
striven  for  and  a  hereafter  to  be  avoided  is  laudable  enough  in  some 
respects.  But  it  is  the  perpetuation  of  falsehood  by  slavishly  clinging  to 
errors  that  deserve  condemnation.  For  this  reason  Confucianists  do  not 
accept  such  doctrines,  though  they  make  no  attempt  to  suppress  them. 

“We  can  not  as  yet,”  says  Confucius,  “perform  our  duties  to  men,  how 
can  we  perform  our  duties  to  spirits?”  Again  he  says:  “We  know  not,  as 
yet,  about  life;  how  can  we  know  about  death?”  “From  this  time  on,” 
says  Tsang-tz,  “I  know  that  I  am  saved.”  “Let  my  consistent  actions 
remain,”  says  Chang-tz,  “  and  I  shall  die  in  peace.”  It  will  be  seen  that  the 
wise  and  good  men  of  China  have  never  thought  it  advisable  to  give  up 
teaching  the  duties  of  life  and  turn  to  speculations  on  the  conditions  of 
souls  and  spirits  after  death.  But  from  various  passages  in  the  Book  of 
Changes  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  souls  of  men  after  death  are  in  the 
same  state  as  they  were  before  birth. 

Why  is  it  that  Confucianists  apply  the  word  “  ti  ”  to  heaven  and  not  to 
spirits?  The  reason  is  that  there  is  but  one  “  ti,”  the  Supreme  Ruler,  the 
governor  of  all  subordinate  spirits,  who  can  not  be  said  to  be  propitious  or 
unpropitious,  beneflcent  and  maleflcent.  Inferior  spirits,  on  the  other 
hand,  owe  their  existence  to  material  substances.  As  substances  have 
noxious  or  useful  properties,  so  some  spirits  may  be  propitious,  others 
unpropitious,  and  some  benevolent,  others  malevolent.  Man  is  part  of  the 
material  universe;  the  spirit  of  man,  a  species  of  spirits. 

All  created  things  can  be  distributed  into  groups,  and  individuals  of 
the  same  species  are  generally  found  together.  A  man,  therefore,  whose 
heart  is  good  must  have  a  good  spirit.  By  reason  of  the  influence  exerted 
by  one  spirit  upon  another,  a  good  spirit  naturally  tends  to  attract  all 
other  propitious  and  good  spirits.  This  is  happiness.  Now,  if  every  indi¬ 
vidual  has  a  good  heart,  then  from  the  action  and  re-action  of  spirit  upon 
spirit,  only  propitious  and  good  influences  can  flow.  The  country  is  blessed 
with  prosperity;  the  government  fulfllls  its  purpose.  What  happiness  can 
be  compared  with  this? 

On  the  other  hand,  when  a  man  has  an  evil  heart  his  spirit  can  not 
but  be  likewise  evil.  On  account  of  the  influence  exerted  by  one 
spirit  upon  another,  the  call  of  this  spirit  naturally  meets  with  ready 
responses  from  all  other  unpropitious  and  evil  spirits.  This  is  misery.  If 
every  individual  harbors  an  evil  heart,  then  a  responsive  chord  is  struck  in 
all  unpropitious  and  evil  spirits.  Evil  influences  are  scattered  over  the 
country.  Misfortunes  and  calamities  overtake  the  land.  There  is  an  end 
of  good  government.  What  misery  can  be  compared  with  this? 

Thus  in  the  administration  of  public  affairs  a  wise  legislator  always 


154 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


takes  into  consideration  the  spirit  of  the  times  in  devising  means  for  the 
advancement  and  promotion  of  civilization.  He  puts  his  reliance  on  cere¬ 
monies  and  music  to  carry  on  the  good  work,  and  makes  use  of  punishment 
and  the  sword  as  a  last  resort,  in  accordance  with  the  good  or  bad  tendency 
of  the  age.  His  aim  is  to  restore  the  human  heart  to  its  pristine  innocence 
by  establishing  a  standard  of  goodness,  and  by  pointing  out  a  way  of  sal¬ 
vation  to  every  creature.  The  right  principles  of  action  can  only  be  dis¬ 
covered  by  studying  the  waxing  and  waning  of  the  active  and  passive 
elements  of  nature,  as  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Changes,  and  surely  can  not 
be  understood  by  those  who  believe  in  what  priests  call  the  dispensations 
of  providence. 

Human  affairs  are  made  up  of  thousands  of  acts  of  individuals.  What, 
therefore,  constitutes  a  good  action,  and  what  a  bad  action  ?  What  is  done 
for  the  sake  of  others  is  disinterested  ;  a  disinterested  action  is  good  and 
may  be  called  beneficial,  w  hat  is  done  for  the  sake  of  one’s  self  is  selfish  ; 
a  selfish  action  is  bad  and  naturally  springs  fiom  avarice. 

Suppose  there  is  a  man  who  has  never  entertained  a  good  thought  and 
never  done  a  good  deed,  does  it  stand  to  reason  that  such  a  wretch  can,  by 
means  of  sacrifices  and  prayers,  attain  to  the  blessings  of  life?  Let  us 
take  the  opposite  case  and  suppose  that  there  is  a  man  who  has  never 
harbored  a  bad  thought  and  never  done  a  bad  deed,  does  it  stand  to  reason 
that  there  is  no  escape  for  such  a  man  from  adverse  fortune  except  through 
prayers  and  sacrifices?  “ My  prayers,”  says  Confucius,  “ were  offered  up 
long  ago.”  The  meaning  he  wishes  to  convey  is  that  he  considers  his 
prayers  to  consist  in  living  a  virtuous  life  and  in  constantly  obeying  the 
dictate  i  of  conscience. 

He  therefore,  looks  upon  prayers  as  of  no  avail  to  deliver  any  one  from 
sickness.  “He  who  sins  against  heaven,”  again  he  says,  “has  no  place  to 
pra/.”  What  he  means  is  that  even  spirits  have  no  power  to  bestow  bless¬ 
ing  ?  on  those  who  have  sinned  against  the  decrees  of  heaven. 

The  wise  and  the  good,  however,  make  use  of  offerings  and  sacrifices 
simply  as  a  means  of  purifying  themselves  from  the  contamination  of  the 
world,  so  that  they  become  susceptible  of  spiritual  influences  and  be  in 
.sympathetic  touch  with  the  invisible  world,  to  the  end  that  calamities  may 
be  averted  and  blessings  secured  thereby.  Still,  sacrifices  can  not  be  offered 
by  all  persons  without  distinction.  Only  the  emperor  can  offer  sacrifices  to 
heaven.  Only  governors  of  provinces  can  offer  sacrifices  to  the  spirits  of 
mountains  and  rivers,  land  and  agriculture.  Lower  officers  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  can  offer  sacrifices  only  to  their  ancestors  of  the  five  preceding  gen¬ 
erations,  but  are  not  allowed  to  offer  sacrifices  to  heaven.  The  common 
people,  of  course,  are  likewise  denied  this  privilege.  They  can  offer  sacri¬ 
fices  only  to  their  ancestors. 

All  persons,  from  the  emperor  down  to  the  common  people  are  strictly 
required  to  observe  the  worship  of  ancestors.  The  only  way  in  which  a 
virtuous  man  and  a  dutiful  son  can  show  his  sense  of  obligation  to  the 
authors  of  his  being  is  to  serve  them  when  dead,  as  when  they  were  alive, 
when  departed  as  when  present.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  most 
enlightened  rulers  have  always  made  filial  duty  the  guiding  principle  of 
government.  Observances  of  this  character  have  nothing  to  do  with  relig¬ 
ious  celebrations  and  ceremonies. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  Ming  dynasty  the  local  authorities  of  a  certain 
district  invited  a  priest  from  Tsoh  to  live  in  their  midst.  The  people  began 
to  vie  with  one  another  in  their  eagerness  to  worship  the  new-fangled  deities 
of  Tsoh.  Shortly  afterward  an  invitation  was  extended  to  a  priest  from 
Yueh  to  settle  there  also.  Then  the  people  in  like  manner  began  to  vie 
with  one  another  in  their  eagerness  to  worship  the  new-fangled  deities  of 
Yueh.  The  Tsoh  priest,  stirred  up  with  envy,  declared  to  the  people  that 
the  heaven  he  taught  was  the  only  true  heaven,  and  the  deities  he  served 


ZENSHIRO  NOGUCHI,  Japanese  Buddhist 


THE  U3Rf,RY 
OF  THE 

ySlVERSltt  Of  ILLINOIS 


/-.  ,v- 


•>-.  •  i. 


THE  MODEL  MAN. 


155 


were  the  only  true  deities,  adding  that  by  making  use  of  his  prayers  they 
could  obtain  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  and  the  blessings  of  life,  and  if 
they  did  not  make  use  of  his  prayers  even  the  good  could  not  attain  to 
happiness.  He  at  the  same  time  denounced  the  teachings  of  the  Yueh 
priest  as  altogether  false.  The  Yueh  priest  then  returned  the  compliment 
in  similar  but  more  energetic  language.  Yet  they  made  no  attack  on  the 
inefficiency  of  prayers,  the  reason  being  that  both  employed  the  same  kind 
of  tools  in  carrying  on  their  trade. 

To  say  that  there  are  true  and  false  deities  is  reasonable  enough.  But 
can  heaven  be  so  divided  that  one  part  may  be  designed  as  belonging  to  Tsoh 
and  another  part  to  Yueh?  It  is  merely  an  attempt  to  practice  on  the 
credulity  of  men,  to  dogmatize  on  the  dispensation  of  providence,  by  saying 
that  no  blessings  can  fall  to  the  lot  of  the  good  without  prayer,  and  that 
prayer  can  turn  into  a  blessing  the  retribution  that  is  sure  to  overtake  the 
wicked. 


THE  MODEL  MAN, 

BISHOP  ARNETT. 

I  think  after  the  discussion  of  to-day  I  have  a  higher  conception  of  the 
brotherhood  of  men  and  the  fatherhood  of  God  than  I  ever  had  before.  I 
have  a  higher  conception  of  the  unity  of  the  human  family.  There  is  one 
thing  I  witnessed  in  particular,  that  is  that  we  all  understood  each  other. 
I  have  learned  that  it  is  possible  for  us  to  sit  in  one  place  and  one  individual 
stand  up  and  communicate  to  us,  and  that  each  of  our  hearts  burned  within 
us,  whether  it  was  Jew  or  Japanese.  One  trouble  of  the  world  has  been  to 
find  a  model  man,  and  the  trouble  has  been  inside  of  Christianity.  Outside 
the  various  religions  of  the  world,  each  had  their  own  model  man;  some 
were  high  and  some  were  low,  some  were  short  and  some  were  wide;  but 
each  had  its  model  man,  and  when  we  come  inside  the  commonwealth  of 
Christianity  we  find  the  same  difficulty,  and  I  found  that  the  foundation  of 
the  model  man  was  love  to  God  and  love  to  his  fellow-man.  Then  I  learned 
that  there  was  no  color  in  this  model  man.  There  were  none  of  them  white 
and  none  of  them  black,  but  they  were  all  model  men.  And  I  learned  to-day 
that  there  is  no  color  in  character.  That  virtue  has  no  color.  Now,  then, 
I  have  come  to  this  conclusion:  That  it  makes  no  difference  what  your 
color  is  if  you  are  a  good  man.  If  you  are  a  good  man  you  are  a  good  man, 
and  if  you  are  a  bad  man  you  are  a  bad  man. 

It  is  worth  a  lifetime  to  me  to  have  learned  that  one  thing.  I  have 
found  out,  after  studying  these  ten  model  men,  the  various  religions  repre¬ 
sented  on  this  stage,  and  that  little  model  man  that  came  from  Japan.  I 
tell  you  he  was  a  Tartar.  And  he  told  me  that  it  is  not  so  much  what  I 
said  as  what  I  do.  It  is  not  so  much  what  I  had  for  myself  as  what  I  had 
for  others.  I  found  that  there  are  three  rules  that  these  men  are  governed 
by.  The  first  is:  As  I  want  men  to  do  unto  me,  do  I  even  so  unto  them. 
Did  you  ever  hear  of  that  rule?  Then  I  found  another  rule:  As  men  do 
unto  me,  do  I  even  so  unto  them.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  that?  Then  I 
found  another  thing.  I  found  out,  at  the  close  of  these  meetings  to-night, 
that  the  higher  and  better  rule  is:  “As  I  would  have  men  do  unto  me,  do 
I  even  so  unto  them.”  And  I  think  we  will  go  away  from  this  Parliament 
of  Religions  holding  the  golden  rule  in  our  hands.  Now  then,  my  brethern, 
let  us  take  these  lessons.  I  want  you  to  do  to  me,  whenever  you  can,  just 
what  you  are  doing  now.  For  the  last  three  days  I  have  lived  in  the 
happiest  home  I  ever  lived  in  in  my  life.  It  is  the  home  of  toleration  and 
common  respect  for  the  religious  faiths  and  beliefs  of  Greek,  Jew,  and 
Gentile. 


].56  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


WOULD  WIN  CONVERTS  TO  BUDDHISM. 

ZENSHIKO  NOGUCHI,  WHO  ACCOMPANIED  THE  JAPANESE  BUDDHIST 

PRIEST  AS  AN  INTERPRETER. 

I  take  much  pleasure  in  addressing  you,  my  brothers,  on  the  occasion  of 
the  first  World’s  Religious  Congress,  by  your  kind  indulgence,  with 
what  comes  to  my  mind  to-day  without  any  preliminary  jjreparation,  for  I 
have  been  entirely  occupied  in  interpreting  for  the  four  Hijiris  who  came 
with  me  to  attend  this  congress. 

As  you  remember  Columbus  for  his  discovery,  and  as  you  brought  to 
completion  the  wonderful  enterprise  of  the  World’s  Fair,  I  also  have  to 
remember  one  whose  knocks  at  the  long-closed  door  of  my  country  awak¬ 
ened  us  from  our  long  and  undisturbed  slumber  and  led  us  to  open  our 
eyes  to  the  condition  of  other  civilized  countries,  including  that  in  which 
I  now  am  wondering  at  its  greatness  and  beauty,  especially  as  it  is  epito¬ 
mized  in  the  World^’s  Fair.  I  refer  to  the  famous  Commodore  Perry.  I 
must  do  for  him  what  Americans  have  done  and  do  for  Columbus.  With 
him  I  have  one,  too,  to  remember  whose  statue  you  have  doubtless  seen  at 
the  World’s  Fair.  His  name  was  Naosuke  II.,  the  Lord  of  Hikone  and  the 
great  chancellor  of  Bakufu.  He  was,  unfortunately,  assassinated  by  the 
hands  of  the  conservative  party,  which  proclaimed  him  a  traitor  because  he 
opened  the  door  to  the  stranger  without  waiting  for  the  permission  of  his 
master,  the  emperor. 

Since  we  opened  the  door  about  thirty-six  years  have  passed,  during 
which  time  wonderful  changes  and  progress  have  taken  place  in  my  coun¬ 
try,  so  that  now,  in  the  midst  of  the  White  City  and  the  World’s  Fair,  I  do 
not  find  myself  W'ondering  so  much  as  a  barbarian  would  do.  Who  made 
my  country  so  civilized?  He  was  the  knocker,  as  I  called  him,  Commo¬ 
dore  Perry.  So  my  i^eople  owe  a  great  deal  to  him,  and  to  the  America 
who  gave  him  to  us. 

I  must,  therefore,  make  some  return  to  him  for  his  kindness,  as  you  are 
doing  in  the  World’s  Fair  to  Columbus  for  his  discovery.  Shall  I  offer  to 
you,  who  represent  him,  Japanese  teapots  and  teacups?  No.  Pictures  and 
fans?  No,  no,  no;  a  thousand  times,  no.  Shall  I  then  open  a  world’s  fair 
in  my  own  country  in  honor  to  his  memory?  No.  Then  what  is  to  be 
done?  These  things  that  we  have  just  laid  aside  as  inadequate  are  only 
materials,  which  fire  and  water  can  destroy.  In  their  stead  I  bring  some¬ 
thing  that  the  elements  can  not  destroy  and  it  is  the  best  of  all  my  posses¬ 
sions. 

What  is  that?  Buddhism!  As  you  see,  I  am  simply  a  layman,  and  do 
not  belong  to  any  sect  of  Buddhism  at  all.  So  I  present  to  you  four  Budd¬ 
hist  sorios,  who  will  give  their  addresses  before  you  and  place  in  your  hands 
many  thousand  coi)ies  of  English  translations  of  Buddhist  works,  such  as 
“  Outlines  of  the  Mahayana,  as  Taught  by  Buddha;'"  “  A  Brief  Account  of 
the  Shin-shu,”  “A  Shin-shu  Catechism,”  and  “The  Sutra  of  Forty-two 
‘Sections  and  Two  Other  Short  Sutras,”  etc.  Besides  these,  400  volumes 
of  the  complete  Buddha  Shaka’s  “Sutra”  are  imported  for  the  first  time 
to  this  country  as  a  present  to  the  chairman  of  this  congress  by  the  four 
Buddhist  sorios.  These  three  Chinese  translations,  which  of  course  Japan- 
cr.e  can  read,  are  made  from  the  original  Sanskrit  by  many  Chinese  sorios 


POSITION  OF  JAPAN  TOWARD  CHRISTIANITY. 


157 


in  ancient  times.  I  hope  they  will  be  translated  into  English,  which  can 
be  understood  by  almost  all  the  people  of  the  world. 

I  regret  to  say  that  there  is  probably  no  Mahayana  doctrine,  which  is 
the  highest  order  of  Buddhist  teaching,  translated  into  English.  If  you 
wish  to  know  what  the  Mahayana  doctrine  is,  you  must  learn  to  read 
Chinese  or  Japanese,  as  you  are  doing  in  the  Chatauqua  system  of  educa¬ 
tion,  otherwise  Chinese  or  Japanese  must  learn  English  enough  to  trans¬ 
late  them  for  English  reading  people.  Whichever  way  it  be,  we  religionists 
must  do  this,  for  the  sake  of  the  world.  I  have  devoted  some  years,  and 
am  now  devoting  more  years,  to  learning  English,  for  the  purpose  of  doing 
this  in  my  private  capacity.  But  the  work  is  too  hard  for  me.  For  exam¬ 
ple,  I  have  translated  Rev.  Professor  Tokunaga’s  work,  without  any  help 
from  foreigners,  on  account  of  the  want  of  time.  I  am  very  sorry  I  have 
not  enough  copies  of  that  book  to  distribute  them  to  you  all,  for  I  almost 
used  them  up  in  presents  on  my  way  to  this  city.  Permit  me  to  distribute 
the  ten  last  copies  that  still  remain  in  my  trunk  to  those  who  happened  to 
take  the  seats  nearest  me. 

How  many  religions  and  their  sects  are  there  in  the  world?  Thousands. 
It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  number  of  religions  in  the  world  will  be  increased 
by  thousands  more?  No.  Why?  If  such  were  our  hope  we  ought  to 
finally  bring  the  number  of  religions  to  as  great  a  figure  as  that  of  the  pop¬ 
ulation  of  the  world,  and  the  priests  of  the  various  religions  should  not  be 
allowed  to  preach  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  people  into  their  respec¬ 
tive  sects.  In  that  case  they  should  rather  say;  ‘‘Don’t  believe  whatever 
we  preach,  get  away  from  the  church,  and  make  your  own  sect  as  we  do.” 
Is  it  right  for  the  priest  to  say  so?  No. 

Then,  is  there  a  hope  of  decreasing  the  number  of  religions?  Yes.  How 
far?  To  one.  Why?  Because  the  truth  is  only  one.  Each  sect  or  religion, 
as  its  ultimate  object,  aims  to  attain  truth.  Geometry  teaches  us  that  the 
shortest  line  between  two  points  is  limited  to  only  one;  so  we  must  find  out 
that  one  way  of  attaining  the  truth  among  the  thousands  of  ways  to  which 
the  rival  religions  point  us,  and  if  we  can  not  find  out  that  one  way  among 
the  already  established  religions  we  must  seek  it  in  a  new  one.  So  long  as 
we  have  thousands  of  religions  the  religion  of  the  world  has  not  yet  attained 
its  full  development  in  all  respects  If  the  thousands  of  religions  do  con¬ 
tinue  to  develop  and  reach  the  state  of  full  development  there  will  be  no 
more  any  distinction  between  them,  or  any  difference  between  faith  and 
reason,  religion  and  science.  This  is  the  end  at  which  we  aim  and  to  which 
we  believe  that  we  know  the  shortest  way. 

I  greet  you,  ladies  and  gentlemen  of  the  World’s  Parliament  of  Relig¬ 
ions,  the  gathering  together  of  which  is  an  important  step  in  that  direction. 


THE  REAL  POSITION  OF  JAPAN  TOWARD 

CHRISTIANITY. 

KINZA  RINGE  M.  HAEAI,  THE  LEARNED  JAPANESE  BUDDHIST. 

Some  of  the  Christian  missionaries  on  the  platform  con¬ 
tracted  and  their  heads  shook  in  disapproval.  But  the  Budd¬ 
hist  directed  his  stinging  rebukes  at  the  false  Christians  who 
have  done  so  much  to  impede  the  spreading  of  the  gospel  in 


158 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


There  are  very  few  countries  in  the  world  so  misunderstood  as  Japan. 
Among  the  innumerable  unfair  judgments,  the  religious  thought  of  my 
countrymen  is  especially  misrepresented,  and  the  whole  nation  is  con¬ 
demned  as  heathen.  Be  they  heathen,  pagan,  or  something  else,  it  is  a  fact 
that  from  the  beginning  of  our  history  Japan  has  received  all  teachings 
with  open  mind;  and  also  that  the  instructions  which  came  from  out¬ 
side  have  commingled  with  the  native  religion  in  entire  harmony,  as  is  seen 
by  so  many  temples  built  in  the  name  of  truth  with  a  mixed  appellation  of 
Buddhism  and  Shintoism;  as  is  seen  by  the  affinity  among  the  teachers  of 
Confucianism  and  Taoism,  or  other  isms,  and  the  Buddhists  and  Shinto 
priests;  as  is  seen  by  the  individual  Japanese,  who  pays  his  other  respects 
to  all  teachings  mentioned  above;  as  is  seen  by  the  peculiar  construction  of 
■^he  Japanese  houses,  which  have  generally  two  rooms,  one  for  a  miniature 
Buddhist  temple  and  the  other  for  a  small  Shinto  shrine,  before  which  the 
family  study  the  respective  scriptures  of  the  two  religions;  as  is  seen  by  the 
popular  ode: 

Wake  noborn 
Fumoto  no  michi  ioa 
Ooke  redo, 

Ona  ji  takne  no, 

Tsuki  wo  mini  kana, 

Which,  translated,  means:  “Though  there  are  many  roads  at  the  foot  of 
the  mountains,  yet  if  the  top  is  reached  the  same  moon  is  seen,”  and  other 
similar  odes  and  mottoes,  which  are  put  in  the  mouth  of  the  ignorant  coun¬ 
try  old  woman,  when  she  decides  the  case  of  bigoted  religious  contention 
among  young  girls.  In  reality  Synthetic  religion,  or  Entitism,  is  the 
Japanese  specialty,  and  I  will  not  hesitate  to  call  it  Japanism. 

But  you  will  protest  and  say:  “Why,  then,  is  Christianity  not  so 
warmly  accepted  by  your  nation  as  other  religions  ?  ”  This  is  the  point 
which  I  wish  especially  to  present  before  you.  There  are  two  causes  why 
Christianity  is  not  so  cordially  received.  This  great  religion  was  widely 
spread  in  any  country,  but  in  1637  the  Christian  missionaries,  combined 
with  the  converts,  caused  a  tragic  and  bloody  rebellion  against  the  country, 
and  it  is  understood  that  those  missionaries  intended  to  subjugate  Japan 
to  their  own  mother  country.  This  shocked  all  Japan,  and  it  took  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  Shogun  a  year  to  suppress  this  terrible  and  intrusive  com- 
mption.  To  those  who  accuse  us  that  our  mother  country  prohibited 
Christianity — not  now,  but  in  a  past  age — I  will  reply  that  it  was  not  from 
religious  or  racial  antipathy,  but  to  prevent  such  another  insurrection,  and 
to  protect  our  independence,  we  were  obliged  to  prohibit  the  promulgation 
of  the  gospels. 

If  our  history  had  had  no  such  record  of  foreign  devastation  under  the 
disguise  of  religion,  and  if  our  people  had  had  no  hereditary  horror  and 
prejudice  against  the  name  of  Christianity,  it  might  have  been  eagerly 
embraced  by  the  whole  nation.  But  this  incident  has  passed  and  we  may 
forget  it.  Yet  it  is  not  entirely  unreasonable  that  the  terrified  suspicion, 
or  you  may  say  superstition,  that  Christianity  is  the  instrument  of  depre¬ 
dation  should  have  been  avoidably  or  unavoidably  aroused  in  the  Oriental 
mind,  when  it  is  an  admitted  fact  that  some  of  the  powerful  nations  of 
Christendom  are  gradually  encroaching  upon  the  Orient,  and  when  the 
following  circumstance  is  daily  impressed  upon  our  minds,  reviving  a  vivid 
memory  of  the  past  historical  occurrence.  The  circumstance  of  which  I  am 
about  to  speak  is  the  present  experience  of  ourselves,  to  which  I  especially 
call  the  attention  of  this  parliament,  and  not  only  this  parliament,  but  also 
the  whole  of  Christendom. 

Since  1853,  when  Commodore  Perry  came  to  Japan  as  the  ambassador  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  our  country  began  to  be 
better  known  by  all  Western  nations  and  the  new  ports  were  widely  opened 


POSITION  OF  JAPAN  TOWABD  CHRISTIANITY. 


159 


and  the  prohibition  of  the  gospels  was  abolished,  as  it  was  before  the  Chris¬ 
tian  rebellion.  By  the  convention  at  Yeddo,  now  Tokio,  in  1858,  the  treaty 
was  stipulated  between  America  and  Japan  and  also  with  the  European 
powers.  It  was  the  time  when  our  country  was  yet  under  the  feudal  gov¬ 
ernment;  and  on  account  of  our  having  been  secluded  for  over  two  centuries 
since  the  Christian  rebellion  of  1637,  diplomacy  was  quite  a  new  experience 
to  the  feudal  officers,  who  put  their  full  confidence  upon  Western  nations, 
and,  without  any  alteration,  accepted  every  article  of  the  treaty  presented 
from  the  foreign  governments.  According  to  the  treaty  we  are  in  a  very 
disadvantageous  situation;  and  amongst  the  others  there  are  two  prominent 
articles,  which  deprive  us  of  our  rights  and  advantages.  One  is  the  exter¬ 
ritoriality  of  Western  nations  in  Japan,  by  which  all  cases  in  regard  to  right, 
whether  of  property  or  person,  arising  between  the  subjects  of  the  Western 
nations  in  my  country,  as  well  as  between  them  and  the  Japanese,  are  sub¬ 
jected  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  authorities  of  the  Western  nations.  Another 
regards  the  tariff,  which,  with  the  exception  of  5  per  cent  ad  valorem,  we 
have  no  right  to  impose  where  it  might  properly  be  done. 

It  is  also  stipulated  that  either  of  the  contracting  parties  to  this  treaty, 
on  giving  one  year’s  previous  notice  to  the  other,  may  demand  a  revision 
thereof  on  or  after  the  1st  of  July,  1872.  Therefore,  in  1871,  our  govern¬ 
ment  demanded  a  revision,  and  since  then  we  have  been  constantly  request¬ 
ing  it,  but  foreign  governments  have  simply  ignored  our  requests,  making 
many  excuses.  One  part  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  of  Amer¬ 
ica  and  Japan  concerning  the  tariff,  was  annulled,  for  which  we  thank  with 
sincere  gratitude  the  kind-hearted  American  nation;  but  I  am  sorry  to  say, 
that,  as  no  European  power  has  followed  in  the  wake  of  America,  in  this 
respect  our  tariff  right  remains  in  the  same  condition  as  it  was  before. 

We  have  no  judicial  power  over  the  foreigners  in  Japan,  and  as  a  nat¬ 
ural  consequence  we  are  receiving  injuries,  legal  and  moral,  the  accounts 
of  which  are  seen  constantly  in  our  native  newspapers.  As  the  Western 
people  live  far  from  us  they  do  not  know  the  exact  circumstances.  Prob¬ 
ably  they  hear  now  and  then  the  reports  from  the  missionaries  and  their 
friends  in  Japan.  I  do  not  deny  that  their  reports  are  true;  but  if  a  person 
wants  to  obtain  any  unmistakable  information  in  regard  to  his  friend  he 
ought  to  hear  the  opinions  about  him  from  many  sides.  If  you  closely 
examine  with  your  unbiased  mind  what  injuries  we  receive  you  will  be 
astonished.  Among  many  kinds  of  wrongs  there  are  some  which  were 
utterly  unknown  before  and  entirely  new  to  us — heathen,  none  of  whom 
would  dare  to  speak  of  them  even  in  private  conversation. 

One  of  the  excuses  offered  by  foreign  nations  is  that  our  country  is  not 
yet  civilized.  Is  it  the  principle  of  civilized  law  that  the  rights  and  profits 
of  the  so-called  uncivilized  or  the  weaker  should  be  sacrificed?  As  I  under¬ 
stand  it,  the  rights  and  the  necessity  of  law  is  to  protect  the  rights  and  wel¬ 
fare  of  the  weaker  against  the  aggression  of  the  stronger;  but  I  have  never 
learned  in  my  shallow  studies  of  law  that  the  weaker  should  be  sacrificed  for 
the  stronger.  Another  kind  of  apology  comes  from  the  religious  source,  and 
the  claim  is  made  that  the  Japanese  are  idolaters  and  heathen.  Whether 
our  people  are  idolaters  or  not  you  will  know  at  once  if  you  will  investigate 
our  religious  views  without  prejudice  from  authentic  Japanese  sources. 

But  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  we  are  idolaters  and 
heathen,  is  it  Christian  morality  to  trample  upon  the  rights  and  advantages 
of  a  non-Christian  nation,  coloring  all  their  natural  happiness  with  the  dark 
stain  of  injustice?  I  read  in  the  Bible,  “  Whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy 
right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also;”  but  I  can  not  discover  there  any 
passage  which  says,  “  Whosoever  shall  demand  j  ustice  of  thee,  smite  his 
right  cheek,  and  when  he  turns  smite  the  other  also.”  Again,  I  read  in  the 
Bible,  “  If  any  man  will  sue  thee  at  law,  and  take  away  thy  coat,  let  him 
have  thy  cloak  also;”  but  I  can  not  discover  there  any  passage  which  says. 


160 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


“If  thou  shalt  sue  any  man  at  the  law,  and  take  away  his  coat,  let  him  give 
thee  his  cloak  also.” 

You  send  your  missionaries  to  Japan,  and  they  advise  us  to  be  moral  and 
believe  Christianity.  We  like  to  be  moral,  we  know  that  Christianity  is 
good,  and  we  are  very  thankful  for  this  kindness.  But  at  the  same  time 
our  people  are  rather  perplexed  and  very  much  in  doubt  about  this  advice. 
For  we  think  that  the  treaty  stipulated  in  the  time  of  feudalism  when  we 
were  yet  in  our  youth,  is  still  clung  to  by  the  powerful  nations  of  Christen¬ 
dom;  when  we  find  that  every  year  a  good  many  Western  vessels  engaged  in 
the  seal  fishery  are  smuggled  into  our  seas;  when  legal  cases  are  always 
decided  by  the  foreign  authorities  in  Japan  unfavorably  to  us;  when  some 
years  a  Japanese  was  not  allowed  to  enter  a  university  on  the  Pacific  coast 
of  America  because  of  his  being  of  a  different  race;  when  a  few  months  ago 
the  school  board  in  San  Francisco  enacted  a  regulation  that  no  Japanese 
should  be  allowed  to  enter  the  public  schools  there;  when  last  year  the 
Japanese  were  driven  out  in  wholesale  from  one  of  the  territories  of  the 
United  States  of  America;  when  our  business  men  in  San  Franc  isco  were 
compelled  by  some  union  not  to  employ  the  Japanese  assistants  or  laborers, 
but  the  Americans;  when  there  are  some  in  the  same  city  who  speak  on  the 
platforms  against  those  of  us  who  are  already  here;  when  there  are  many 
men  who  go  in  processions  hoisting  lanterns  marked,  “Jap  must  go;”  when 
the  Japanese  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands  are  deprived  of  their  suffrage;  when 
we  see  some  Western  people  in  Japan  who  erect  before  the  entrance  to  their 
houses  a  special  post  upon  which  is  the  notice,  “No  Japanese  is  allowed  to 
enter  here,”  just  like  a  board  upon  which  is  written,  “  No  dogs  allowed;” 
when  we  are  in  such  a  situation  is  it  unreasonable — notwithstanding  the 
kindness  of  the  Western  nations,  from  one  point  of  view,  who  send  their 
missionaries  to  us — for  us  intelligent  heathen  to  be  embarrassed  and  hesi¬ 
tate  to  swallow  the  sweet  and  warm  liquid  of  the  heaven  of  Christianity? 
If  such  be  the  Christian  ethics,  well,  we  are  perfectly  satisfied  to  be 
heathen. 

If  any  person  should  claim  that  there  are  many  people  in  Japan  who 
speak  and  write  against  Christianity,  I  am  not  a  hypocrite  and  I  will  frankly 
state  that  I  was  the  first  in  my  country  who  ever  publicly  attacked  Chris¬ 
tianity — no,  not  real  Christianity,  but  false  Christianity,  the  wrongs  done 
toward  us  by  the  people  of  Christendom.  If  any  reprove  the  Japanese 
because  they  have  had  strong  anti-Christian  societies,  I  will  honestly 
declare  that  I  was  the  first  in  Japan  who  ever  organized  a  society  against 
Christianity — no,  not  against  real  Christianity,  but  to  protect  ourselves 
from  false  Christianity  and  the  injustice  which  we  receive  from  the  people 
of  Christendom.  Do  not  think  that  I  took  such  a  stand  on  account  of  my 
being  a  Buddhist,  for  this  was  my  position  many  years  before  I  entered 
the  Buddhist  Temple.  But  at  the  same  time  I  will  proudly  state  that  if 
any  one  discussed  the  affinity  of  all  religions  before  the  public,  under  the 
title  of  Synthetic  Religion,  it  was  I.  I  say  this  to  you  because  I  do  not 
wish  to  be  understood  as  a  bigoted  Buddhist  sectarian. 

Really  there  is  no  sectarian  in  my  country.  Our  people  well  know 
what  abstract  truth  is  in  Christianity,  and  we,  or  at  least  I,  do  not  care 
about  the  names  if  I  speak  from  the  point  of  teaching.  Whether 
Buddhism  is  called  Christianity  or  Christianity  is  named  Buddhism, 
whether  we  are  called  Confucianists  or  Shintoists,  we  are  not  par¬ 
ticular,  but  we  are  very  particular  about  the  truth  taught  and  its 
consistent  application.  Whether  Christ  saves  us  or  drives  us  into 
hell,  whether  Gautama  Buddha  was  a  real  person  or  there  never  was 
such  a  man,  it  is  not  a  matter  of  consideration  to  us,  but  the  consist¬ 
ency  of  doctrine  and  conduct  is  the  point  on  which  we  put  the  greater 
importance.  Therefore  unless  the  inconsistency  which  we  observe  is 
renounced,  and  especially  the  unjust  treaty  by  which  we  are  entailed  is 


Good  will  and  peace  among  men. 


161 


revised  upon  an  equitable  basis,  our  people  will  never  castaway  their  preju¬ 
dice  about  Christianity,  in  spite  of  the  eloquent  orator  who  speaks  its  truth 
from  the  pulpit.  We  are  very  often  called  barbarians,  and  I  have  heard 
and  read  that  Japanese  are  stubborn  and  can  not  understand  the  truth  of 
the  Bible.  I  will  admit  that  this  is  true  in  some  sense,  for  though  they 
admire  the  eloquence  of  the  orator  and  wonder  at  his  courage,  though  they 
approve  his  logical  argument,  yet  they  are  very  stubborn,  and  will  not  join 
Christianity  as  long  as  they  think  it  is  a  Western  morality  to  preach  one 
thing  and  practice  another. 

But  I  know  this  is  not  the  morality  of  the  civilized  West,  and  I  have  the 
firm  belief  in  the  highest  humanity  and  noblest  generosity  of  the  Occidental 
nations  toward  us.  Especially  as  to  the  American  nation,  I  know  their 
sympathy  and  integrity.  I  know  their  sympathy  by  their  emancipation  of 
the  colored  people  from  slavery.  I  know  their  integrity  by  the  patriotic 
spirit  which  established  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
And  I  feel  sure  that  the  circumstances  which  made  the  American  people 
declare  independence  are  in  some  sense  comparable  to  the  present  state  of 
my  country.  I  can  not  refrain  my  thrilling  emotion  and  sympathetic  tears 
whenever  1  read  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  You,  citizens  of  this 
glorious  free  United  States,  who  struck  when  the  right  time  came,  struck 
for  “liberty  or  death,”  you,  v/ho  waded  through  blood  that  you  might 
fasten  to  the  mast  your  banner  of  the  stripes  and  stars  upon  the  land  and 
sea;  you,  who  enjoy  the  fruition  of  your  liberty  through  your  struggle  for 
it;  you,  I  say,  may  understand  somewhat  our  position,  and  as  you  asked  for 
justice  from  your  mother  country,  we,  too,  ask  justice  from  these  foreign 
powers. 

If  any  religion  teaches  injustice  to  humanity,  I  will  oppose  it,  as  I  ever 
have  opposed  it,  with  my  blood  and  soul.  I  will  be  the  bitterest  dissenter 
from  Christianity,  or  I  will  be  the  warmest  admirer  of  its  gospels.  To  the 
promoters  of  the  parliament  and  the  ladies  and  gentlemen  of  the  world 
who  are  assembled  here  I  pronounce  that  your  aim  is  the  realization  of  the 
Religious  Union  —  not  nominally,  but  practically.  We,  the  40,000,000  souls 
of  Japan,  standing  firmly  and  persistently  upon  the  basis  of  international 
justice,  await  still  further  manifestations  as  to  the  m^Drality  of  Christianity. 


GOOD  WILL  AND  PEACE  AMONG  MEN, 

RIGHT  REV.  SHIBATA  REIICHI,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  JIKKO  SECT 

OF  SHINTOISM  IN  JAPAN. 

I  feel  very  happy  to  be  able  to  attend  this  Congress  of  Religions  as  a 
member  of  the  advisory  council  and  to  hear  the  high  reasonings  and  pro¬ 
found  opinions  of  the  gentlemen  who  come  from  the  various  countries  of 
the  world.  As  for  me,  it  will  be  my  proper  task  to  explain  the  character  of 
Shintoism,  and  especially  of  my  Jikko  sect. 

The  word  Shinto,  or  Kami-no-michi,  comes  from  the  two  words  “  Shin,” 
or  “  Kami,”  each  of  which  means  Deity,  and  “to,”  or  “  michi  ”  (way),  and 
designates  the  way  transmitted  to  us  from  our  divine  ancestors,  and  in 
which  every  Japanese  is  bound  to  walk.  Having  its  foundation  in  our  old 
history,  conforming  to  our  geographical  positions  and  the  disposition  of  our 
people,  this  way,  as  old  as  Japan  itself,  came  down  to  us  with  its  original 
form  and  will  l  ist  forever,  inseparable  from  the  Eternal  Imperial  House 
and  the  Japanese  nationality. 

According  to  our  ancient  scriptures,  there  were  a  generation  of  Kami  or 
Deities  in  the  beginning  who  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  together 


162 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


with  all  things,  including  human  beings,  and  became  the  ancestors  of  the 
J  apanese. 

Jimmu-tenno,  the  grandson  of  Ninigi-nomikoto,  was  the  first  of  the 
human  emperors.  Having  brought  the  whole  land  under  one  rule  he  per¬ 
formed  great  services  to  the  divine  ancestors,  cherished  his  subjects  and 
thus  discharged  his  great  filial  duty,  as  did  all  the  emperors  after  him.  So 
also,  all  the  subjects  were  deep  in  their  respect  and  adoration  toward  the 
divine  ancestors  and  the  emperors,  their  descendants.  Though  in  the 
course  of  time  various  doctrines  and  creeds  were  introduced  into  the 
country.  Confucianism  in  the  reign  of  the  fifteenth  emperor,  Ojin,  Buddh¬ 
ism  in  the  reign  of  the  twenty-ninth  emperor,  Kimmei,  and  Christianity  in 
modern  times,  the  emperors  and  the  subjects  never  neglected  the  great 
duty  of  Shinto.  The  present  forms  of  ceremony  are  come  down  to  us  from 
time  immemorial  in  our  history.  Of  the  three  divine  treasures  transmitted 
from  the  divine  ancestors,  the  divine  'gem  is  still  held  sacred  in  the  imperial 
palace,  the  divine  mirror  in  the  great  temple  of  Iso,  and  the  divine  sword  in 
the  temple  of  Atsuta,  in  the  Province  of  Owari.  To  this  day  his  majesty 
the  emperor  performs  himself  the  ceremony  of  worship  to  the  divine  ances¬ 
tors,  and  all  the  subjects  perform  the  same  to  the  deities  of  temples,  which 
are  called,  according  to  the  local  extent  of  the  festivity,  the  national,  the 
provincial,  the  local,  and  the  birth-place  temple.  When  the  festival  day  of 
temples,  especially  of  the  birth-place,  etc.,  comes,  all  people  who,  living 
in  the  place,  are  considered  specially  protected  by  the  deity  of  the  temple, 
have  a  holiday,  and  unite  in  performing  the  ancient  ritual  of  worship  and 
praying  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  imperial  line,  and  for  profound  peace  over 
the  land  and  families.  The  deities  dedicated  to  the  temple  are  divine 
imperial  ancestors,  illustrious  loyalists,  benefactors  to  the  place,  etc.  Indeed, 
the  Shinto  is  a  beautiful  cultus  peculiar  to  our  native  land,  and  is  con¬ 
sidered  the  foundation  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  imperial  house,  the  loyalty 
of  the  subjects,  and  the  stability  of  the  Japanese  state. 

Thus  far  I  have  given  a  short  description  of  Shinto,  which  is  the  way  in 
which  every  Japanese,  no  matter  to  whatcreed— even  Buddhism,  Christi¬ 
anity,  etc.— he  belongs,  must  walk.  Let  me  explain  briefly  the  nature  and 
origin  of  a  religious  force  of  Shinto,  i.  e.,  of  the  Jikko  sect,  whose  tenets  I 
profess  to  believe. 

The  Jikko  (practical)  sect,  as  the  name  indicates,  does  not  lay  so  much 
stress  upon  mere  show  and  speculation  as  upon  the  realization  of  the 
teachings.  Its  doctrines  are  plain  and  simple  and  teach  man  to  do  man’s 
proper  work.  Being  a  new  sect,  it  is  free  from  the  old  dogmas  and  prej¬ 
udices,  and  is  regarded  as  a  reformed  sect.  The  scriptures  on  which  the 
principal  teachings  of  the  sect  are  founded  are  Furukotobumi,  Yamato- 
bumi  and  many  others.  They  teach  us  that  before  heaven  and  earth  came  into 
existence  there  was  one  absolute  deity  called  Ameno-mina-kanu-shi-no-kami. 
He  has  great  virtue,  and  power  to  create  to  reign  over  all  things;  he  includes 
everything  within  himself,  and  he  will  last  forever  without  end.  In  the 
beginning  the  One  Deity,  self-originated,  took  the  embodiments  of  two 
Deities;  one  with  the  male  nature,  and  the  other  female.  The  male  Deity  is 
called  Takai-mu-sibi-no-kami,  and  the  female  Kami-musubi-no-kami.  These 
two  Deities  are  nothing  but  forms  of  the  one  substance  and  unite  again  in 
the  Absolnte  Deity.  These  three  are  called  the  “Three  Deities  of  Creation,” 
They  caused  a  generation  of  Deities  to  appear,  who,  in  their  turn,  gave 
birth  to  the  islands  of  the  Japanese  Archipelago,  the  sun  and  moon,  the 
mountains  and  streams,  the  divine  ancestors,  etc.  So  their  virtue  and 
power  are  esteemed  wondrous  and  boundless. 

According  to  the  teachings  of  our  sect  we  ought  to  reverence  the  famous 
mountain  Fuji,  assuming  it  to  be  the  sacred  abode  of  the  divine  Lord,  and 
as  the  brain  of  the  whole  globe.  And,  as  every  child  of  the  heavenly  Deity 
came  into  the  world  with  a  soul  separated  from  the  one  original  soul  of  Deity, 


GOOD  WILL  AND  PEACE  AMONG  NEN. 


163 


he  ought  to  be  just  as  the  Deity  ordered  (in  sacred  Japanese  “kanngara”) 
and  make  Fuji  the  example  and  emblem  of  his  thought  and  action.  For 
instance,  he  must  be  plain  and  simple  as  the  form  of  the  mountain,  make 
his  body  and  mind  pure  as  the  serenity  of  the  same,  etc.  We  would  respect 
the  present  world,  with  all  its  practical  works,  more  than  the  future  world; 
pray  for  the  long  life  of  the  emperor  and  the  peace  of  the  country;  and,  by 
leading  a  life  of  temperance  and  diligence,  co-operating  with  one  another 
in  doing  public  good,  we  should  be  responsible  for  the  blessings  of  the 
country. 

The  founder  of  this  sect  isHasegawa  Kakugyo,  who  was  born  in  Nagasaki, 
of  the  Hizen  province,  in  1541.  In  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  age,  Hasegawa, 
full  of  grief  at  the  gloomy  state  of  things  over  the  country,  set  out  on  a  pil¬ 
grimage  to  various  sanctuaries  of  famous  mountains  and  lakes,  Shintoistic 
and  Buddhistic  temples.  While  he  was  offering  fervent  prayers  on  sacred 
Fuji,  sometimes  on  its  summit  and  sometimes  within  its  cave,  he  received 
inspiration  through  the  miraculous  power  of  the  mountain;  and,  becoming 
convinced  that  this  place  is  the  holy  abode  of  Ameno-mina-kanu-shi-no- 
kima,  he  founded  a  new  sect  and  propagated  the  creed  all  over  the  empire. 

After  his  death  in  the  cave,  in  his  106th  year,  the  light  of  the  doctrines 
was  handed  down  by  a  series  of  teachers.  The  tenth  of  them  was  my 
father,  Shibata  Hanamori,  born  at  Ogi  of  the  Hizen  province,  in  1809.  He 
was  also  in  the  18th  year  of  his  age  when  he  adopted  the  doctrine  of  this 
sect.  Amid  the  revolutionary  war  of  Meiji,  which  followed  immediately, 
he  exerted  all  his  powder  to  propagate  his  faith  by  writing  religious  works 
and  preaching  about  the  provinces. 

Now  I  have  given  a  short  sketch  of  the  doctrines  of  our  religion  and  of 
its  history.  In  the  next  place,  let  me  express  the  humble  views  that  I  have 
had  for  some  years  on  religion. 

As  our  doctrines  teach  us,  all  animate  and  inanimate  things  were  born 
from  one  heavenly  Deity,  and  every  one  of  them  has  its  particular  mis¬ 
sion;  so  we  ought  to  love  them  all  and  also  to  respect  the  various  forms  of 
religions  in  the  world.  They  are  all  based,  I  believe,  on  the  fundamental 
truth  of  religion.  The  difference  between  them  is  only  in  the  outward 
form,  influenced  by  variety  of  history,  the  dispositions  of  the  people  and 
the  physical  conditions  of  the  places  where  they  originated. 

Lastly,  there  is  one  more  thought  which  I  wish  to  offer  here.  While  it 
is  the  will  of  Deity  and  the  aim  of  all  religionists,  that  all  His  beloved  chil¬ 
dren  on  the  earth  should  enjoy  peace  and  comfort  in  one  accord,  many 
countries  look  still  with  envy  and  hatred  toward  one  another,  and  appear 
to  seek  for  opportunities  of  making  war  under  the  slightest  pretext,  with  no 
other  aim  than  of  wringing  out  ransoms  or  robbing  a  nation  of  its  lands. 
Thus,  regardless  of  the  abhorence  of  the  heavenly  Deity,  they  only  inflict 
pain  and  calamity  on  innocent  people.  Now  and  here  my  earnest  wish  is 
this,  that  the  time  should  come  soon  when  all  nations  on  the  earth  will 
join  their  armies  and  navies  with  one  accord,  guarding  the  world  as  a 
whole,  and  thus  prevent  preposterous  wars  with  each  other.  They  should 
also  establish  a  supreme  court,  in  order  to  decide  the  case  when  a  differ¬ 
ence  arises  between  them.  In  that  state  no  nation  will  receive  unjust  treat¬ 
ment  from  another,  and  every  nation  and  every  individual  will  be  able  to 
maintain  their  own  right  and  enjoy  the  blessings  of  providence. 

There  will  thus  ensue,  at  last,  the  universal  peace  and  tranquility, 
which  seem  to  be  the  final  object  of  the  benevolent  Deity. 

For  many  years  such  has  been  my  wish  and  hope.  In  order  to  facilitate 
and  realize  this  in  the  future,  I  earnestly  plead  that  every  religionist  of  the 
world  may  try  to  edify  the  nearest  people  to  devotion,  to  root  out  enmity 
between  nations  and  to  promote  our  common  object. 


1G4 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIOIONl^. 


CONCESSIONS  TO  NATIVE  RELIGIOUS  IDEAS. 

REV.  T.  E.  SLATER  OF  BANGALORE,  INDIA. 

The  Hindus  by  instinct  and  tradition  are  the  most  religious  people  in 
the  world.  They  are  born  religiously,  they  eat,  bathe,  shave,  and  write 
religiously,  they  die  and  are  cremated  or  buried  religiously,  and  for  years 
afterward  are  devoutly  remembered  religiously.  They  will  not  take  a 
house  or  open  a  shop  or  office,  they  will  not  go  on  a  journey  or  engage  in 
any  enterprise  without  some  religious  observance.  We  thus  appeal  in  our 
missionary  effort  to  a  deeply  religious  nature;  we  sow  the  gospel  seed  in  a 
religious  soil. 

The  religion  of  a  nation  is  its  sacred  impulse  toward  an  ideal,  however 
imperfectly  apprehended  and  realized  it  may  be.  The  spirit  of  India’s 
religions  has  been  a  reflective  spirit,  hence  its  philosophical  character,  and 
to  understand  and  appreciate  them,  we  must  look  beyond  the  barbaric 
shows  and  feasts  and  ceremonies,  and  get  to  the  undercurrents  of  native 
thought.  Hinduism  is  a  growth  from  within;  and  to  study  it  we  have  to 
lay  bare  that  inward,  subtle  soul  which,  strangely  enough,  explains  the 
outward  form  with  all  its  extravagances;  for  India’s  gross  idolatry  is  con¬ 
nected  with  her  ancient  systems  of  speculative  philosophy,  and  with  an 
extensive  literature  in  the  Sanskrit  language;  her  Epic,  Puranic,  and  Tan- 
trika  mythologies  and  cosmogonies  have  a  theosophic  basis. 

India,  whose  worship  was  the  probable  cradle  of  all  other  similar  wor¬ 
ships,  is  the  richest  mine  of  religious  ideas;  yet  we  can  not  speak  of  the 
religion  of  India.  What  is  styled  “  Hinduism  ”  is  a  vague  eclecticism,  the 
sum  total  of  several  shades  of  belief,  of  divergent  systems,  of  various  types 
and  characters  of  the  outward  life,  each  of  which  at  one  time  or  another 
calls  itself  Hinduism,  but  which,  apparently  bears  little  resemblance  to 
the  other  beliefs.  Every  phase  of  religious  thought  and  philosophic  spec¬ 
ulation  has  been  represented  in  India.  Some  of  the  Hindu  doctrines  are 
theistic,  some  atheistic  and  materialistic,  others  pantheistic — the  extreme 
development  of  idealism.  Some  of  the  sects  hold  that  salvation  is  obtained 
by  xjracticing  austerities  and  by  self-devotion  and  prayer;  some  that  faith 
and  love  (bhakti)  form  the  ruling  principle;  others  that  sacrificial  observ¬ 
ances  are  the  only  means.  Some  teach  the  doctrine  of  predestination; 
others  that  of  free  grace. 

It  is  hard  for  foreigners  to  understand  the  habits  of  thought  and  life 
that  prevail  in  a  strange  country,  as  well  as  all  the  changes  and  sacrifices 
that  conversation  entails;  and,  with  our  brusque,  matter-of-fact  Western 
instincts,  and  our  lack  of  spiritual  and  philosophic  insight,  we  too  often  go 
forth  denouncing  the  traditions  and  worship  of  the  people,  and  in  so 
doing,  are  apt,  with  our  heavy  heels,  to  trample  on  beliefs  and  senti¬ 
ments  that  have  a  deep  and  sacred  root.  A  knowledge  of  the  material 
on  which  we  work  is  quite  as  important  as  deftness  in  handling  our 
tools;  a  knowledge  of  the  soil  as  necessary  as  the  conviction  that  the 
seed  is  good. 

Let  us  glance  now,  in  the  briefest  manner,  at  some  of  the  fundamental 
ideas  and  aspects  of  Brahmanical  Hinduism,  that  may  be  regarded  as  a 
preparation  for  the  gospel,  and  links  by  which  a  Christian  advocate  may 
connect  the  religion  of  the  incarnation  and  the  cross  with  the  higher 
phases  of  religious  thought  and  life  in  India.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind, 
however,  throughout,  that  this  foreshadowing  relation  between  Hinduism 
and  Christianity  is  ancient  rather  than  modern,  that  these  “  foreshadowings  ” 
of  the  gospel  are  unsuspected  by  the  masses  of  the  people;  and,  further,  that 
the  points  of  similarity  between  the  two  faiths  are  sometimes  apparent 
rather  than  real;  and  that  the  whole  inquiry  becomes  clear  only  as  we 
realize  that  Hinduism  has  been  a  keen  and  pathetic  search  after  a 


CONCESSIONS  TO  NATIVE  RELIGIOUS  IDEAS. 


165 


salvation  to  be  wrought  by  man  rather  than  a  restful  satisfaction  in  a 
redemption  designed  and  offered  by  God. 

The  underlying  element  of  all  religions,  without  which  there  can  be  no 
spiritual  worship,  is  the  belief  that  the  human  worshiper  is  somehow 
made  in  the  likeness  of  the  divine.  And  the  central  thought  of  India, 
which  binds  together  all  its  conflicting  elements,  is  the  revelation  of  life, 
the  pilgrim  soul  through  all  definite  existences  to  reunion  with  the  infinite. 
From  t^he  opening  youthfulness,  hopefulness,  and  self-sufficiency  depicted 
in  the  songs  of  the  Rig-veda,  where  the  spirit  is  bright  and  joyous,  and 
homage  is  given  to  the  forms  and  powers  of  nature — the  mirror  of  man’s 
own  life  and  freedom — on  through  the  dreary  stage,  where  “  the  weary 
weight  of  this  unintelligible  world  ”  and  the  soul  wakes  from  the  illusive 
dream  of  childhood  to  experience  a  bitter  disappointment,  to  realize  that 
the  search  ior  individual  happiness  in  the  infinite  or  j^henomenal  is  a  futile 
one,  to  find  that  the  world  is  a  vain  shadow,  an  empty  show,  the  reverence 
of  the  Indian  has  not  been  for  the  material  form,  but  for  pure  spirit — 
for  his  own  conscious  soul — ^whose  essential  unity  with  the  divine  is  an 
axiomatic  truth,  and  whose  power  to  abide  in  the  midst  of  all  changes  is 
the  test  of  its  everlasting  being,  the  x^roof  of  its  immortality. 

The  ideal,  then,  before  which  the  Indian  agnostic  bows  is  the  spirit  of 
man.  The  soul  retires  within  itself,  in  a  state  of  ecstatic  reverie,  the  highest 
form  of  which  is  called  Yoga,  and  meditates  on  the  secret  of  its  own  nature; 
and,  having  made  the  discovery,  which  comes  sooner  or  later  to  all,  that  the 
world,  instead  of  being  an  elysium,  is  an  illusion,  a  vexation  of  spirit,  the 
speculative  problem  of  Indian  philosophy  and  the  actual  struggle  of  the 
religious  man,  have  been  how  to  break  the  dream,  get  rid  of  the  impostures 
of  sense  and  time,  emancipate  the  self  from  the  bondage  of  the  fleeting 
world,  and  attain  the  one  reality — the  invisible,  the  divine.  This  can  only 
be  achieved  by  becoming  detached  from  material  things,  by  ceasing  to  love 
the  world,  by  the  mortification  of  desire.  And  though  this  “  love  of  the 
world  ”  may  have  little  in  common  with  the  idea  of  the  Apostle  John,  yet 
have  we  not  here  an  affinity  with  the  affirmation  of  Christianity,  that  “  the 
things  which  are  seen  are  temporal;  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are 
eternal”  (2  Cor.  iv,  18);  that  “the  world  passeth  away,  and  the  lust 
thereof”  (1  John  ii,  17);  though  the  Christian  completion  of  that  verse  — 
“but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  God  abideth  forever” — marks  the  funda¬ 
mental  defect  of  pantheistic  India  and  its  striking  contrast  to  the  gospel. 

For  the  God  of  Hinduism  is  a  pure  Intelligence,  a  Thinker;  not  a  Sover¬ 
eign  Will  as  in  Islam,  nor  the  Lord  of  Light  and  Right  as  in  Parseeism,  still 
less  having  any  paternal  or  providential  character.  Nothing  is  created  by 
His  power,  but  all  is  evolved  by  emanation,  from  the  one  eternal  Entity, 
like  sparks  from  fire.  No  commands  come  from  such  a  Being,  but  all  things 
flow  from  Him,  as  light  from  the  sun,  or  thoughts  from  a  musing  man. 
Hence,  while  between  God  and  the  worshiper  there  is  the  most  direct  affin¬ 
ity,  which  may  become  identity,  there  exists  no  bond  of  sympathy,  no  active 
and  intelligent  co-operation,  and  no  quickening  power  being  exercised  on 
the  human  will,  and  in  the  formation  of  character,  the  fatal  and  fatalistic 
weakness  of  Hindu  life  appears,  which  renders  the  gospel  appeal  so  often 
powerless;  the  lost  sense  of  practical  moral  distinction,  of  the  requirements 
of  conscience,  of  any  necessary  connection  between  thought  and  action, 
convictions  and  conduct,  of  divine  authority  over  the  soul,  of  personal 
responsibility,  of  the  duty  of  the  soul  to  love  and  honor  God,  and  to  love 
one’s  neighbor  as  one’s  self. 

Idolatry  itself,  foolish  and  degrading  as  it  is,  seeks  to  realize  to  the 
senses  what  otherwise  is  only  an  idea;  it  witnesses,  as  all  great  errors  do, 
to  a  great  truth ;  and  it  is  only  by  distinctly  recognizing  and  liberating  the 
truth  that  underlies  the  error,  and  of  which  the  error  is  the  counterpart, 
that  the  error  can  be  successfully  combated  and  slain.  Every  error  will 


166 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


live  as  long,  and  only  as  long,  as  its  share  of  truth  remains  unrecognized. 
Adapting  words  that  Archdeacon  Hare  wrote  of  Dr.  Arnold:  “We  must 
be  iconoclasts,  at  once  zealous  and  fearless  in  demolishing  the  reigning 
idols,  and  at  the  same  time  animated  with  a  reverent  love  for  the  ideas 
that  the  idols  carnalize  and  stifle.”  Idolatry  is  a  strong  human  protest 
against  pantheism,  which  denies  the  personality  of  God,  and  atheism, 
which  denies  God  altogether;  it  testifies  to  the  natural  craving  of  the 
heart  to  have  before  it  some  manifestation  of  the  Unseen — to  behold  a 
humanized  god.  It  is  not,  at  bottom,  an  effort  to  get  away  from  God,  but 
to  bring  God  near. 

Once  more.  The  idea  of  the  need  of  sacrificial  acts,  ‘  the  first  and 
primary  rites” — eucharistic,  sacramental,  and  propitiatary — bearing  the 
closet  parallelism  to  the  provisions  of  the  Mosaic  economy  and  prompted 
by  a  sense  of  personal  unworthiness,  guilt  and  misery — that  life  is  to  be 
forfeited  to  the  Divine  Proprietor — is  ingrained  in  the  whole  system  of 
Vedic  Hinduism.  A  sense  of  original  corruption  has  been  felt  by  all 
classes  of  Hindus,  as  indicated  in  the  prayer. 

I  am  sinful,  I  commit  sin,  my  nature  is  sinful.  Save  me,  O  thou  lotus-eyed 
Hari,  the  remover  of  sin. 

The  first  man,  after  the  deluge,  whom  the  Hindus  called  Manu  and  the 
Hebrews  Noah,  offered  burnt  offering.  No  literature,  hot  even  the  Jewish, 
contains  so  many  words  relating  to  sacrifice  as  Sanskrit.  The  land  has 
been  saturated  with  blood. 

The  secret  of  this  great  importance  attached  to  sacrifice  is  to  be  found 
in  the  remarkable  fact  that  the  authorship  of  the  institution  is  attributed 
to  “Creation’s  Lord”  himself  and  its  date  is  reckoned  as  coeval  with  the 
creation.  The  idea  exists  in  the  three  chief  Vedas  and  in  the  Brahmanas 
and  Upanishads  that  Prajapati,  “the  lord  and  supporter  of  his  creatures” — 
the  Purusha  (primeval  male) — begotten  before  the  world,  becoming  half 
immortal  and  half  mortal  in  a  body  fit  for  sacrifice,  offered  himself  for  the 
devas  (emancipated  mortals)  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  world,  thereby  mak¬ 
ing  all  subsequent  sacrifice  a  reflection  or  figure  of  himself.  The  ideal  of 
the  Vedic  Prajapati,  mortal  and  yet  divine,  himself  both  priest  and  victim, 
who  by  death  overcame  death,  has  long  since  been  lost  in  India.  Among 
the  many  gods  of  the  Hindu  pantheon  none  has  ever  come  forward  to 
claim  the  vacant  throne  once  reverenced  by  Indian  rishis.  No  other  than 
the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels — ^“the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world” — has  ever  appeared  to  fulfill  this  primitive  idea  of  redemption  by 
the  efficacy  of  sacrifice;  and  when  this  Christian  truth  is  preaihedit  ought 
not  to  sound  strange  to  Indian  ears.  An  eminent  Hindu  preacher  has  said 
that  no  one  can  be  a  true  Hindu  without  being  a  true  Christian. 

But  one  of  the  saddest  and  most  disastrous  facts  of  the  India  of  to-day 
is  that  modern  Brahmanism,  like  modern  Parseeism,  is  fast  loosing  its  old 
ideas,  relaxing  its  hold  on  the  more  spiritual  portions,  the  distinctive  tenets, 
of  the  ancient  faith.  Happily,  however,  a  reaction  has  set  in,  mainly 
through  the  exertions  of  these  scholars  and  of  the  Arya  Somaj;  and  the 
moref  thoughtful  minds  are  earnestly  seeking  to  recover  from  their  sacred 
books  some  of  the  buried  treasures  of  the  past. 

For  ideas  of  a  divine  revelation— “  Word  of  God”  — communicated 
directly  to  inspired  sages  or  rishis,  according  to  a  theory  of  inspiration 
higher  than  that  of  any  other  religion  in  the  world,  is  perfectly  familiar  to 
Hindus,  and  is,  indeed,  universally  entertained.  Yet  the  conclusion  reached 
is  this,  that  a  careful  comparison  of  religions  brings  out  this  striking  con¬ 
trast  between  the  Bible  and  all  other  scriptures;  it  establishes  its  satis¬ 
fying  character  in  distinction  from  the  seeking  spirit  of  other  faiths.  The 
Bible  shows  God  in  quest  of  man  rather  than  man  in  quest  of  God.  It 
meets  the  questions  raised  in  the  philosophies  of  the  east,  and  supplies 
their  only  true  solution. 


SUPREME  END  AND  OFFICE  OF  RELIGION. 


167 


The  Vedas  present  “  a  shifting  play  of  lights  and  shadows;  sometimes 
the  light  seems  to  grow  brighter,  but  the  day  never  comes  ”  For,  on  exam¬ 
ining  them,  we  note  a  remarkable  fact.  While  they  show  that  the  spirit¬ 
ual  needs  and  aspirations  of  humanity  are  the  same — the  same  travail  of 
the  soul  as  it  bears  the  burdens  of  existence— and  contain  many  beautiful 
prayers  for  mercy  and  help,  we  fail  to  find  a  single  text  that  purports  to  be 
a  divine  answer  to  prayer,  an  explicit  promise  of  divine  forgiveness,  an 
expression  of  experienced  peace  and  delight  in  God,  as  the  result  of  assured 
pardon  and  reconciliation.  There  is  no  realization  of  ideas.  The  Bible 
alone  is  the  Book  of  Divine  Promise— the  revelation  of  the  “  exceeding 
riches  of  God’s  grace  ” — shining  with  increasing  brightness  till  the  dawn 
of  perfect  day.  And  for  this  reason  it  is  unique,  not  so  much  in  its  ideas, 
as  in  its  vitality;  a  living  and  regulating  force,  embodied  in  a  personal,  his¬ 
toric  Christ,  and  charged  with  unfailing  inspiration. 


SUPREME  END  AND  OFFICE  OF  RELIGION. 

WALTER  ELLIOTT,  OF  THE  PAULIST  CONVENT,  NEW  YORK. 

The  end  and  office  of  religion  is  to  direct  the  aspirations  of  the  soul 
toward  an  infinite  good,  and  to  secure  a  perfect  fruition.  Man’s  longings 
for  perfect  wisdom,  love  and  joy  are  not  aberrations  of  the  intelligence,  oi 
morbid  conditions  of  any  kind;  they  are  not  purely  subjective;  blind  Teach¬ 
ings  forth  toward  nothing.  They  are  most  real  life,  excited  into  activity  by 
the  infinite  reality  of  the  Supreme  Being,  the  most  loving  God,  calling  His 
creatures  to  union  with  Himself.  In  studying  the  office  of  religion  we 
therefore  engage  in  the  investigation  of  the  highest  order  of  facts,  and 
weigh  and  measure  the  most  precious  products  of  human  conduct— man’s 
endeavors  to  approach  his  ideal  condition. 

Reason,  if  well  directed,  dedicates  our  best  efforts  to  progress  toward 
perfect  life;  and  if  religion  be  of  the  right  kind,  under  its  influence  all 
human  life  becomes  sensitive  to  the  touch  of  the  divine  life  from  which  it 
sprung.  The  definition  of  perfect  religious  life  is,  therefore,  equivalent  to 
that  of  most  real  life;  the  human  spirit  moving  towards  perfect  wisdom 
and  joy  by  instinct  of  the  Divine  Spirit  acting  upon  it,  both  in  the  inner 
and  outer  order  of  existence. 

But  man’s  ideal  is  more  than  human.  Man  would  never  be  content  to 
strive  after  what  is  no  better  than  his  own  best  self.  The  longing  toward 
virtue  and  happiness  is  for  the  reception  of  a  superior,  a  divine  existence. 
The  end  of  religion  is  regeneration.  Otherwise  stated,  religion  has  not  done 
its  work  with  the  effacement  of  sin  and  the  restoration  of  the  integrity  of 
nature.  It  has  indeed  this  remedial  office,  but  its  highest  power  is  trans¬ 
formative;  it  is  the  elixir  of  a  new  and  divine  life.  The  supreme  office  of 
religion  is  regeneration. 

“The  justification  of  a  wicked  man  is  his  translation  from  the  state  in 
which  man  is  born  as  a  son  of  the  first  Adam  into  the  state  of  grace  and 
adoption  of  the  sons  of  God  by  the  second  Adam,  Jesus  Christ,  our  Savior.” 
These  words  of  the  Council  of  Trent  affirm  that  the  boon  of  God’s  favor  is 
not  merely  restoration  to  humanity’s  natural  innocence.  God’s  friendship 
for  man  is  elevation  to  a  state  higher  than  nature’s  highest,  and  infinitely 
so,  and  yet  a  dignity  toward  which  all  men  are  drawn  by  the  unseen  attrac¬ 
tion  of  divine  grace,  and  toward  which  in  their  better  moments  they  con¬ 
sciously  strive,  however  feebly  and  blindly.  Religion,  as  understood  by 
Christianity,  means  new  life  for  man,  different  life,  additional  life.  The 
Christian  mind  is  thus  to  be  discovered  and  tested  by  comparison  with  the 
highest  standard:  “Be  ye  perfect,  as  your  Heavenly  Father  is  perfect.” 

Before  coming  to  the  ways  and  means  and  processes  of  acquiring  this 


168 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


divine  life  we  must  consider  atonement  for  sin.  It  may  be  asked:  Why 
does  Christ  elevate  us  to  union  with  His  Father  through  suffering?  The 
answer  is  that  God  is  dealing  with  a  race  which  has  degraded  itself  with 
rebellion  and  with  crime,  which  naturally  involves  suffering. 

God’s  purpose  is  now  just  what  it  was  in  the  beginning,  to  communi¬ 
cate  himself  to  each  human  being,  and  to  do  it  personally,  elevating  men  to 
brotherhood  with  his  own  divine  Son,  making  them  partakers  of  the  same 
grace  which  dwells  in  the  soul  of  Christ,  and  shares  hereafter  in  the  same 
blessedness  which  he  possesses  with  the  Father.  To  accomplish  this  pur¬ 
pose  God  originally  constituted  man  in  a  supernatural  condition  of  divine 
favor.  That  lost  by  sin,  Cod,  by  an  act  of  grace  yet  more  signal,  places  his 
Son  in  the  circumstances  of  humiliation  and  suffering  due  to  sin.  This  is 
the  order  of  atonement,  a  word  which  has  come  to  signify  a  mediation 
through  suffering,  although  the  etymological  meaning  of  it  is  bringing 
together  into  one.  Mediation  is  now,  as  ever  before,  the  constant  and  final 
purpose  of  God’s  loving  dealing  with  us. 

Religion  is  jjositive.  It  makes  me  good  with  Christ’s  goodness.  Relig¬ 
ion  does  essentially  more  than  rid  me  of  evil.  In  the  mansions  of  the 
Father,  sorrow  opens  the  outer  door  of  the  atrium  in  which  I  am  pardoned, 
and  love  leads  to  the  throne-room.  If  forgiveness  and  union  be  distinct,  it 
is  only  as  we  think  of  them,  for  to  God  they  are  one.  And  this  is  to  be 
noted:  all  infants  who  pass  into  heaven  through  the  laver  of  regeneration 
have  had  no  conscious  experience  of  any  Kind,  and  yet  will  enjoy  the  union 
of  filiation  forever.  Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  there  are  multitudes  of  adults 
whose  sanctification  has  had  no  conscious  process  of  the  remission  of  grave 
sin,  for  many  such  have  never  been  guilty  of  it.  To  excite  them  to  a  ficti¬ 
tious  sense  of  sinfulness  is  untruthful,  unjust,  and  unchristian.  Hounding 
innocent  souls  into  the  company  of  demons  is  false  zeal  and  is  cruel. 

The  expiation  of  sin  is  the  removal  of  an  obstacle  to  our  union  with  God. 
Nothing  hinders  the  progress  of  guileless  or  repentant  souls,  even  their 
peace  of  mind,  more  than  prevalent  misconceptions  on  this  point.  Freed 
from  sin  many  fall  under  the  delusion  that  all  is  done ;  not  to  commit  sin  is 
assumed  to  be  the  end  of  religion.  In  reality  pardon  is  but  the  initial  work 
of  grace  and  even  X)ardon  is  not  possible  without  the  gift  of  love. 

The  sufferings  of  Christ  as  well  as  whatever  is  of  a  penitential  influence 
in  his  religion,  is  not  in  the  nature  of  merely  paying  a  x)enalty,but  is  chiefly 
an  offering  of  love.  Atonement  is  related  to  mediation  as  its  condition  and 
not  as  its  essence.  We  are  washed  in  the  Redeemer’s  blood,  bu*^,  that  blood 
does  not  remain  on  the  surface;  it  penetrates  us  and  sanctifies  our  own 
blood,  mingling  with  it.  We  are  not  ransomed  only,  but  ennobled. 

The  process  on  man’s  part  of  union  with  God  is  free  and  loving  accept¬ 
ance  of  all  His  invitations,  inner  and  outer,  natural  and  revealed,  organic 
and  personal.  Loving  God  is  the  practical  element  in  our  receyjtion.of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  fruition  of  love  is  union  with  the  beloved.  If  to  be 
regenerated  means  to  be  born  of  God,  then  what  is  to  be  sought  after  is 
newness  of  life  by  the  immediate  contact  with  life’s  source  and  center  in 
love.  The  perfection  of  any  finite  being  is  the  closest  possible  identity 
with  its  ideal.  The  supreme  end  and  office  of  religion  is  to  cause  men  by 
love  personally  to  approximate  to  the  ideal,  not  merely  of  humanity,  but  of 
humanity  made  one  with  the  Deity. 

The  carrying  out  of  this  process  by  a  dual  nature,  such  as  man’s  is 
menaced  by  one  of  two  dangers;  either  divorce  from  the  bodily  and  external 
life  of  man,  or  slavery  to  it,  and  divorce  from  the  spiritual.  The  former 
is  false  mysticism  and  the  latter  is  formalism.  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  and 
the  son  of  man,  is  the  synthesis.  His  union  of  the  inner  and  the  outer  life 
was  made  into  harmony  of  insi)ired  si)eech  when  the  angel  said  to 
Mary,  “  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  ux)on  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most 
High  shall  overshadow  thee;”  the  incarnation,  the  becoming  man  of  essen¬ 
tially  syhritual  being. 


KINZA  RINGE  M.  HIRAI. 
Japanese  Buddhist. 


IMMORTALITY. 


169 


As  a  method  or  process  of  human  betterment,  religion  is  the  fullness  of 
all  outer  and  inner,  visible  and  invisible  aids  to  bring  the  mind  and  heart 
of  man  under  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  union  of 
love.  Organizations  and  authorities  and  discipline,  sacraments  and  wor¬ 
ship  are  external  channels,  helps  and  incitements  to  love,  instituted  by  the 
Son  of  God,  as  the  extension  of  his  own  external  divine  life.  Their  end  is 
to  convey  to  the  soul  his  inner  divine  life,  and  bring  into  participation  in 
his  immediate  union  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  His  external 
order  of  church  serves  him  everywhere  and  for  all  time,  and  his  body  served 
him  while  on  earth,  continuing  and  completing  by  a  visible  means  the 
spiritual  end,  man’s  deiflcation  through  divine  love. 

The  age,  we  are  told,  calls  for  men  worthy  of  that  name.  Who  are  those 
worthy  to  be  called  men  ?  Men  assuredly  whose  intelligences  and  wills  are 
divinely  illuminated  and  strengthened.  This  is  precisely  what  is  produced 
by  the^ifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  they  enlarge  all  the  faculties  of  the  soul  at 
once.  The  age  is  superficial;  it  needs  the  gift  of  Wisdom.  The  age  is 
materialistic;  it  needs  the  gift  of  Intelligence.  The  age  is  captivated  by  a 
false  and  one-sided  science;  it  needs  the  gift  of  Science.  The  age  is  in  dis¬ 
order,  and  is  ignorant  of  the  way  to  true  progress;  it  needs  the  gift  of 
Counsel.  The  age  is  impious;  it  needs  the  gift  of  Piety.  The  age  is  sen¬ 
sual  and  effeminate;  it  needs  the  gift  of  Fortitude.  The  age  has  lost  and 
forgotten  God;  it  needs  the  gift  of  Fear.  Men  endowed  with  these  gifts 
are  the  men  for  whom,  if  it  but  knew  it,  the  age  calls.  One  such  soul  does 
more  to  advance  the  kingdom  of  God  than  tens  of  thousands  without  those 
gifts. 

Religion  taken,  then,  at  the  highest  development,  which  is  Christianity, 
is  the  elevation  of  man  to  union  with  God,  in  an  order  of  life  transcending 
the  natural.  It  attains  this  end  by  elevating  the  soul  to  heavenly  wisdom 
in  divine  faith,  heavenly  life  in  divine  love.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  ideal 
religious  character  is  not  formed  by  constant  absorption  in  thoughts  of  the 
Deity’s  attributes  of  sovereignty,  but  rather  by  meditation  on  all  the 
attributes,  loving-kindness  being  supreme.  For  the  same  reason,  it  is  not 
obedience  that  holds  the  place  of  honor  among  the  virtues;  in  forming  the 
filial  character  love  is  supreme.  Love  outranks  all  virtues.  The  greatest 
of  these  is  charity.  It  is  not  the  spirit  of  conformity,  but  that  of  union, 
which  rules  the  conduct  of  a  son. 

It  never  can  be  said  that  it  is  by  reason  of  obedience  that  men  love,  but 
it  must  always  be  said  of  obedience  that  it  is  by  reason  of  love  that  it  is 
made  perfect.  Obedience  generates  conformity,  but  love  has  a  fecundity 
which  generates  every  virt^ue,  for  it  alone  ^s  wholly  unitive.  The  highest 
boast  of  obedience  is  that  it  is  the  first-born  of  love.  As  the  Humanity 
said  of  the  Divinity,  “  I  go  to  the  Father,  because  the  Father  is  greater 
than  I,”  so  obedience  says  of  love,  “  I  go  to  my  parent  virtue,  for  love  is 
greater  than  I.” 

Hence  not  the  least  fault  we  find  with  the  religious  separation  of  the 
last  300  years  is,  that  it  has  unduly  accentuated  the  sovereignty  of  God. 


IMMORTALITY. 

Rev.  Phillip  Moxon  was  introduced,  and  among  other  things 
said : 

It  is  impossible,  of  course,  within  the  limits  of  this  brief  paper  even  to 
state  the  entire  argument  for  the  immortality  of  man.  The  most  that  I  can 
hope  to  do  is  to  indicate  those  main  lines  of  reasoning  which  appeal  to  the 
average  intelligent  mind  as  confirmatory  of  a  belief  in  immortality  already 
existent.  Throe  or  four  considerations  should  be  noticed  at  the  outset: 


170 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


First,  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  reasoning  on  this  subject  should  be 
intelligible  to  man  if  he  did  not  have  precedent  by  at  least  a  capacity  for 
immortality.  However  we  may  define  it,  there  is  that  in  man’s  nature 
which  makes  him  susceptible  to  the  tremendous  idea  of  everlasting  exist¬ 
ence.  It  would  seem  as  if  only  a  deathless  being,  in  the  midst  of  a  world 
in  which  all  forms  of  life  perceptible  by  his  senses  are  born  and  die  in  end¬ 
less  succession,  could  think  of  himself  as  capable  of  surviving  this  universal 
order.  The  capacity  to  raise  and  discuss  the  question  of  immortality  has 
therefore  implications  that  radically  make  man  differ  from  all  the  creatures 
about  him.  Just  as  he  could  not  think  of  virtue  without  a  capacity  for 
virtue,  so  he  could  not  think  of  immortality  without  at  least  a  capacity  for 
that  which  he  thinks. 

A  second  preliminary  consideration  is  that  immortality  is  inseparably 
bound  up  with  theism.  Theism  makes  immortality  rational.  Atheism 
makes  it  incredible,  if  not  unthinkable.  The  highest  form  of  the  belief  in 
immortality  inevitably  roots  itself  in  and  is  part  of  the  soul’s  belief  in 
God. 

A  third  consideration  is  that  a  scientific  proof  of  immortality  is  at  pres¬ 
ent  impossible  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  phrase,  “  scientific  proof.” 

A  fourth  consideration  is  that  immortality  is  inseparable  from  person¬ 
ality.  The  whole  significance  of  man’s  existence  lies  ultimately  in  its  dis¬ 
creetness — in  the  evolution  and  persistence  of  self-conscious  ego. 


THE  SOUL  AND  ITS  FUTURE  LIFE. 

KEV.  SAMUEL  N.  WAEEEN  (eEAD  BY  DE.  MEECEE  OF  CHICAGO). 

It  is  a  doctrine  of  the  New  Church  that  the  soul  is  substantial — though 
not  of  earthly  substance — and  is  the  very  man;  that  the  body  is  merely  the 
earthly  form  and  instrument  of  the  soul,  and  that  every  part  of  the  body  is 
produced  from  the  soul,  according  to  its  likeness,  in  order  that  the  soul 
may  be  fitted  to  perform  its  functions  in  the  world  during  the  brief  but 
important  time  that  this  is  the  jjlace  of  man’s  conscious  abode. 

If,  as  all  Christians  believe,  man  is  an  immortal  being,  created  to  live  on 
through  the  endless  ages  of  eternity,  then  the  longest  life  in  this  world  is, 
comparatively,  but  as  a  point,  an  infinitesimal  part  of  his  existence.  In 
this  view  it  is  not  rational  to  believe  that  that  part  of  man  which  is  for  his 
brief  use  in  this  world  only,  and  is  left  behind  when  he  passes  out  of  this 
world,  is  the  most  real  and  substantial  part  of  him.  That  is  more  substan¬ 
tial  which  is  more  enduring,  and  that  is  the  more  real  part  of  a  man  in 
which  his  characteristics  and  his  qualities  are.  All  the  facts  and  phe¬ 
nomena  of  life  confirm  the  doctrine  that  the  soul  is  the  real  man.  What 
makes  the  quality  of  a  man?  What  gives  him  character  as  good  or  bad, 
small  or  great,  lovable  or  detestable?  Do  these  qualities  pertain  to  the 
body?  Every  one  knows  they  do  not.  But  they  are  the  qualities  of  the 
man.  Then  the  real  man  is  not  the  body,  but  is  “  the  living  soul.”  If  there 
is  immortal  life  he  has  not  vanished,  except  from  mortal  and  material 
sighh  As  between  the  soul  and  the  body,  then,  there  can  be  no  rational 
question  as  to  which  is  the  substantial  and  which  the  evanescent  thing. 

Again,  if  the  immortal  soul  is  the  real  mqn,  and  is  substantial,  what 
must  be  its  form?  It  can  not  be  a  formless,  vaporous  thing  and  be  a  man. 
Can  it  have  other  than  the  human  form?  Reason  clearly  sees  that  if  form¬ 
less,  or  in  any  other  form,  he  would  not  be  a  man.  The  soul  of  man,  or  the 
real  man,  is  a  marvelous  assemblage  of  powers  and  faculties  of  will  and 
understanding,  and  the  human  form  is  such  as  it  is  because  it  is  perfectly 
adapted  to  the  exercise  of  these  various  powers  and  faculties.  In  other 


THE  SOUL  AND  ITS  FUTURE  LIFE. 


171 


words,  the  soul  forms  itself,  under  the  Divine  Maker’s  hand,  into  an  organ¬ 
ism  by  which  it  can  adequately  and  perfectly  put  forth  its  wondrous  and 
wonderfully  varied  powers,  and  bring  its  purposes  into  acts. 

The  human  form  is  thus  an  assemblage  of  organs  that  exactly  corre¬ 
sponds  to  and  embody  and  are  the  express  image  of  the  various  faculties  of 
the  soul.  And  there  is  no  organ  of  the  human  form  the  absence  of  which 
would  not  hinder  and  impede  the  free  and  efficient  action  and  putting  forth 
of  the  soul’s  powers.  And  by  the  human  form  is  not  meant  merely,  nor 
primarily,  the  organic  forms  of  the  material  body.  The  faculties  are  of  the 
soul,  and  if  the  soul  is  the  man,  and  endures  when  the  body  decays  and 
vanishes,  it  must  itself  be  in  a  form  which  is  an  assemblage  of  organs  per¬ 
fectly  adapted  and  adequate  to  the  exercise  of  its  powers,  that  is,  in  the 
human  form.  The  human  form  is,  then,  primarily  and  especially,  the  form 
of  the  soul  —  which,  is  the  perfection  of  all  forms,  as  man,  at  his  highest,  is 
the  consummation  and  fullness  of  all  loving  and  intelligent  attributes. 

But  when  does  the  soul  itself  take  on  its  human  form?  Is  it  not  until 
the  death  of  the  body?  Manifestly,  if  it  is  the  very  form  of  the  soul,  the 
soul  can  not  exist  without  it,  and  it  is  put  on  in  and  by  the  fact  of  its  creation 
and  the  gradual  development  of  its  powers.  It  could  have  no  other  form 
and  be  a  human  soul.  Its  organs  are  the  necessary  organs  of  its  faculties 
and  powers,  and  these  are  clothed  with  their  similitudes  in  dead  material 
forms  animated  by  the  soul  for  temporary  use  in  the  material  world.  The 
soul  is  omnipresent  in  the  material  body,  not  by  diffusion,  formlessly,  but 
each  organ  of  the  soul  is  within  and  is  the  soul  of  the  corresponding  organ 
of  the  body. 

That  the  immortal  soul  is  the  very  man  involves  the  eternal  preservation 
of  his  identity.  For  in  the  soul  are  the  distinguishing  qualities  that  con¬ 
stitute  the  individuality  of  a  -man — all  those  certain  characteristics,  affec- 
tional  and  intellectual,  which  make  him  such  or  such  a  man,  and  distinguish 
and  differentiate  him  from  all  other  men.  He  remains,  therefore,  the  same 
man  to  all  eternity.  He  may  become  more  and  more,  to  endless  ages,  an 
angel  of  light — even  as  here  a  man  may  advance  greatly  in  wisdom  and 
intelligence,  and  yet  is  always  the  same  man.  This  doctrine  of  the  soul 
involves  also  the  permanency  of  established  character.  The  life  in  this 
world  is  the  period  of  character  building.  It  has  been  very  truthfully  said 
that  a  man  is  a  bundle  of  habits.  What  manner  of  man  he  is  depends  on 
what  his  manner  of  life  has  been. 

If  evil  and  vicious  habits  are  continued  through  life  they  are  fixed  and 
confirmed  and  become  of  the  very  life,  so  that  the  man  loves  and  desires  nc 
other  life,  and  does  not  wish  to — ^will  not  be  led  out  of  them — because  he 
loves  the  practice  of  them.  On  the  other  hand,  if  from  childhood  a  man 
has  been  inured  to  virtuous  habits,  these  habits  become  fixed  and  established 
and  of  his  very  soul  and  life.  In  either  case  the  habits  thus  fixed  and  con¬ 
firmed  are  of  the  immortal  soul  and  constitute  its  permanent  character. 
The  body,  as  to  its  part,  has  been  but  the  pliant  instrument  of  the  soul. 

With  respect  to  the  soul’s  future  life  the  first  important  consideration 
is  what  sort  of  a  world  it  will  inhabit.  If  we  have  shown  good  reasons  for 
believing  the  doctrine  that  a  soul  is  not  a  something  formless,  vague,  and 
shadowy,  but  is  itself  an  organic  human  form,  substantial,  and  the  very 
man,  then  it  must  inhabit  a  substantial  and  very  real  world.  It  is  a  gross 
fallacy  of  the  senses,  but  there  is  no  substance  but  matter,  and  nothing 
substantial  but  what  is  material.  Is  not  God,  the  Divine,  Omnipotent 
Creator  of  all  things,  substantial?  Can  omnipotence  be  an  attribute  of 
that  which  has  no  substance  and  no  form?  Is  such  an  existence  conceiv¬ 
able?  But  He  is  not  material  and  not  visible  or  cognizable  by  any  mortal 
sense.  Yet  we  know  that  he  is  substantial;  for  it  is  manifest  in  His  wond¬ 
rous  and  mighty  works.  There  is,  then,  spiritual  substance.  And  of  such 
substance  must  be  the  world  wherein  the  soul  is  eternally  to  dwell-  It  is 


172 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  reality  of  the  spiritual  world  that  makes  this  world  real — just  as  it  is 
the  reality  of  the  soul  that  makes  the  human  body  a  reality  and  a  possi¬ 
bility.  As  there  could  be  no  body  without  the  soul,  there  could  be  no 
natural  world  without  the  spiritual. 

Not  only  is  that  world  substantial,  but  it  must  be  a  world  of  surpassing 
loveliness  and  beauty.  It  has  justly  been  considered  one  of  the  most  benefi- 
ceht  manifestations  of  the  divine  love  and  wisdom  that  this  beautiful 
world  that  we  briefly  inhabit  is  so  wondrously  adapted  to  all  men’s  wants 
and  to  call  into  exercise  and  gratify  his  every  faculty  and  good  desire.  And 
when  he  leaves  this  temporary  abode,  a  man  with  all  his  faculties  exalted 
and  relined  by  freedom  from  the  incumbrance  of  the  fiei  ih — an  incumbrance 
which  we  are  often  very  conscious  of — will  he  not  enh  r  a  world  of  beauty 
exceeding  the  loveliest  aspects  of  this?  The  soul  is  human,  and  the  world 
in  which  it  is  to  dwell  is  adapted  to  human  life;  and  it  would  not  be  adapted 
to  human  life  if  we  did  not  adequately  meet  and  answer  to  the  soul’s  desires. 
It  is  reasonable  this  material  world  should  be  so  full  of  life  and  loveliness 
and  beauty,  when  “  Nature  spreads  for  every  sense  a  feast,”  to  gratify  every 
exalted  faculty  of  the  soul.  And  not  the  spiritual  world  wherein  the  soul 
is  to  abide  forever. 

And  the  life  of  that  world  is  human  life.  The  same  laws  of  life  and  hap¬ 
piness  obtain  there  that  govern  here,  because  they  are  grounded  in  human 
nature.  Man  is  a  social  being,  and  everywhere,  in  that  world  as  in  this, 
desires  and  seeks  the  companionship  of  those  that  are  congenial  to  him  — 
that  is,  who  are  of  similar  quality  to  himself.  Men  are  thus  mutually  drawn 
together  by  spiritual  affinity.  This  is  the  law  of  association  here,  but  it 
is  less  perfectly  operative  in  this  world,  because  there  is  much  dissimula¬ 
tion  among  men,  so  that  they  often  do  not  appear  to  be  what  they  really 
are,  and  thus  by  false  and  deceptive  appearances  the  good  and  the  evil  are 
often  associated  together. 

And^so  it  is  for  a  time  and  in  a  measure  in  the  first  state  and  region 
into  which  men  come  when  they  enter  the  spiritual  world.  They  go  into 
that  world  as  they  are,  and  are  at  first  in  a  mixed  state,  as  in  this  woi  Id. 
This  continues  until  the  real  character  is  clearly  manifest,  and  good  and 
evil  are  separated,  and  they  are  thus  prepared  for  their  final  and  per¬ 
manent  association  and  abode.  They  who,  in  the  world,  have  made  some 
real  effort,  and  beginning,  to  live  a  good  life,  but  have  evil  habits  not  yet 
overcome,  remain  there  until  they  are  entirely  purified  of  evil,  and  are 
fitted  for  some  society  of  heaven;  and  those  who  inwardly  are  evil  and 
have  outwardly  assumed  a  virtuous  garb,  remain  until  their  dissembled 
goodness  is  cast  off  and  their  inward  character  becomes  outwardly  mani¬ 
fest.  When  this  state  of  separation  is  complete  there  can  be  no  successful 
dissimulation — the  good  and  the  evil  are  seen  and  known  as  such,  and  the 
law  of  spiritual  affinity  becomes  perfectly  operative  by  their  own  free 
volition  and  choice.  Then  the  evil  and  the  good  become  entirely  separated 
into  their  congenial  societies.  The  various  societies  and  communities  of 
the  good  thus  associated  constitute  heaven  and  those  of  the  evil  constitute 
hell — not  by  any  arbitrary  judgment  of  an  angry  God,  but  of  voluntary 
choice,  by  the  perfect  and  unhindered  operation  of  the  law  of  human 
nature  that  leads  men  to  prefer  and  seek  the  companionship  of  those  most 
congenial  to  themselves. 

As  regards  the  permanency  of  the  state  of  those  who  by  established  evil 
are  fixed  and  determined  in  their  love  of  evil  life,  it  is  not  of  the  Lord’s 
will,  but  of  their  own.  We  are  taught  in  His  Holy  Word  that  He  is  ever 
“gracious  and  full  of  compassion.”  He  would  that  they  should  turn  from 
their  evil  ways  and  live,  but  they  will  not. 

There  is  no  moment,  in  this  or  in  the  future  life,  when  the  infinite  mercj 
of  the  Lord  would  not  that  an  evil  man  should  turn  from  his  evil  course 
and  live  a  virtuous  and  upright  and  happy  life;  but  they  will  not  in  that 


RELIGIOUS  SYSTEM  OF  THE  PARSEES. 


173 


world  for  the  same  reason  that  they  would  not  in  this,  because  when  evil 
habits  are  once  fixed  and  confirmed,  they  love  them  and  will  not  turn  from 
them.  “Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots? 
Then  may  they  also  do  good  that  are  accustomed  to  do  evil.”  Heaven  is  a 
heaven  of  man,  and  the  life  of  heaven  is  human  life.  The  conditions  of  life 
in  that  exalted  state  are  greatly  different  from  the  conditions  here,  but  it  is 
human  life  adapted  to  such  transcendent  conditions,  and  the  laws  of  life  in 
that  world,  as  we  have  seen,  are  the  same  as  in  this.  Man  was  created  to 
be  a  free  and  willing  agent  of  the  Lord  to  bless  his  kind.  His  true  happi¬ 
ness  comes,  not  in  seeking  happiness  for  himself,  but  in  seeking  to  promote 
the  happiness  of  others.  Where  all  are  animated  by  this  desire,  all  are 
mutually  and  reciprocally  blest. 

Such  a  state  is  heaven,  whether  measurably  in  this  world  or  fully  and 
perfectly  in  the  next.  Then  must  there  be  useful  ways  in  heaven  by  which 
they  can  contribute  to  each  other’s  happiness.  And  of  such  kind  will  bo 
the  employments  of  heaven,  tor  there  must  be  useful  employments.  There 
could  be  no  happiness  to  beings  who  are  designed  and  formed  for  useful¬ 
ness  to  others.  What  the  employments  are  in  that  exalted  position  we  can 
not  well  know,  except  as  some  of  them  are  revealed  to  us,  and  of  them  we 
have  faint  and  feeble  conception.  But  undoubtedly  one  of  them  is  attend¬ 
ance  upon  men  in  this  world. 

Such  in  general,  according  to  the  revealed  doctrines  of  the  New  Church 
is  the  future  life  of  the  immortal  souls  of  men. 


RELIGIOUS  SYSTEM  OF  THE  PARSEES, 

JINANJI  JAMSHODJI  MODI. 

The  greatest  good  that  a  Parliament  of  Religions,  like  the 
present,  can  do  is  to  establish  what  Professor  Max  Muller  calls 
•‘that  great  golden  dawn  of  truth  ‘that  there  is  a  religion 
behind  all  religions.’”  The  learned  professor  very  rightly  says 
that  “Happy  is  the  man  who  knows  that  truth,  in  these  days  of 
materialism  and  atheism.”  If  this  Parliament  of  Religions 
does  nothing  else  but  spread  the  knowledge  of  this  golden  f  ruth 
and  thus  make  a  large  number  of  men  happy,  it  will  immortal¬ 
ize  its  name.  The  object  of  my  paper  is  to  take  a  little  part  in 
the  noble  efforts  of  this  great  gathering,  to  spread  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  that  golden  truth  from  a  Parsee  point  of  view.  The 
Parsees  of  India  are  the  followers  of  Zoroastrianism,  of  the 
religion  of  Zoroaster,  a  religion  which  was  for  centuries  both 
the  state  religion  and  the  national  religion  of  ancient  Persia. 

As  Professor  Max  Muller  says: 

There  were  periods  in  the  history  of  the  world  when  the  worship  of 
Ormuzd  threatened  to  rise  triumphant  on  the  ruins  of  the  temples  of  all 
other  gods.  If  the  battles  of  Marathon  and  Salamis  had  been  lost  and 
Greece  had  succumbed  to  Persia,  the  state  religion  of  the  empire  of  Cyrus, 


174 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


which  was  the  worship  of  Ormuzd,  might  have  become  the  religion  of  the 
whole  civilized  world.  Persia  had  absorbed  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
Empires;  Jews  were  either  in  Persian  captivity  or  under  Persian  sway 
at  home;  the  sacred  monuments  of  Egypt  had  been  mutilated  by  the  hands 
of  Persian  soldiers.  The  edicts  of  the  king — the  king  of  kings — were  sent 
to  India,  to  Greece,  to  Scythia,  and  to  Egypt,  and  if  “by  the  grace  of  Ahura- 
Mazda”  Darius  had  crushed  the  liberty  of  Greece,  the  purer  faith  of  Zoro¬ 
aster  might  easily  have  superseded  the  Olympian  fables. 

With  the  overthrow  of  the  Persian  monarchy  under  its  last  Sassanian 
king,  Yazdagard,  at  the  battle  of  Nehavand  in  A.  D.  642,  the  religion 
received  a  check  at  the  hands  of  the  Arabs,  who,  with  sword  in  one  hand 
and  Koran  in  the  other,  made  the  religion  of  Islam  both  the  state  religion 
and  national  religion  of  the  country.  But  many  of  those  who  adhered  to 
the  faith  of  their  fathers  quitted  their'  ancient  fatherland  for  the  hospitable 
shores  of  India.  The  modern  Parsees  of  India  are  the  descendants  of  those 
early  settlers.  As  a  former  governor  of  Bombay  said:  “  Their  position  is 
unique — a  handful  of  persons  among  the  teeming  millions  of  India,  and  yet 
who  not  only  have  preserved  their  ancient  race  with  the  utmost  purity, 
but  also  their  religion  absolutely  unimpaired  by  contact  with  others.” 

In  the  words  of  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Meurin,  the  learned  Bishop  (Vicar  Apos¬ 
tolic)  of  Bombay,  in  1885,  the  Parsees  are  “  a  people  who  have  chosen  to 
relinquish  their  venerable  ancestors’  homesteads  rather  than  abandon  their 
ancient  religion,  the  founder  of  which  lived  no  less  than  3,000  years  ago — 
a  people  who,  for  a  thousand  years,  have  formed  in  the  midst  of  the  great 
Hindu  people,  not  unlike  an  island  in  the  sea,  a  quiet,  separate,  and  dis¬ 
tinct  nation,  peculiar  and  remarkable,  as  for  its  race,  so  for  its  religious  and 
social  life  and  customs.”  Professor  Max  Muller  says  of  the  religion  of  the 
Parsees : 

Though  every  religion  is  of  real  and  vital  interest  in  its  earliest  state  only,  yet 
its  later  development,  too,  with  all  its  misunderstandings,  faults,  and  corruptions, 
offers  many  an  instructive  lesson  to  the  thoughtful  student  of  history.  Here  is  a 
religion,  one  of  the  most  ancient  of  the  world,  once  the  state  religion  of  the  most 
powerful  empire,  driven  away  from  its  native  soil  and  deprived  of  political  influ¬ 
ence,  without  even  the  prestige  of  a  powerful  or  enlightened  priesthood,  and  yet 
professed  by  a  handful  of  exiles— men  of  wealth,  intelligence,  and  moral  worth  in 
western  India- with  unhesitating  fervor  such  as  is  seldom  to  be  found  in  larger 
religious  communities.  It'is  well  worth  the  earnest  endeavour  of  the  philosopher 
and  the  divine  to  discover,  if  possible,  the  spell  by  which  this  apparently  effete 
r'digion  continues  to.oommand  the  attachment  of  the  enlightened  Parsees  of 
India,  and  makes  them  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  allurements  of  the  Brahmanic 
worship  and  the  earnest  appeals  of  Christian  missionaries. 

Zoroastrianism  or  Parseeism — by  whatever  name  the  system  may  be 
called — is  a  monotheistic  form  of  religion.  It  believes  in  the  existence  of 
one  God,  whom  it  knows  under  the  names  of  Mazda,  Ahura,  and  Ahura- 
Mazda,  the  last  form  being  one  that  is  most  commonly  met  with  in  the 
latter  writings  of  the  Avesta.  The  first  and  the  greatest  truth  that  dawns 
upon  the' mind  of  a  Zoroastrian  is  that  the  great  and  the  infinite  universe, 
of  which  he  is  an  infinitesimally  small  part,  is  the  work  of  a  powerful  hand 
— the  result  of  a  master  mind.  The  first  and  the  greatest  conception  of 
that  master  mind,  Ahura-Mazda,  is  that,  as  the  name  implies,  he  is  the 
Omniscient  Lord,  and  as  such  he  is  the  ruler  of  both  the  material  and 
immaterial  world,  the  corporeal  and  the  incorporeal  world,  the  visible  and  the 
invisible  world.  The  regular  movements  of  the  sun  and  the  stars,  the  peri¬ 
odical  waxing  and  waning  of  the  moon,  the  regular  way  in  which  the  sun 
and  the  clouds  are  sustained,  the  regular  fiow  of  waters  and  the  gradual 
growth  of  vegetation,  the  rapid  movements  of  the  winds  and  the  regular 
succession  of  light  and  darkness,  of  day  and  night,  with  their  accompani¬ 
ments  of  sleep  and  wakefulness,  all  these  grand  and  striking  phenomena  of 
nature  point  to  and  bear  ample  evidence  of  the  existence  of  an  almighty 
power  who  is  not  only  the  creator,  but  the  preserver  of  this  great  universe, 
who  has  not  only  launched  that  universe  into  existence  with  a  premeditated 


RELIGIOUS  SYSTEM  OF  THE  PARSEES. 


175 


plan  of  completeness,  but  who,  with  the  controlling  hand  of  a  father,  pre¬ 
serves  by  certain  fixed  laws  harmony  and  order  here,  there,  and  everywhere. 

As  Ahura-Mazda  is  the  ruler  of  the  physical  world,  so  He  is  the  ruler 
of  the  spiritual  world.  His  distinguished  attributes  are  good  mind,  right¬ 
eousness,  desirable  control,  piety,  perfection,  and  immortality.  He  is  the 
Beneficent  Spirit  from  whom  emanate  all  good  and  all  piety.  He  looks 
into  the  hearts  of  men  and  sees  how  much  of  the  good  and  of  the  piety  that 
have  emanated  from  Him  has  made  its  home  there,  and  thus  rewards  the 
virtuous  and  punishes  the  vicious.  Of  course,  one  sees  at  times,  in  the 
plane  of  this  world,  moral  disorders  and  want  of  harmony,  but  then  the 
present  state  is  only  a  part,  and  that  a  very  small  part,  of  His  scheme  of 
moral  government.  As  the  ruler  of  the  world,  Ahura-Mazda  hears  the 
prayers  of  the  ruled.  He  grants  the  prayers  of  those  who  are  pious  in 
thoughts,  pious  in  words,  and  pious  in  deeds.  “  He  not  only  rewards  the 
good,  but  punishes  the  wicked.  All  that  is  created,  good  or  evil,  fortune  or 
misfortune,  is  His  work.” 

We  have  seen  that  Ahura-Mazda,  or  God,  is,  according  to  Parsee  script¬ 
ures,  the  causer  of  all  causes.  He  is  the  creator  as  well  as  the  destroyer, 
the  increaser  as  well  as  the  decreaser.  He  gives  birth  to  different  creatures, 
and  it  is  He  who  brings  about  their  end.  How  is  it,  then,  that  He  brings 
about  these  two  contrary  results?  In  the  words  of  Dr.  Haug: 

Having  arrived  at  the  grand  idea  of  the  unity  and  indivisibility  of  the  Supreme 
Being,  he  (Zoroaster)  undertook  to  solve  the  great  problem  which  has  engaged 
the  attention  of  so  many  wise  men  of  antiq.uity  and  even  of  modern  times,  viz.. 
How  are  the  imperfections  discoverable  in  the  world,  the  various  kinds  of  evils, 
wickedness  and  baseness,  compatible  with  the  goodness,  holiness,  and  justice  of 
God?  This  great  thinker  of  remote  antiquity  solved  this  difficult  question  philo¬ 
sophically  by  the  supposition  of  two  primeval  causes,  which,  though  different, 
were  united  and  produced  the  world  of  material  things,  as  well  as  that  of  the 
spirit. 

These  two  primeval  causes  or  principles  are  called  in  the  Avesta  the 
two  “  Mainyus.”  This  word  comes  from  the  ancient  Aryan  root  “  man,”  to 
“  think.”  It  may  be  properly  rendered  into  English  by  the  word  “  spirit,” 
meaning  “  that  which  can  only  be  conceived  by  the  mind  but  not  felt  by 
the  senses.  ”  Of  these  two  spirits  or  primeval  causes  or  principles  one  is 
creative  and  the  other  destructive.  These  two  spirits  work  under  the 
Almighty  day  and  night.  They  create  and  destroy,  and  this  they  have 
done  ever  since  the  world  was  created.  According  to  Zoroaster’s  philosophy 
our  world  is  the  work  of  these  two  hostile  principles,  Spenta-mainyush,  the 
good  principle,  and  Angro-mainyush,  the  evil  principle,  both  serving  under 
one  God.  In  the  words  of  that  learned  Orientalist,  Professor  Darmestetter, 
“  all  that  is  good  in  the  world  comes  from  thefformer;  all  that  is  bad  in  it 
comes  from  the  latter.  The  history  of  the  world  is  the  history  of  their 
conflict;  how  Angro-mainyu  invaded  the  world  of  Ahura-Mazda  and 
marred  it,  and  how  he  shall  be  expelled  from  it  at  last.  Man  is  active  in 
the  conflict,  his  duty  in  it  being  laid  before  him  in  the  law  revealed  by 
Ahura-Mazda  to  Zarathushtra.  When  the  appointed  time  is  come  *  *  * 
Angro-mainyu  and  hell  will  be  destroyed,  men  will  rise  from  the  dead  and 
everlasting  happiness  will  reign  over  the  world.” 

These  philosophical  notions  have  led  some  learned  men  to  misunderstand 
Zoroastrian  theology.  Some  authors  entertain  an  opinion  that  Zoroaster 
preached  Dualism.  But  this  is  a  serious  misconception.  In  the  Parsee 
scriptures  the  names  of  God  are  Mazda,  Ahura,  and  Ahura-Mazda,  the  last 
two  words  being  a  compound  of  the  first  two.  The  first  two  words  are 
common  in  the  earliest  writings  of  the  GathS,  and  the  third  in  the  later 
scriptures.  In  the  later  times  the  word  Ahura-Mazda,  instead  of  being 
restricted  like  Mazda,  the  name  of  God,  began  to  be  used  in  a  wider  sense 
and  was  applied  to  Spentamainyush,  the  Creative  or  the  Good  principle. 
This  being  the  case,  wherever  the  word  Ahura-Mazda  was  used  in  opposition 
to  that  of  Angro-mainyush,  later  authors  took  it  as  the  name  of  God, 


17G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


and  noi  a«  the  name  of  the  Creative  principle,  which  it  really  was.  Thus  the 
very  fact  of  Ahura-Mazda’s  name  being  employed  in  opposition  to  that  of 
Angro-mainyush  or  Ahriman  led  to  the  not  in  that  Zoroastrian  scriptures 
preached  dualism. 

Not  only  is  the  charge  of  dualism  as  leveled  against  Zoroastrianism,  and 
as  ordinarily  understood,  groundless,  but  there  is  a  close  resemblance 
)etween  the  ideas  of  the  devil  among  the  Christians  and  those  of  the 
Ahriman  among  the  Zoroastrians.  Dr.  Haug  says  the  same  thing  in  the 
following  words: 

The  Zoroastricin  idea  of  the  devil  and  the  infernal  kingdom  coincides  entirely 
with  tlie  Christian  doctrine.  The  devil  is  a  murderer  and  father  of  lies  according 
.  to  both  the  Bible  and  the  Zend  Avesta. 

Thus  we  see  that,  according  to  Zoroaster’s  philosophy,  there  are  two 
primeval  principles  that  j^roduce  our  material  world.  Consequently, 
though  the  Almighty  is  creator  of  all,  a  part  of  the  creation  is  said  to  be 
created  by  the  good  principle  and  a  part  by  the  evil  principle.  Thus,  for 
example,  the  heavenly  bodies,  the  earth,  water,  lire,  horses,  dogs  and  such 
other  objects  are  the  creation  of  the  Good  Principle,  and  serpents,  ants, 
locusts,  etc.,  are  the  creation  of  the  Evil  Principle.  In  short,  those  things 
that  conduce  to  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number  of  mankind  fall 
under  the  category  of  the  creations  of  the  Good  Principle,  and  those  that 
lead  to  the  contrary  result,  under  that  of  the  creations  of  the  Evil  Princi¬ 
ple.  This  being  the  case,  it  is  incumbent  upon  men  to  do  actions  that 
would  support  the  cause  of  the  Good  Principle  and  destroy  that  of  the  Evil 
one.  Therefore,  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  the  rearing  of  domestic  animals, 
etc.,  on  the  one  hand  and  the  destruction  of  wild  animals  and  other  noxious 
creatures  on  the  other  are  considered  meritorious  actions  by  the  Parsees. 

As  there  are  two  primeval  principles  under  Ahura-Mazda  that  produce 
our  material  world,  so  there  are  two  principles  inherent  in  the  nature  of 
man  which  encourage  him  to  do  good  or  tempt  him  to  do  evil.  One  asks 
him  to  support  the  cause  of  the  Good  Principle,  the  other  to  sujjport  that 
of  the  Evil  Principle.  The  first  is  known  by  the  name  of  Vonumana  or 
Behemana,  i.  e.,  “  good  mind.”  The  prefix  “  vohu  ”  or  “  beh  ”  is  the  same 
word  as  that  of  which  our  English  “  better  ”  is  the  comparative.  Mana  is 
the  same  as  the  word  “  maniyu  ”  and  means  mind  or  spirit.  The  second  is 
known  by  the  name  of  Akamana,  i.  e.,  bad  mind.  The  prefix  “  aka  ”  means 
bad  and  is  the  same  as  our  English  word  “ache”  in  “  headache.” 

Now  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Vendidad  gives,  as  it  were,  a  short  defini¬ 
tion  of  what  is  morality  or  piety.  There,  first  of  all,  the  writer  says: 
“Purity  is  the  best  thing  for  man  after  birth.”  This  you  may  say  is  the 
motto  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion.  Therefore  M.  Harlez  very  properly  says 
that,  according  to  Zoroastrian  scriptures,  the  “notion  of  the  word  virtue 
sums  itself  up  in  that  of  the  ‘Asha.’”  This  word  is  the  same  as  the  San¬ 
skrit  “rita,”  which  word  corresponds  to  our  English  “right.”  It  means 
therefore  righteousness,  piety,  or  purity.  Then  the  writer  proceeds  to  give 
a  short  definition  of  piety.  It  says  that  “the  preservation  of  good  thoughts, 
good  w’ords,  and  good  deeds  is  piety.”  In  these  pithy  words  is  summed  up, 
so  to  say,  the  w^hole  of  the  moral  philosophy  of  the  Zoroastrian  scriptures. 
It  says  that  if  you  want  to  lead  a  pious  and  moral  life  and  thus  to  show  a 
clea»’  bill  of  spiritual  health  to  the  angel,  Meher  Daver,  who  watches  the 
gates  of  heaven  at  the  Chinvat  bridge,  practice  these  three:  Think  of 
nothing  but  the  truth,  speak  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  do  nothing  but 
what  is  proper.  In  short,  w^hat  Zoroastrian  moral  philosophy  teaches  is 
this,  that  your  good  thoughts,  good  deeds,  and  good  words  alone  will  be 
your  intercessors.  Nothing  more  will  be  wanted.  They  alone  will  serve 
you  as  a  safe  pilot  to  the  harbor  of  heaven,  as  a  safe  guide  to  the  gates  of 
paradise.  The  late  Dr.  Haug  rightly  observed  that  “the  moral  philosophy 
of  Zoroaster  was  moving  in  the  triad  of  ‘thought,  w'ord,  and  deed.’  ”  These 


RELIGIOUS  SYSTEM  OF  THE  PARSEES. 


177 


three  words  form,  as  it  were,  the  pivot  upon  which  the  moral  structure  of 
Zoroastrianism  turns.  It  is  the  ground-work  upon  which  the  whole  edifice 
of  Zoroastrian  morality  rests. 

The  following  dialogue  in  the  Pehelvi  Padnameh  of  Buzurge-Meher 
shows  in  a  succinct  form  what  weight  is  attached  to  these  three  pithy 
words  in  the  moral  code  of  the  Zoroastrians: 

Question— Who  is  the  most  fortunate  man  in  the  world? 

Answer— He  who  is  the  most  innocent. 

Question— Who  is  the  most  innocent  man  in  the  world  ? 

Answer— He  who  walks  in  the  path  of  God  and  shuns  that  of  the  devil. 

Question— Which  is  the  path  of  God,  and  which  that  of  the  devil? 

Answer— Virtue  is  the  path  of  God,  and  vice  that  of  the  devil. 

Question— What  constitutes  virtue,  and  what  vice  ? 

Answer— (Humata,  hukhta,  and  hvarshta}  Good  thoughts,  good  words,  and 
good  deeds  constitute  virtue,  and  (dushmata,  duzukhta,  and  duzvarshta)  evil 
thoughts,  evil  words,  and  evil  deeds  constitute  vice. 

Question— What  constitute  (humata,  hukhta,  and  hvarshta)  good  thoughts, 
good  words,  and  good  deeds,  and  (dushmata,  duzukhta,  and  duzvarshta)  evil 
thoughts,  evil  words,  and  evil  deeds? 

Answer— Honesty,  charity,  and  truthfulness  constitute  the  former,  and  dishon¬ 
esty,  want  of  charity,  and  falsehood  constitute  the  latter. 

From  this  dialogue  it  will  be  seen  that  a  man  who  acquires  (humata, 
hukhta,  and  hvarshta)  good  thoughts,  good  words,  and  good  deeds,  and 
thereby  practices  honesty,  charity,  and  truthfulness,  is  considered  to  walk 
in  the  path  of  God,  and  therefore  to  be  the  most  innocent  and  fortunate 
man. 

Herodotus  also  refers  to  the  third  cardinal  virtue  of  truthfulness  men¬ 
tioned  above.  He  says  that  to  speak  the  truth  was  one  of  the  three  things 
taught  to  a  Zoroastrian  of  his  time  from  his  very  childhood. 

Zoroastrianism  believes  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  The  Avesta 
writings  of  Hadokht  Nushk,  and  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  the  Vendidad, 
and  of  the  Pehelvi  books  of  Minokherad  and  Viraf-nameh  treat  of  the  fate 
of  6he  soul  after  death.  Its  notions  about  heaven  and  hell  correspond,  to 
some  extent,  to  the  Christian  notions  about  them  A  plant  called  the 
Homa-i-saphid,  or  white  Homa,  a  name  corresponding  to  the  Indian  Soma 
of  the  Hindus,  is  held  to  be  the  emblem  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 
According  to  Dr.  Windischmann  and  Professor  Max  Muller,  this  plant 
reminds  us  of  the  “Tree  of  Life”  in  Ihe  Garden  of  Eden.  As  in  the 
Christian  scriptures,  the  way  to  the  tree  of  life  is  strictly  guarded  by  the 
Cherubim,  so  in  the  Zoroastrian  scriptures  the  Homa-i-Saphid,  or  the  plant 
which  is  the  emblem  of  immortality,  is  guarded  by  innumerable  Fravashis — 
that  is,  guardian  spirits.  The  number  of  these  guardian  spirits,  as  given 
in  various  books,  is  99,999. 

Again,  Zoroastrianism  believes  in  heaven  and  hell.  Heaven  is  called 
Vahishta-ahu  in  the  Avesta  books.  It  literally  means  the  “best  life.”  This 
word  is  afterward  contracted,  with  a  slight  change,  into  the  Persian  word, 
“Behesht,”  which  is  the  superlative  form  of  “Veh,”  meaning  good,  and 
corresponds  exactly  with  our  English  word,  best.  Hell  is  Known  by  the 
name  of  “Achista-ahu.”  Heaven  is  represented  as  a  place  of  radiance, 
splendor,  and  glory,  and  hell  as  that  of  gloom,  darkness,  and  stench, 
Between  heaven  and  this  world  there  is  supposed  to  be  a  bridge  named 
“  Chinvat.”  This  word,  from  the  Aryan  root,  “  chi,”  meaning  to  pick  up,  to 
collect — means  the  place  where  a  man’s  soul  has  to  present  a  collective 
account  of  the  actions  done  in  the  past  life. 

According  to  the  Parsee  scriptures,  for  three  days  after  a  man’s  death 
his  soul  remains  within  the  limits  of  the  world  under  the  guidance  of  the 
angel  Srosh.  If  the  deceased  be  a  pious  man  or  a  man  who  led  a  virtuous 
life  his  soul  utters  the  words  “  Ushta-ahmai  yahmai  ushta-kahmai-chit,” 
i.  e.,  “  Well  is  he  by  whom  that  which  is  his  benetit  becomes  the  benefit  of 
any  one  else.”  If  he  be  a  wicked  man  or  one  who  led  an  evil  life,  his  soul 
utters  these  plaintive  words:  “  Kam  nemoi  zam?  Kuthra  nemo  ayeni?  i.e., 
“  To  which  land  shall  I  turn?  Whither  shall  I  go?  ” 


178 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


On  the  dawn  of  the  third  night  the  departed  souls  appear  at  the  “  Chin- 
vat  Bridge.”  This  bridge  is  guarded  by  the  angel  Meher  Daver,  i.  e.,  Meher 
the  judge.  He  presides  there  as  a  judge,  assisted  by  the  angels Rashne  and 
Astad,'the  former  representing  justice  and  the  latter  truth.  At  this  bridge 
and  before  this  angel  Meher,  the  soul  of  every  man  has  to  give  an  account 
of  its  doings  in  the  past  life.  Meher  Daver,  the  judge,  weighs  a  man’s 
actions  by  a  scale-pan.  If  a  man’s  good  actions  outweigh  his  evil  ones,  even 
by  a  small  particle,  he  is  allowed  to  pass  from  the  bridge  to  the  other  end, 
to  heaven.  If  his  evil  actions  outweigh  his  good  ones,  even  by  a  small 
weight,  he  is  not  allowed  to  pass  over  the  bridge,  but  is  hurled  down  into 
the  deep  abyss  of  hell.  If  his  meritorious  and  evil  deeds  counterbalance 
each  other  he  is  sent  to  a  place  known  as  “  hamast-gehan,”  corresponding 
to  the  Christian  “  purgatory  ”  and  the  Mahommedan  “  aeraf.”  His  merit¬ 
orious  deeds  done  in  the  past  life  would  prevent  him  from  going  to  hell,  and 
his  evil  actions  would  not  let  him  go  to  heaven. 

Again  Zoroastrian  books  say  that  the  meritoriousness  of  good  deeds  and 
the  sin  of  evil  ones  increase  with  the  growth  of  time.  As  capital  increases 
with  interest,  so  good  and  bad  actions  done  by  a  man  in  his  life  increase,  as 
it  were,  with  interest  in  their  effects.  Thus  a  meritorious  deed  done  in 
young  age  is  more  effective  than  that  very  deed  done  in  advanced  age.  A 
man  must  begin  practicing  virtue  from  his  very  young  age.  As  in  the  case 
of  good  deeds  and  their  meritoriousness,  so  in  the  case  of  evil  actions  and 
their  sins.  The  burden  of  the  sin  of  an  evil  action  increases,  as  it  were, 
with  interest.  A  young  man  has  a  long  time  to  repent  of  his  evil  deeds,  and 
to  do  good  deeds  that  could  counteract  the  effect  of  his  evil  deeds.  If  he 
does  not  take  advantage  of  these  opportunities  the  burden  of  those  evil 
deeds  increases  with  time. 

The  Parsee  places  of  worship  are  known  as  fire  temples.  The  very  name, 
fire  temple,  would  strike  a  non-Zoroastrian  as  an  unusual  form  of  worship. 
The  Parsees  do  not  worship  fire  as  God.  They  merely  regard  fire  as  an 
emblem  of  refulgence,  glory,  and  light,  as  the  most ‘perfect  symbol  of  God, 
and  as  the  best  and  noblest  representative  of  His  divinity.  “  In  the  eyes  of 
a  Parsee  his  (fire’s)  brightness,  activity,  purity,  and  incorruptibility  bear  the 
most  perfect  resemblance  to  the  nature  and  perfection  of  the  Deity.”  A 
Parsee  looks  upon  fire  “  as  the  most  perfect  symbol  of  the  Deity  on  account 
of  its  purity,  brightness,  activity,  subtilty,  purity  and  incorruptibility.” 

Again,  one  must  remember  that  it  is  the  several  symbolic  ceremonies 
that  add  to  the  reverence  entertained  by  a  Parsee  for  the  fire  burning  in 
his  fire  temples.  A  new  element  of  purity  is  added  to  the  fire  burning  in 
the  fire  temples  of  the  Parsees  by  the  religious  ceremonies,  accompanied 
with  prayers  that  are  performed  over  it,  before  it  is  installed  in  its  place  on 
a  vase  on  an  exalted  stand  in  the  chamber  set  apart.  The  sacred  fire  burn¬ 
ing  there  is  not  the  ordinary  fire  burning  on  our  hearths.  It  has  undergone 
several  ceremonies,  and  it  is  these  ceremonies,  full  of  meaning,  that  renders 
the  fire  more  sacred  in  the  eyes  of  a  Parsee.  We  will  briefly  recount  the 
process  here. 

In  establishing  a  fire  temple  fires  from  various  places  of  manufacture 
are  brought  and  kept  in  different  vases.  Great  efforts  are  also  made  to 
obtain  fire  caused  by  lightning.  Over  one  of  these  fires  a  perforated 
metallic  flat  tray  with  a  handle  attached  is  held.  On  this  tray  are  f)laced 
small  chips  and  dust  of  fragrant  sandalwood.  These  chips  and  dust  are 
ignited  by  the  heat  of  the  fire  below,  care  being  taken  that  the  perforated 
tray  does  not  touch  the  fire.  Thus  a  new  fire  is  created  out  of  the  first  fire. 
Then  from  this  new  fire  another  is  again  produced,  and  so  on,  until  the  proc¬ 
ess  is  repeated  nine  times.  The  fire  thus  prepared  after  the  ninth  process 
is  considered  pure.  The  fires  brought  from  other  places  of  manufacture 
are  treated  in  a  similar  manner.  These  purified  fires  are  all  collected 
together  upon  a  large  vase,  which  is  then  put  in  its  proper  place  in  a  sepa¬ 
rate  chamber. 


RELIGIOUS  SYSTEM  OF  THE  PARSEES. 


179 


Now  what  does  a  fire  so  prepared  signify  to  a  Parsee?  He  thinks  to 
himself:  “When  this  tire  in  this  vase  before  me,  though  pure  in  itself, 
though  the  noblest  of  the  creations  of  God,  and  though  the  best  symbol  of 
the  Divinity,  had  to  undergo  certain  processes  of  purification,  had  to  draw 
out,  as  it  were,  its  essence — nay;  its  quintessence — of  purity  to  enable  itself 
t )  be  worthy  of  occupying  this  exalted  position,  how  much  more  necessary, 
more  essential,  and  more  important  it  Is  for  me — a  poor  mortal  who  is  liable 
to  commit  sins  and  crimes,  and  who  comes  into  contact  with  hundreds  of 
evils,  both  physical  and  mental — to  undergo  the  process  of  purity  and 
piety  by  making  my  thoughts,  words,  and  actions  pass,  as  it  were,  through 
a  sieve  of  piety  and  purity,  virtue  and  morality,  and  to  separate  by  that 
means  ir.y  good  thoughts,  good  words,  and  good  actions  from  bad  thoughts, 
bad  words,  and  bad  actions,  so  that  I  may,  in  my  turn,  be  enabled  to  acquire 
an  exalted  position  in  the  next  world. 

Again,  the  fires  put  together  as  above  are  collected  from  the  houses  of 
men  of  different  grades  in  society.  This  reminds  a  Parsee  that,  as  all  these 
fires  from  the  houses  of  men  of  different  grades  have  all,  by  the  process  of 
purification,  equally  acquired  the  exalted  place  in  the  vase,  so  before  God 
all  men — no  matter  to  what’grades  of  society  they  belong — are  equal,  pro¬ 
vided  they  pass  through  the  process  of  purification,  i.  e.,  provided  they  pre¬ 
serve  purity  of  thoughts,  purity  of  words  and  purity  of  deeds. 

Again,  when  a  Parsee  goes  before  the  sacred  fire,  which  is  kept  all  day  and 
night  burning  in  the  fire  temple,  the  officiating  priest  presents  before  him  the 
ashes  of  a  part  of  the  consumed  fire.  The  Parsee  applies  it  to  his  forePead, 
just  as  a  Christian  applies  the  consecrated  water  in  his  church,  and  thinks 
to  himself:  “Dust  to  dust.  The  fire,  all  brilliant,  shining,  and  resplendent, 
has  spread  the  fragrance  of  the  sweet-smelling  sandal  and  frankincense 
round  about,  but  is  at  last  reduced  to  dust.  So  it  is  destined  for  me.  After 
all  I  am  to  be  reduced  to  dust  and  have  to  depart  from  this  transient  life. 
Let  me  do  my  best  to  spread,  like  this  fire,  before  my  death,  the  fragrance 
of  charity  and  good  deeds  and  lead  the  light  of  righteousness  and  knowledge 
before  others.” 

In  short,  the  sacred  fire  burning  in  a  fire  temple  serves  as  a  perpetual 
monitor  to  a  Parsee  standing  before  it  to  preserve  piety,  purity,  humility, 
and  brotherhood. 

As  we  said  above,  evidence  from  nature  is  the  surest  evidence  that  leads 
a  Parsee  to  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  the  Deity.  From  nature  he  is  led 
to  nature’s  God.  From  this  point  of  view,  then,  he  is  not  restricted  to  any 
particular  place  for  the  recital  of  his  prayers.  For  a  visitor  to  Bombay, 
which  is  the  headquarters  of  the  Parsees,  it  is  therefore  not  unusual  to  see 
a  number  of  Parsees  saying  their  prayers,  morning  and  evening,  in  the  open 
space,  turning  their  faces  to  the  rising  or  the  setting  sun,  before  the  glow¬ 
ing  moon  or  the  foaming  sea.  Turning  to  these  grand  objects — the  best  and 
sublimest  of  His  creations — they  address  their  prayers  to  the  Almighty. 

All  Parsee  prayers  begin  with  an  assurance  to  do  acts  that  would  please 
the  Almighty  God.  The  assurance  is  followed  by  an  expression  of  regret 
for  past  evil  thoughts,  words,  or  deeds,  if  any.  Man  is  liable  to  err,  and  so, 
if  during  the  interval  any  errors  of  commission  or  omission  are  committed, 
a  Parsee  in  the  beginning  of  his  prayers  repents  for  those  errors.  He  says: 

O,  Omniscient  Lord!  I  repent  of  all  my  sins.  I  repent  of  all  evil  thoughts  that 
I  might  have  entertained  in  my  mind,  of  all  evil  words  I  might  have  spoken,  of 
all  the  evil  actions  that  I  might  have  committed.  O.  Omniscient  Lord !  I  repent  of 
all  the  faults  that  might  have  originated  with  me,  whether  they  refer  to  thoughts, 
words,  or  deeds;  whether  they  appertain  to  my  body  or  soul;  whether  they  be  in 
connection  with  the  material  world  or  spiritual. 

To  educate  their  children  is  a  spiritual  duty  of  Zoroastrian  parents. 
Education  is  necessary,  not  only  for  the  material  good  of  the  children  and 
parents,  but  also  for  their  spiritual  good.  According  to  the  Parsee  books, 
the  parents  participate  in  the  meritoriousness  of  the  good  acts  performed 


180 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


by  their  children  as  the  result  of  the  good  education  imparted  to  them.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  parents  neglect  the  education  of  their  children,  and 
if,  as  the  result  of  this  neglect,  they  do  wrongful  acts  or  evil  deeds,  the 
parents  have  a  spiritual  responsibility  for  such  acts.  In  proportion  to  the 
malignity  or  evilness  of  these  acts  the  parents  are  responsible  to  God  for 
their  neglect  of  the  education  of  their  children.  It  is,  as  it  were,  a  spirit¬ 
ual  self-interest  that  must  prompt  a  Parsee  to  look  to  the  good  education  of 
his  children  at  an  early  age.  Thus,  from  a  religious  point  of  view,  educa 
tiorj  is  a  great  question  with  the  Parsees. 

The  proper  age  recommended  by  religious  Parsee  books  for  ordinary 
education  is  seven.  Before  that  age  children  should  have  home  education 
with  their  parents,  especially  with  the  mother.  At  the  age  of  seven,  after 
a  little  religious  education,  a  Parsee  child  is  invested  with  Sudreh  and 
Kusti,  i.  e.,  the  sacred  shirt  and  thread.  This  ceremony  of  investiture  cor¬ 
responds  to  the  confirmation  ceremony  of  the  Christians.  A  Parsee  may 
put  on  the  dress  of  any  nationality  he  likes,  but  under  that  dress  he  must 
always  wear  the  sacred  shirt  and  thread.  These  are  the  symbols  of  his 
being  a  Zoroastrian.  These  symbols  are  full  of  meaning  and  act  as  per¬ 
petual  monitors,  advising  the  wearer  to  lead  a  life  of  purity  —  of  physical 
and  spiritual  purity.  A  Parsee  is  enjoined  to  remove,  and  put  on  again 
immediately,  the  sacred  thread  several  times  during  the  day,  saying  a  very 
short  prayer  during  the  process.  He  has  to  do  so  early  in  the  morning,  on 
rising  from  bed,  before  meals  and  after  ablutions.  The  putting  on  of  the 
symbolic  thread,  and  the  accompanying  short  prayer,  remind  him  to  be  in 
a  state  of  repentance  for  misdeeds,  if  any,  and  to  preserve  good  thoughts, 
good  words,  and  good  deeds,  the  triad  in  which  the  moral  philosophy  of 
Zoroaster  moved. 

It  is  after  this  investiture  with  the  sacred  shirt  and  thread  that  the 
general  education  of  a  child  generally  begins.  The  Parsee  books  speak  of 
the  necessity  of  educating  all  children,  whether  male  or  female.  Thus 
female  education  claims  as  much  attention  among  the  Parsees  as  male 
education.  Physical  education  is  as  much  spoken  of  in  the  Zoroastrian 
books  as  mental  and  moral  education.  The  health  of  the  body  is  con¬ 
sidered  as  the  first  requisite  for  the  health  of  the  soul.  That  the  physical 
education  of  the  ancient  Persians,  the  ancestors  of  the  modern  Parsees, 
was  a  subject  of  admiration  among  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  is  too 
well  known.  In  all  the  blessings  invoked  upon  one  in  the  religious  prayers, 
the  strength  of  body  occupies  the  first  and  most  prominent  place.  Analyz¬ 
ing  the  Bombay  Census  of  1881,  Dr.  Weir,  the  Health  Officer,  said: 

Examining  education  according  to  faith  or  class,  we  find  that  education  is 
most  extended  among  the  Parsee  people;  female  education  is  more  diffused 
among  the  Parsee  population  than  any  other  class.  *  *  Contrasting  these 
results  with  education  at  an  early  age  among  Parsees,  we  find  12.2  per  cent 
Parsee  male  and  8.84  per  cent  female  children,  under  6  years  of  age,  under 
instruction;  between  6  and  15  the  number  of  Parsee  male  and  female  children 
under  instruction  is  much  larger  than  in  any  other  class.  Over  15  years  of  age, 
the  smallest  proportion  of  illiterate,  either  male  or  female,  is  found  in  the  Par¬ 
see  population. 

The  religious  books  of  the  Parsees  say  that  the  education  of  Zoroastrian 
youths  should  teach  them  perfect  discipline,  obedience  to  their  teachers, 
obedience  to  their  parents,  obedience  to  their  elders  in  society,  and  obedi¬ 
ence  to  the  constitutional  forms  of  government  should  be  one  of  the 
practical  results  of  their  education.  So  a  Zoroastrian  child  is  asked  to  be 
affectionate  toward  and  submissive  to  his  teachers.  A  Parsee  mother  prays 
for  a  son  that  could  take  an  intelligent  part  in  the  deliberations  of  the 
councils  of  his  community  an-d  government;  so  a  regard  for  the  regular 
forms  of  government  was  necessary. 

Of  all  the  practical  questions  the  one  most  affected  by  the  religious 
precepts  of  Zoroastrianism  is  that  of  the  observation  of  sanitary  rules  and 
principles.  Several  chapters  of  the  Vendidad  form,  as  it  were,  the  sanitary 


RELIGIOUS  SYSTEM  OF  THE  PARSEES. 


181 


code  of  the  Parsees.  Most  of  the  injunctions  will  stand  the  test  of  sanitary 
science  for  ages  together.  Of  the  different  Asiatic  communities  inhabiting 
Bombay,  the  Parsees  have  the  lowest  death-rate.  One  can  safely  say  that 
that  is,  to  a  great  extent,  due  to  the  Zoroastrian  ideas  of  sanitation, 
segregation,  purification,  and  cleanliness.  A  Parsee  is  enjoined  not  to 
drink  from  the  same  cup  or  glass  from  which  another  man  has  drunk,  lest 
he  catch  by  contagion  the  disease  from  which  the  other  may  be  suffer¬ 
ing.  He  is,  under  no  circumstances,  to  touch  the  body  of  a  person  a  short 
time  after  death,  lest  he  spread  the  disease,  if  contagious,  of  the  deceased. 
If  he  accidentally  or  unavoidably  does,  he  has  to  purify  himself  by  a  cer¬ 
tain  process  of  washing  before  he  mixes  with  others  in  society.  A  passing 
fly,  or  even  a  blowing  wind,  is  supposed  to  spread  disease  by  contagion.  So 
he  is  enjoined  to  perform  ablutions  several  times  during  the  day,  as  before 
saying  his  prayers,  before  meals,  and  after  answering  the  calls  of  nature. 
If  his  hand  comes  into  contact  with  the  saliva  of  his  own  nlouth,  or  with 
that  of  somebody  else,  he  has  to  wash  it.  He  has  to  keep  himself  aloof 
from  corpse-bearers,  lest  he  spread  any  disease  through  them.  If  acci¬ 
dentally  he  comes  into  contact  with  these  people,  he  has  to  bathe  himself 
before  mixing  in  society.  A  breach  of  these  and  various  other  sanitary 
rules  is,  as  it  were,  helping  the  cause  of  the  Evil  Principle. 

Again,  Zoroastrianism  asks  its  disciples  to  keep  the  earth  pure,  to  keep 
the  air  pure  and  to  keep  the  water  pure.  It  considers  the  sun  as  the  great¬ 
est  purifier.  In  places  where  the  rays  of  the  sun  do  not  enter,  fire  over 
which  fragrant  wood  is  burnt  is  the  next  purifier.  It  is  a  great  sin  to  pol¬ 
lute  water  by  decomposing  matter.  Not  only  is  the  commission  of  a  fault 
of  this  kind  of  sin,  but  also  the  omission,  when  one  sees  such  a  pollution,  of 
taking  proper  means  to  remove  it.  A  Zoroastrian,  when  he  happens  to  see, 
while  passing  in  his  way,  a  running  steam  of  drinking  water  polluted  by 
some  decomposing  matter,  such  as  a  corpse,  is  enjoined  to  wait  and  try  his 
best  to  go  into  the  stream  and  to  remove  the  putrifying  matter,  lest  its 
continuation  may  spoil  the  water  and  affect  the  health  of  the  people  using 
it.  An  omission  to  do  this  act  is  a  sin  from  a  Zoroastrian  point  of  view.  At 
the  bottom  of  a  Parsee’s  custom  of  disposing  of  the  dead,  and  at  the  bottom 
of  all  the  strict  religious  ceremonies  enjoined  therewith,  lies  the  one  main 
principle,  viz.,  that,  preserving  all  possible  respect  for  the  dead,  the  body, 
after  its  separation  from  the  immortal  soul,  should  be  disposed  of  in  a  way 
the  least  harmful  and  the  least  injurious  to  the  living.  The  homely  proverb 
“  cleanliness  is  godliness  ”  is  nowhere  more  recommended  than  in  the  Par¬ 
see  religious  books,  which  teach  that  the  cleanliness  of  body  will  lead  to 
and  help  the  cleanliness  of  mind. 

We  now  come  to  the  question  of  wealth,  poverty,  and  labor.  As  Hero¬ 
dotus  said,  a  Parsee,  before  praying  for  himself,  prays  for  his  sovereign  and 
for  his  community,  for  he  is  himself  included  in  the  community.  His 
religious  precepts  teach  him  to  drown  his  individuality  in  the  common 
interests  of  his  community.  He  is  to  consider  himself  as  a  part  and  parcel 
of  the  whole  community.  The  good  of  the  whole  will  be  the  good — and 
that  a  solid  good — of  the  parts.  In  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Yasna,  which 
contains,  as  it  were,  Zoroastrian  articles  of  faith,  a  Zoroastrian  promises  to 
preserve  a  perfect  brotherhood.  He  promises,  even  at  the  risk  of  his  life, 
to  protect  the  life  and  the  property  of  all  members  of  his  community, 
and  to  help  in  the  cause  that  would  bring  about  their  prosperity  and  wel¬ 
fare.  It  is  with  these  good  feelings  of  brotherhood  and  charity  that  the 
Parsee  community  has  endowed  large  funds  for  benevolent  and  charitable 
purposes.  If  the  rich  Parsees  of  the  future  generations  were  to  follow  in 
the  footsteps  of  their  ancestors  of  the  past  and  present  generations  in  the 
matter  of  giving  liberal  donations  for  the  good  of  the  deserving  poor  of 
their  community,  one  can  say  that  there  would  be  very  little  cause  for  the 
socialists  to  complain  from  a  poor  man’s  point  of  view.  It  is  these  notions 


182 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  charity  and  brotherhood  that  have  urged  them  to  start  public  funds  for 
the  general  good  of  the  whole  community.  Men  of  all  grades  in  society 
contribute  to  these  funds  on  various  occasions.  The  rich  contribute  on 
occasions  both  of  joy  and  grief.  On  grand  occasions  like  those  of  weddings 
in  their  families  they  contribute  large  sums  in  charity  to  commemorate 
those  events.  Again,  on  the  death  of  their  dear  ones,  the  rich  and  the  poor 
all  pay  various  sums,  according  to  their  means,  in  charity.  These  sums  are 
announced  on  the  occasion  of  the  Oothumna,  or  the  ceremony  on  the  third 
day  after  death.  The  rich  pay  large  sums  on  these  occasions  to  commemo¬ 
rate  the  names  of  their  dear  ones.  In  the  Vendidad  three  kinds  of  chari¬ 
table  deeds  are  especially  mentioned  as  meritorious:  To  help  the  poor;  to 
help  a  man  to  marry  and  thus  enable  him  to  lead  a  virtuous  and  honorable 
life,  and  to  give  education  to  those  who  are  in  search  of  it.  If  one  were  to 
look  to  the  long  list  of  Parsee  charities,  headed  by  that  of  that  prince  of 
Parsee  charity'  the  first  Parsee  baronet,  he  will  find  these  three  kinds  of 
charity  especially  attended  to.  The  religious  training  of  a  Parsee  does  not 
restrict  his  ideas  of  brotherhood  and  charity  to  his  own  community  alone. 
He  extends  his  charity  to  non-Zoroastrians  as  well. 

The  qualifications  of  a  good  husband,  from  a  Zo  roastrian  point  of  view 
are  that  he  must  be  (1)  young  and  handsome;  (2)  strong,  brave,  and  healthy; 
(3)  diligent  and  industrious,  so  as  to  maintain  his  wife  and  children;  (4) 
truthful,  as  would  prove  true  to  herself,  and  true  to  all  others  with  whom  he 
would  come  in  contact,  and  is  wise  and  educated.  A  wise,  intelligent,  and 
educated  husband  is  compared  to  a  fertile  piece  of  land  which  gives  a  plen¬ 
tiful  crop,  whatever  kind  of  seeds  are  sown  in  it.  The  qualifications  of  a 
good  wife  are  that  she  be  wise  and  educated,  modest  and  courteous,  obedient 
and  chaste.  Obedience  to  her  husband  is  the  first  duty  of  a  Zoroastrian 
wife.  It  is  a  great  virtue,  deserving  all  praise  and  reward.  Disobedience  is 
a  great  sin,  punishable  after  death. 

According  to  the  Sad-dar,  a  wife  that  expressed  a  desire  to  her  husband 
three  times  a  day — in  the  morning,  afternoon,  and  evening — to  be  one  with 
him  in  thoughts,  words,  and  deeds,  i.  e.,  to  sympathize  with  him  in  all  bis 
noble  aspirations,  pursuits,  and  desires,  performed  as  meritorious  an  act  as 
that  of  saying  her  prayers  three  times  a  day.  She  must  wish  to  be  of  the 
same  view  with  him  in  all  his  noble  pursuits,  and  ask  him  every  day, 
“  What  are  your  thoughts,  so  that  I  may  be  one  with  you  in  those  thoughts? 
What  are  your  words,  so  that  I  may  be  one  with  you  in  your  speech?  What 
are  your  deeds,  so  that  I  may  be  one  with  you  in  deeds?  ”  A  Zoroastrian  wife 
so  affectionate  and  obedient  to  her  husband  was  held  in  great  respect,  not 
only  by  the  husband  and  household,  but  in  society  as  well.  As  Dr.  West 
says,  though  a  Zoroastrian  wife  was  asked  to  be  very  obedient  to  her  hus¬ 
band  she  held  a  more  respectable  position  in  society  than  that  enjoyed  by 
any  other  Oriental  religion.  As  Sir  John  Malcolm  says,  the  ordinance  of 
Zoroaster  secured  for  Zoroastrian  women  an  equal  rank  with  the  male  cre¬ 
ation.  The  progress  of  the  ancient  Persians  in  civilization  was  partly  due 
to  this  cause.  “  The  great  respect  in  which  the  female  sex  was  held  was,  no 
doubt,  the  principal  cause  of  the  progress  they  had  made  in  civilization. 
These  were  at  once  the  cause  of  generous  enterprise  and  its  reward.”  The 
advance  of  the  modern  Parsee,  the  descendants  of  the  ancient  Persians 
in  the  path  of  civilization,  is  greatly  due  to  this  cause.  As  Dr.  Haug  says' 
the  religious  books  of  the  Parsee  hold  women  on  a  level  with  men.  “  They 
are  always  mentioned  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  religious  community. 
They  have  the  same  religious  rites  as  the  men;  the  spirits  of  deceased 
women  are  invoked  as  well  as  those  of  men.”  Parsee  books  attach  as  much 
importance  to  female  education  as  to  male  education. 

Marriage  is  an  institution  which  is  greatly  encouraged  by  the  spirit  of 
the  Parsee  religion.  It  is  especially  recommended  in  the  Parsee  scriptures 
on  the  ground  that  a  married  life  is  more  likely  to  be  happy  than  an 


RELIGIOUS  SYSTEM  OF  THE  PARSEES. 


183 


unmarried  one;  that  a  married  person  is  more  likely  to  be  able  to  withstand 
physical  and  mental  afflictions  than  an  unmarried  person,  and  that  a 
married  man  is  more  likely  to  lead  a  religious  and  virtuous  life  than  an 
unmarried  one.  The  following  verse  in  the  Gatha  conveys  this  meaning; 

I  say  (these)  words  to  you  marrying  brides  and  to  you  bridegrooms.  Impress 
them  in  your  mind.  May  you  two  enjoy  the  life  of  good  mind  by  following  the 
laws  of  religion.  Let  each  one  of  you  clothe  the  other  with  righteousness,  because, 
then,  assuredly  there  will  be  a  happy  life  for  you. 

An  unmarried  person  is  represented  to  feel  as  unhappy  as  a  fertile  piece 
of  ground  that  is  carelessly  allowed  to  lie  uncultivated  by  its  owner  (Vend, 
iii.,  24).  The  fertile  piece,  when  cultivated,  not  only  adds  to  the  beauty  of 
the  spot,  but  lends  nourishment  and  food  to  many  others  round  about.  So 
a  married  couple  not  only  add  to  their  own  beauty,  grace,  and  happiness, 
but  by  their  righteousness  and  good  conduct  are  in  a  position  to  spread  the 
blessings  of  help  and  happiness  among  their  neighbors.  Marriage  being 
thus  considered  a  good  institution,  and,  being  recommended  by  the  religious 
scriptures,  it  is  considered  a  very  meritorious  act  for  a  Parsee  to  help  his 
coreligionists  to  lead  a  married  life  (Vend.,  iv.,  44.)  Several  rich  Parsees 
have,  with  this  charitable  view,  founded  endowment  funds  from  which 
young,  deserving  brides  are  given  small  sums  on  the  occasion  of  their 
marriage,  for  the  preliminary  expenses  of  starting  in  married  life. 

Fifteen  is  the  minimum  marriageable  age  spoken  of  by  the  Parsee  books. 
The  parents  have  a  voice  of  sanction  or  approval  in  the  selection  of  wives 
and  husbands.  Mutual  friends  of  parents  or  marrying  parties  may  bring 
about  a  good  selection.  Marriages  with  non-Zoroastrians  are  not  recom¬ 
mended,  as  they  are  likely  to  bring  about  quarrels  and  dissensions  owing  to 
a  difference  of  manners,  customs,  and  habits. 

We  said  above  that  the  Parsee  religion  has  made  its  disciples  tolerant 
about  the  faiths  and  beliefs  of  others.  It  has  as  well  made  them  sociable 
with  the  other  sister  communities  of  the  country.  They  mix  freely^  with 
members  of  other  faiths,  and  take  a  part  in  the  rejoicings  of  their  holidays. 
They  also  sympathize  with  them  in  their  griefs  and  afflictions,  and  in  case 
of  sudden  calamities  such  as  fire,  floods,  etc.,  they  subscribe  liberally  to 
alleviate  their  misery.  From  a  consideration  of  all  kinds  of  moral  and 
charitable  notions  inculcated  in  the  Zoroastrian  scriptures,  Francis  Power 
Cobbe,  in  his  “  Studies,  New  and  Old,  of  Ethical  and  Social  Subjects,”  says 
of  the  founder  of  the  religion: 

Should  we  in  a  future  world  be  permitted  to  hold  high  converse  with  the  great 
departed,  it  may  chance  that  in  the  Bactrian  sage,  who  lived  and  taught  almost 
before  the  dawn  of  history,  we  may  find  the  spiritual  patriarch,  to  whose  lessons 
we  have  owed  such  a  portion  of  our  intellectual  inheritance  that  wp  might  hardly 
conceive  what  human  belief  would  be  now  had  Zoroaster  never  existed. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


FOURTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  14th. 


NECESSITY  OF  RELIGION. 

So  many  people  attended  the  Parliament  of  Religions  on  the 
fourth  day  that  overflow  meetings,  both  morning  and  after¬ 
noon,  were  held  in  the  Hall  of  Washington.  As  soon  as  the 
speakers  finished  their  addresses  in  the  Hall  of  Columbus  they 
went  into  the  other  hall  and  read  them  again  to  another  large 
and  interested  audience.  On  both  platforms  were  gathered 
representatives  of  nearly  every  religion  in  the  world.  The 
[)apers  presented  covered  a  range  of  topics  so  wide  that  they 
can  not  well  be  classed  under  one  general  theme.  Jenkin  Lloyd 
Jones  presided  in  Washington  Hall  in  the  morning  and  Dr.  H. 
N.  Thomas  in  the  afternoon.  At  one  of  the  most  interesting 
periods  during  the  morning  session  a  photographer  secured  a 
view  in  the  Hall  of  Columbus,  to  preserve  for  future  genera¬ 
tions,  a  picture  of  the  great  event  of  such  momentous  interest 
to  all  mankind.  Views  similar  to  this  were  subsequently  taken. 
In  addition  to  the  hall  set  apart  for  the  elucidation  of  the 
Catholic  faith,  some  of  the  Buddhist  delegates  were  accorded 
a  room  in  which  to  explain  religion  to  all  who  might  inquire. 

In  place  of  an  evening  season  at  the  Art  Palace,  the  dis¬ 
tinguished  delegates  to  the  Parliament  of  Religions  were  tend¬ 
ered  a  reception  by  the  Board  of  Lady  Managers,  in  the 
Assembly  Hall  of  the  Woman’s  Building,  in  Jackson  Park.  The 
reverend  gentlemen  were  welcomed  by  Mrs.  Potter  Palmer, 

seated  by  whom  was  President  Palmer,  who  welcomed  the 

184 


CARDINAL  GIBBONS 


BISHOP  KEANB^S  introduction. 


185 


foreign  guests  in  the  name  of  the  National  Commission.  Rev. 
Dyonisius  Latas,  the  Archbishop  of  Greece,  being  introduced 
by  Mrs.  Palmer,  said: 

I  have  ascended  the  pulpits  of  my  church  perhaps  more  than  one 
thousand  times,  but  in  ascending  this  platform  at  the  World’s  Columbian 
Exposition  I  feel  myself  especially  honored.  I  feel  very  glad  because  every¬ 
where  I  go  I  meet  the  spirit  of  the  greatness  of  my  ancestors  of  the  old 
Greece.  I  have  been  in  the  City  of  Washington  and  having  before  me  the 
buildings  of  the  city,  I  thought  I  was  in  old  Athens.  Here  in  Chicago, 
when  I  come  within  the  precincts  of  the  Columbian  Exposition  I  think  I  am 
in  Olympia.  When  I  have  before  me  these  buildings  and  all  these  exhibi¬ 
tions  of  art,  I  think  I  am  in  the  Acropolis  before  the  Parthenon. 

Pung  Quang  Yu  and  P.  C.  Mozoomdar  also  made  interesting 
addresses. 

In  the  Hall  of  Columbus,  the  exercises  at  the  morning  ses¬ 
sion  were  inaugurated  by  silent  prayer.  Dr.  G.  H.  Barrows 
being  chairman.  The  silence  was  suspended  as  Professor 
Richie,  of  New  York,  led  in  the  universal  prayer. 


BISHOP  KEANE’S  INTRODUCTION. 

On  being  introduced  to  read  part  of  the  paper  prepared 
by  Cardinal  Gibbons,  Bishop  Keane  said: 

Cardinal  Gibbons  has  requested  me  to  express  his  sincere  regret  that 
he  is  not  able  to  be  present  this  morning.  He  showed  his  sympathy  in  the 
Parliament  of  Religions  by  being  here  at  the  opening:  he  would  gladly 
show  his  sympathy  by  being  here  every  day  during  its  continuance.  He  is 
here  with  you  in  spirit  and  affection,  and  his  prayer  is  offered  up  to 
Almighty  God  that  the  parliament  may  lead  to  God’s  own  results.  Now  as 
it  is  the  desire  of  the  parliament,  and  as  I  trust  it  will  be  recognized  all 
through,  his  eminence  desires  to  adhere  strictly  to  the  programme,  to  treat 
only  the  theme  suggested  by  the  parliament  to-day — that  is  to  say,  the 
relation  between  God  and  man,  religion,  the  link  between  the  Creator 
and  the  created.  Whoever  has  watched  the  career  of  Cardinal  Gibbons 
must  have  remarked  that  he  is  pre-eminently  a  practical  man.  He  always 
takes  a  practical  view  of  things;  even  in  regard  to  the  supernatural  he 
always  asks,  “Willit  work?  ’’ 

Profoundly  blessed  as  he  is  in  what  I  may  call  the  divine  philosophy  of 
religion,  he  prefers  always  to  regard  it  with  practical  eyes.  Knowing  that 
religion  is  the  gift  of  the  Creator  to  His  creatures,  he  knows  that  religion 
was  given  by  the  Creator  in  order  to  benetit  and  bless  His  creatures.  So 
Cardinal  Gibbons  looks  and  asks:  How  does  religion  bless  mankind?  That 
is  the  way  he  is  going  to  view  the  great  subject  this  morning.  How 
does  the  Christian  religion,  how  does  the  Catholic  Church  as  the  divinely 
appointed  exponent  of  Christian  religion,  bless  mankind,  enlightening  man, 
punfying  man,  comforting  man.  improving  man’s  condition  here  below  and 
leading  him  to  happiness  hereafter?  It  is  in  this  practical  light,  there¬ 
fore,  the  cardinal  will  now  answer  the  question,  “The  Needs  of  Humanity 
Supplied  by  the  Catholic  Religion.” 


186 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


CARDINAL  GIBBONS’  MESSAGE. 

The  bishop  then  read  Cardinal  Gibbons’  paper  as  follows: 

We  live  and  move  and  have  our  being  in  the  midst  of  a  civilization 
which  is  the  legitimate  offspring  of  the  Catholic  religion.  The  blessings 
resulting  from  our  Christian  civilization  are  poured  out  so  regularly  and  so 
abundantly  on  the  intellectual,  moral,  and  social  world,  like  the  sunlight 
and  the  air  of  heaven  and  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  that  they  have  ceased  to 
excite  any  surprise  except  to  those  who  visit  lands  where  the  religion 
of  Christ  is  little  known.  In  order  to  realize  adequately  our  favored 
situation  we  should  transport  ourselves  in  spirit  to  anti-Christian  times 
and  contrast  the  condition  of  the  pagan  world  with  our  own. 

Before  the  advent  of  Christ  the  whole  world,  with  the  exception  of  the 
secluded  Roman  province  of  Palestine,  was  buried  in  idolatry.  Every  strik¬ 
ing  object  in  nature  had  its  tutelary  divinities.  Men  worshiped  the  sun 
and  moon  and  stars  of  heaven.  They  worshiped  their  very  passions.  They 
w^orshiped  everything  except  God,  to  whom  alone  divine  homage  is  due.  In 
the  words  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles:  “  They  changed  the  glory  of  the 
incorruptible  God  into  the  likeness  of  the  corruptible  man,  and  of  birds  and 
beasts  and  creeping  things.  They  worshiped  and  served  the  creature  rather 
than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  forever.” 

But  at  last  the  great  light  for  which  the  prophets  of  Israel  had  sighed 
and  prayed,  and  toward  which  even  the  pagan  sages  had  stretched  forth 
their  hands  with  eager  longing,  arose  and  shone  unto  them  “that  sat  in 
darkness  and  the  shadow  of  death.”  The  truth  concerning  our  Creator, 
which  had  hitherto  been  hidden  in  Judea,  that  there  it  might  be  sheltered 
from  the  world-wide  idolatry,  was  now  proclaimed,  and  in  far  greater  clear¬ 
ness  and  fullness,  unto  the  whole  world.  Jesus  Christ  taught  all  mankind 
to  know  the  one  true  God — a  God  existing  from  eternity  to  eternity,  a  God 
who  created  all  things  by  His  power,  who  governs  all  things  by  His  wis¬ 
dom,  and  whose  superintending  Providence  watches  over  the  affairs  of 
nations  as  well  as  of  men,  “  without  whom  not  even  a  bird  falls  to  the 
ground.”  He  proclaimed  a  God  infinitely  holy,  just,  and  merciful.  This 
idea  of  the  Deity  so  consonant  to  our  rational  conceptions  was  in  striking 
contrast  with  the  low  and  sensual  notions  which  the  pagan  world  had 
formed  of  its  divinities. 

The  religion  of  Christ  imparts  to  us  not  only  a  sublime  conception  of 
God,  bu.t  also  a  rational  idea  of  man  and  his  relations  to  his  Creator. 
Before  the  coming  of  Christ  man  was  a  riddle  and  a  mystery  to  himself. 
He  knew  not  whence  he  came  nor  whither  he  was  going.  He  was  groping  in 
the  dark.  All  he  knew  for  certain  was  that  he  was  passing  through  a  brief 
phase  of  existence.  The  past  and  the  future  were  enveloi)ed  in  a  mist, 
which  the  light  of  philosophy  was  unable  to  penetrate.  Our  Redeemer  has 
dispelled  the  cloud  and  enlightened  us  regarding  our  origin  ‘and  destiny, 
and  the  means  of  attaining  it.  He  has  rescued  man  from  the  frightful  laby¬ 
rinth  of  error  in  which  paganism  had  involved  him. 

The  gospel  of  Christ  as  propounded  by  the  Catholic  Church  has  brought 
not  only  light  to  the  intellect,  but  comfort  also  to  the  heart.  It  has  given 
us  “that  peace  of  God  which  surpasseth  all  understanding” — the  peace 
which  springs  from  the  conscious  possession  of  truth.  It  has  taught  us 
how  to  enjoy  that  triple  peace  which  constitutes  true  happiness,  as  far  as  it 
is  attainable  in  this  life  —  peace  with  God  by  the  observance  of  His  com¬ 
mandments;  peace  with  our  neighbor  by  the  exercise  of  charity  and  justice 
toward  him  and  peace  with  ourselves  by  repressing  our  inordinate  appetites 
and  keeping  our  passions  subject  to  the  law  of  reason  and  our  reason 
illumined  and  controlled  by  the  law  of  God. 

All  other  religious  systems  prior  to  the  advent  of  Christ  were  national, 


CARDINAL  GIBBONS'  MESSAGE. 


187 


like  Judaism,  or  state  religions  like  Paganism.  The  Catholic  religion  alone 
is  world-wide  and  cosmopolitan,  embracing  all  races  and  nations,  and 
peoples  and  tongues. 

Christ  alone,  of  all  religious  founders,  had  the  courage  to  say  to  his 
disciples,  “Go,  teach  all  nations.”  “Preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.” 
“  You  shall  be  witness  to  Me  in  Judea  and  Samaria,  and  even  to  the  utter¬ 
most  bounds  of  the  earth.”  Be  not  restrained  in  your  mission  by  national 
or  state  lines.  Let  my  gospel  be  as  free  and  universal  as  the  air  of  heaven. 
“  The  earth  is  the  Lord's  and  the  fullness  thereof.”  All  mankind  are  the 
children  of  my  Father  and  my  brethren.  I  have  died  for  all,  and  embi’ace 
all  in  my  charity.  Let  the  whole  human  race  be  your  audience  and  the 
world  be  the  theater  of  your  labors. 

It  is  this  recognition  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of 
Christ  that  has  inspired  the  Catholic  Church  in  her  mission  of  love  and 
benevolence.  This  is  the  secret  of  her  all-ijervading  charity.  This  idea  has 
been  her  impelling  motive  in  her  work  of  the  social  regeneration  of  man¬ 
kind.  I  behold,  she  says,  in  every  human  creature  a  child  of  God  and  a 
brother  and  sister  of  Christ,  and  therefore  I  will  protect  helpless  infancy 
and  decrepit  old  age.  I  will  feed  the  orphan  and  nurse  the  sick.  I  will 
strike  the  shackles  from  the  feet  of  the  slave  and  will  rescue  degraded 
women  from  the  moral  bondage  and  degradation  to  which  her  own  frailty 
and  the  passions  of  the  stronger  sex  had  consigned  her. 

Montesquieu  has  well  said  that  the  religion  of  Christ,  which  was  insti¬ 
tuted  to  lead  men  to  eternal  life,  has  contributed  more  than  any  other 
institution  to  promote  the  temporal  and  social  happiness  of  mankind.  The 
object  cf  this  Parliament  of  Religions  is  to  present  to  thoughtful,  earnest, 
and  inquiring  minds  the  respective  claims  of  the  various  religions,  with  the 
view  that  they  would  “prove  all  things  and  hold  that  which  is  good,”  by 
embracing  that  religion  which  above  all  others  commends  itself  to  their 
judgment  and  conscience.  I  am  not  engaged  in  this  search  for  the  truth, 
for,  by  the  grace  of  God,  I  am  conscious  that  I  have  found  it,  and  instead 
of  hiding  this  treasure  in  my  own  breast  I  long  to  share  it  with  others,  espe¬ 
cially  as  I  am  none  the  poorer  in  making  others  the  richer. 

But,  for  my  part,  were  I  occupied  in  this  investigation,  much  as  I  would 
be  drawn  toward  the  Catholic  Ciiurch  by  her  admirable  unity  of  faith 
which  binds  together  250,000,000  of  souls;  much  as  I  would  be  attracted 
toward  her  oy  her  sublime  moral  code,  by  her  world-wide  catholicity  and 
by  that  unbroken  chain  of  apostolic  succession  which  connects  her  indis¬ 
solubly  with  apostolic  times,  I  would  be  drawn  still  more  forcibly  toward 
her  by  that  wonderful  system  of  organized  benevolence  which  she  has 
established  for  the  alleviation  and  comfort  of  suffering  humanity. 

Let  us  briefly  review  what  the  Catholic  Church  has  done  for  the  eleva¬ 
tion  and  betterment  of  society. 

1.  The  Catholic  Church  has  purified  society  in  its  very  fountain,  which 
is  the  marriage  bond.  She  has  invariably  proclaimed  the  unity  and  sanc¬ 
tity  and  indissolubility  of  the  marriage  tie  by  saying  with  her  founder  that 
“What  God  hath  joined  together  let  no  man  put  asunder.”  Wives  and 
mothers,  never  forget  that  the  inviolability  of  the  marriage  contract  is  the 
palladium  of  your  womanly  dignity  and  of  your  Christian  liberty.  And  if 
you  are  no  longer  the  slaves  of  man  and  the  toy  of  his  caprice,  like  the 
wives  of  Asiatic  countries,  but  the  peers  and  partners  of  your  husbands;  if 
you  are  no  longer  tenants  at  will  like  the  wives  of  pagan  Greece  and  Rome, 
but  the  mistresses  of  your  household;  if  you  are  no  longer  confronted  by 
usurping  rivalslike  Mohammedan  and  Mormon  wives,  but  the  queens  of  the 
domestic  kingdom,  you  are  indebted  for  this  priceless  i  oon  to  the  ancient 
church,  and  particularly  to  the  Roman  pontiffs  who  inflexibly  upheld  the 
sacredness  of  the  nuptial  bond  against  the  arbitrary  power  of  kings,  the 
lust  of  nobles,  and  the  lax  and  pernicious  legislation  of  civil  governments- 


188 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


2.  The  Catholic  religion  has  proclaimed  the  sanctity  of  human  life  as 
soon  as  the  body  is  animated  by  the  vital  spark.  Infanticide  was  a  dark 
stain  on  pagan  civilization.  It  was  universal  in  Greece,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  Thebes.  It  was  sanctioned  and  even  sometimes  enjoined  by 
such  eminent  Greeks  as  Plato  and  Aristotle,  Solon  and  Lycurgus.  The 
destruction  of  infants  was  also  very  common  among  the  Romans.  Nor  was 
there  any  legal  check  to  this  inhuman  crime,  except  at  rare  intervals.  The 
father  had  the  i)Ower  of  life  and  death  over  his  child.  And  as  an  evidence 
that  human  nature  does  not  improve  with  time  and  is  everywhere  the 
same  unless  ijermeated  with  the  leaven  of  Christianity,  the  wanton  sacri¬ 
fice  of  infant  life  is  probably  as  general  to-day  in  China  and  other  heathen 
countries  as  it  was  in  ancient  Greece  and  Rome.  The  Catholic  Church  has 
sternly  set  her  face  against  this  exposure  and  murder  of  innocent  babes. 
•She  has  denounced  it  as  a  crime  more  revolting  than  that  of  Herod,  because 
committed  against  one's  own  flesh  and  blood.  She  has  condemned  with 
equal  energy  the  atrocious  doctrine  of  Malthus,  who  suggested  unnatural 
methods  for  diminishing  the  population  of  the  human  family.  Were  I  not 
restrained  by  the  fear  of  offending  modesty  and  of  imparting  knowledge 
where  “  ignorance  is  bliss,”  I  would  dwell  more  at  length  on  the  social 
I)lague  of  ante-natal  infanticide,  which  is  insidiously  and  systematically 
spreading  among  us  in  defiance  of  civil  penalties  and  of  the  divine  law 
which  says,  “  Thou  shaft  not  kill.” 

.3.  There  is  no  place  of  human  misery  for  which  the  church  does  not 
provide  some  remedy  or  alleviation.  She  has  established  infant  asylums 
for  the  shelter  of  helpless  babes  who  have  been  cruelly  abandoned  by  their 
own  parents  or  bereft  of  them  in  the  mysterious  dispensations  of  Provi¬ 
dence  before  they  could  know  or  feel  a  mother’s  love.  These  little  waifs, 
like  the  infant  Moses  drifting  in  the  turbid  Nile,  are  rescued  from  an 
untimely  death  and  are  tenderly  raised  by  the  daughters  of  the  Great 
King,  those  consecrated  virgins  who  become  nursing  mothers  to  them.  And 
I  have  known  more  than  one  such  motherless  babe  who,  like  Israel’s  law¬ 
giver,  in  after  years  became  a  leader  among  his  people. 

4.  As  the  church  provides  homes  for  those  yet  on  the  threshold  of  life 
so,  too,  does  she  secure  retreats  for  those  on  the  threshold  of  death.  She 
has  asylums  in  which  the  aged,  men  and  women,  find  at  one  and  the  same 
time  a  refuge  in  their  old  age  from  the  storms  of  life  and  a  novitiate  to 
prepare  them  for  eternity.  Thus  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave  she  is  a 
nursing  mother.  She  rocks  her  children  in  the  cradle  of  infancy  and  she 
soothes  them  to  rest  on  the  couch  of  death. 

Louis  XIV.  erected  in  Paris  the  famous  Hotel  des  Invalides  for  the 
veteran  soldiers  of  Prance  who  had  fought  in  the  service  of  their  country. 
And  so  has  the  Catholic  religion  provided  for  those  who  have  been  disabled 
in  the  battle  of  a  life  a  home  in  which  they  are  tenderly  nursed  in  their 
declining  years  by  devoted  sisters. 

The  Little  Sisters  of  the  Poor,  whose  congregation  was  founded  in  1840, 
ht?,ve  now  charge  of  250  establishments  in  different  parts  of  the  globe,  the 
aged  inmates  of  those  houses  numbering  30,000,  upward  of  70,000  having 
died  under  their  care  up  to  1889.  To  the  asylums  are  welcomed  not  only 
the  members  of  the  Catholic  religion  but  those  also  of  every  form  of 
Christian  faith,  and  even  those  without  any  faith  at  all.  The  sisters  make 
no  distinction  of  persons  or  nationality  or  color  or  creed,  for  true  Christian¬ 
ity  embraces  all.  The  only  question  proposed  by  the  sisters  to  the  aptpli- 
cant  for  shelter  is  this:  Are  you  oppressed  by  age  and  penury?  If  so,  come 
to  us  and  we  will  provide  for  you. 

5.  She  has  orphan  asylums  where  children  of  both  sexes  are  reared  and 
taught  to  become  useful  and  worthy  members  of  society. 

6.  Hospitals  were  unknown  to  the  pagan  world  before  the  coming  of 
Christ.  The  copious  vocabularies  of  Greece  and  Rome  had  no  word  evep 
to  ex])ress  that  term. 


CARDINAL  GIBBONS'  MESSAGE. 


189 


rhe  Catholic  Church  has  hospitals  for  the  treatment  and  cure  of  every 
.^rm  of  disease,  She  sends  her  daughters  of  charity  and  of  mercy  to  the 
battlefield  and  to  the  plague-stricken  city.  During  the  Crimean  War  I 
remember  to  have  read  of  a  sister  who  was  struck  dead  by  a  ball  while  she 
was  in  the  act  of  stooping  down  and  bandaging  the  wound  of  a  fallen  soldier. 
Much  praise  was  then  deservedly  bestowed  on  Florence  Nightingale  for  her 
devotion  to  the  sick  and  wounded  soldiers.  Her  name  resounded  in  both 
hemispheres.  But  in  every  sister  you  have  a  Florence  Nightingale,  with 
this  difference — that,  like  ministering  angels,  they  move  without  noise  along 
the  path  of  duty;  and,  like  the  angel  Raphael,  who  concealed  his  name  from 
Tobias,  the  sister  hides  her  name  from  the  world. 

Several  years  ago  I  accompanied  to  New  Orleans  eight  Sisters  of  Charity, 
who  were  sent  from  Baltimore  to  reinforce  the  ranks  of  their  heroic  com¬ 
panions  or  to  supply  the  places  of  their  devoted  associates  who  had  fallen 
at  the  post  of  duty  in  the  fever-stricken  cities  of  the  South.  Their  depart¬ 
ure  for  the  scene  of  their  labors  was  neither  announced  by  the  press  nor 
heralded  by  public  applause.  They  rushed  calmly  into  the  jaws  of  death 
not  bent  on  deeds  of  destruction  like  the  famous  600,  but  on  deeds  of 
mercy.  They  had  no  Tennyson  to  sound  their  praises.  Their  only  ambi¬ 
tion  was — and  how  lofty  is  that  ambition! — that  the  Recording  Angel  might 
be  their  biographer;  that  their  names  might  be  inscribed  in  the  Book  of 
Life,  and  that  they  might  receive  their  recompense  from  Him  who  has 
said:  “  I  was  sick  and  ye  visited  Me,  for  as  often  as  ye  did  it  to  one  of  the 
least  of  My  brethren  ye  did  it  to  Me.”  Within  a  few  months  after  their 
arrival  six  of  the  eight  sisters  died,  victims  of  the  epidemic. 

These  are  a  few  of  the  many  instances  of  heroic  charity  that  have  fallen 
under  my  own  observation.  Here  are  examples  of  sublime  heroism  not 
culled  from  the  musty  pages  of  ancient  martyrologies  or  books  of  chivalry, 
but  happening  in  our  own  day  and  under  our  own  eyes.  Here  is  a  heroism  not 
aroused  by  the  emulation  of  brave  comrades  on  the  battlefield,  or  by  the 
clash  of  arms  or  the  strains  of  martial  hymns,  or  by  the  love  for  earthly 
fame,  but  inspired  only  by  a  sense  of  Christian  duty  and  by  the  love  of 
God  and  her  fellow-beings. 

7.  The  Catholic  religion  labors  not  only  to  assuage  the  physical  distem¬ 
pers  of  humanity  but  ^also  to  reclaim  the  victims  of  moral  disease.  The 
redemption  of  fallen  women  from  a  life  of  infamy  was  never  included  in 
the  scope  of  heathen  philanthropy;  and  man’s  regenerate  nature  is  the 
same  now  as  before  the  birth  of  Christ. 

He  worships  woman  as  long  as  she  has  charms  to  fascinate,  but  she  is 
spurned  and  trampled  upon  as  soon  as  she  has  ceased  to  please.  It  was 
reserved  for  Him  who  knew  no  sin  to  throw  the  mantle  of  protection 
over  sinning  woman.  There  is  no  page  in  the  gospel  more  touching  than 
that  which  records  our  Savior’s  merciful  judgment  on  the  adulterous 
woman.  The  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  had  perhaps  participated  in  her 
guilt,  asked  our  Lord  to  pronounce  sentence  of  death  upon  her  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  Mosaic  law.  “Hath  no  one  condemned  thee?”  asked  our 
Savior.  “No  one,  Lord,”  she  answered.  “Then,”  said  He,  “neither  will  I 
condemn  thee.  Go,  sin  no  more.” 

Inspired  by  the  divine  example,  the  Catholic  Church  shelters  erring 
females  in  homes  not  inappropriately  called  Magdalena  Asylums  and 
Houses  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  not  to  speak  of  other  institutions  estab¬ 
lished  for  the’moral  reformation  of  women.  The  congregation  of  the  Good 
Shepherd  at  Angers,  founded  in  1836,  has  charge  to-day  of  150  houses,  in 
which  upward  of  4,000  sisters  devote  themselves  to  the  care  of  over  20,000 
females  who  had  yielded  to  temptation  or  were  rescued  from  impending 
danger. 

8.  The  Christian  religion  has  been  the  unvarying  friend  and  advocate  of 
the  bondman.  Before  the  dawn  of  Christianity  slavery  was  universal  in 


190 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


civilized  as  well  as  in  barbarous  nations.  The  apostles  were  everywhere 
confronted  by  the  children  of  oppression.  Their  first  task  was  to  mitigate 
the  horrors  and  alleviate  the  miseries  of  human  bondage.  They  cheered 
the  slave  by  holding  up  to  him  the  example  of  Christ,  who  voluntarily 
became  a  slave  that  we  might  enjoy  the  glorious  liberty  of  children  of  God. 
The  bondman  had  an  equal  participation  with  his  master  in  the  sacraments 
of  the  church  and  in  the  priceless^consolation  which  religion  affords. 

Slave-owners  were  admonished  to  be  kind  and  humane  to  their  slaves 
by  being  reminded,  with  apostolic  freedom,  that  they  and  their  servants 
had  the  same  Master  in  heaven,  who  had  no  respect  of  persons.  The  minis¬ 
ters  of  the  Catholic  religion  down  the  ages  sought  to  lighten  the  burden 
and  imx^rove  the  condition  of  the  slave  as  far  as  social  prejudice  would  per¬ 
mit,  till  at  length  the  chains  fell  from  their  feet. 

Human  slavery  has,  at  last,  thank  God!  melted  away  before  the  noonday 
sun  of  the  gospel.  No  Christian  country  contains  to-day  a  solitary  slave. 
To  jmraxjhrase  the  words  of  a  distinguished  Irish  jurist,  as  soon  as  the 
bondman  puts  his  foot  in  a  Christian  land  he  stands  redeemed,  regenerated, 
and  disenthralled  on  the  sacred  soil  of  Christendom. 

9.  The  Savior  of  mankind  never  conferred  a  greater  temporal  boon  on 
mankind  than  by  ennobling  and  sanctifying  manual  labor  and  by  rescuing 
it  from  the  stigma  of  degradation  which  had  been  branded  upon  it.  Before 
Christ  appeared  among  men  manual  and  even  mechanical  work  was  regarded 
as  servile  and  degrading  to  the  freemen  of  pagan  Rome,  and  was  conse¬ 
quently  relegated  to  slaves.  Christ  is  ushered  into  the  world,  not  amid  the 
pomp  and  splendor  of  imperial  majesty,  but  amid  the  environments  of  an 
humble  child  of  toil.  He  is  the  reputed  son  of  an  artisan,  and  His  early 
manhood  is  spent  in  a  mechanic’s  shop.  “  Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the 
son  of  Mary?”  The  primeval  curse  attached  to  labor  is  obliterated  by  the 
toilsome  life  of  Jesus  Christ.  Ever  since  He  pursued  His  trade  as  a  carpen¬ 
ter  He  has  lightened  the  mechanic’s  tools  and  has  shed  a  halo  around  the 
workshoxj. 

If  the  x^rofession  of  a  general,  a  jurist,  and  a  statesman  is  adorned  by 
the  example  of  a  Washington,  a  Taney,  and  a  Burke,  how  much  more  is  the 
calling  of  a  workman  ennobled  by  the  example  of  Christ.  What  De  Toc- 
queville  said  sixty  years  ago  of  the  United  States  is  true  to-day — that  with 
us  every  honest  labor  is  laudable,  thanks  to  the  example  and  teaching  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

To  sum  up:  The  Catholic  Church  has  taught  man  the  knowledge  of 
God  and  of  himself,  she  has  brought  comfort  to  his  heart  by  instructing 
him  to  bear  the  ills  of  life  with  Christian  philosophy,  she  has  sanctified  the 
marriage  bond,  she  has  proclaimed  the  sanctity  and  inviolability  of  human 
life  from  the  moment  that  the  body  is  animated  by  the  spark  of  life  till  it  is 
extinguished,  she  has  founded  asylums  for  the  training  of  children  of  both 
sexes  and  for  the  support  of  the  aged  poor,  she  has  established  hospitals  for 
the  sick  and  homes  for  the  redemxjtion  of  fallen  women,  she  has  exerted  her 
influence  toward  mitigation  and  abolition  of  human  slavery,  she  has  been 
the  unwavering  friend  of  the  sons  of  toil.  These  are  some  of  the  blessings 
which  the  Catholic  Church  has  conferred  on  society. 

I  will  not  deny,  on  the  contrary,  I  am  happy  to  avow,  that  the  various 
Christian  bodies  outside  the  Catholic  Church  have  been,  and  are  to-day, 
zealous  promoters  of  most  of  these  works  of  Christian  benevolence  which  I 
have  enumerated.  Not  to  speak  of  the  innumerable  humanitarian  houses 
established  by  our  non-Catholic  brethren  throughout  the  land,  I  bear 
cheerful  testimony  to  the  philanthropic  institutions  founded  by  Wilson 
and  Shepherd,  by  John  Hopkins,  Enoch  Pratt,  and  George  Peabody  in  the 
City  of  Baltimore.  But  will  not  our  separated  brethren  have  the  candor 
to  acknowledge  that  we  had  first  possession  of  the  field,  that  these  benefi¬ 
cent  movements  have  been  inaugurated  by  us,  and  that  the  other  Christian 


RELIGION  CHARACTERISTIC  OF  HUMANITY. 


191 


communities  in  their  noble  efforts  for  the  moral  and  social  regenera  ion  of 
mankind  have,  in  no  small  measure,  been  stimulated  by  the  example  and 
emulation  of  the  ancient  church. 

Let  us  do  all  we  can,  in  our  day  and  generation,  in  the  cause  of  human¬ 
ity.  Every  man  has  a  mission  from  God  to  help  his  fellow-being.  Though 
we  differ  in  faith,  thank  God,  there  is  one  platform  on  which  we  stand 
united,  and  that  is  the  platform  of  charity  and  benevolence.  We  can  not 
indeed,  like  our  Divine  Master,  give  sight  to  the  blind  and  hearing  to  the 
deaf,  and  speech  to  the  dumb,  and  strength  to  the  paralyzed  limb,  but  we 
can  work  miracles  of  grace  and  mercy  by  relieving  the  distress  of  our 
suffering  brethren.  And  never  do  we  approach  nearer  to  our  Heavenly 
Father  than  when  we  alleviate  the  sorrows  of  others.  Never  do  we  perform 
an  act  more  godlike  than  when  we  bring  sunshine  to  hearts  that  are  dark 
and  desolate.  Never  are  we  more  like  to  God  than  when  we  cause  the 
flowers  of  joy  and  gladness  to  bloom  in  souls  that  were  dry  and  barren 
before.  “Religion,”  says  the  apostle,  “pure  and  undefiled  before  God  and 
the  father,  is  this:  to  visit  the  fatherless  and  the  widow  in  their  tribulation 
and  to  keep  oneself  unspotted  from  this  world.”  Or  to  borrow  the  words 
of  the  pagan  Cicero:  “  Homines  ad  Deos  nulla  re  propius  accedunt  quam 
salutem  hominibus  dando.”  “There  is  no  way  by  which  man  can  approach 
nearer  to  the  gods  than  by  contributing  to  the  welfare  of  their  fellow 
creatures.” 

When  the  applause  which  followed  the  close  of  Cardinal 
Gibbons’  paper  died  away,  Bishop  Keane  said: 

And  thus  it  is  that  Cardinal  Gibbons  has  stated  the  question  of 
to-day’s  parliament;  thus  it  is  that  he  has  tried  to  ascertain  by  applying 
the  test  which  the  Son  of  God  taught  us  to  apply,  “  by  their  fruit  ye  shall 
know  them,”  whether  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  and  of  his  own  church 
is,  indeed,  divine,  because  it  fills  humanity,  fits  into  the  whole  of  human  life, 
and  blesses,  ennobles,  purifies,  and  elevates  it  all.  Therefore  he  says:  “To 
the  eye  not  only  of  speculative  philosophy  but  of  practical  common  sense 
the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  and  of  his  own  church  is  the  religion  of 
humanity.” 


RELIGION  ESSENTIALLY  CHARACTERISTIC  OF 

HUMANITY. 

KEY.  LYMAN  ABBOTT,  D.D.,  SUCCESSOR  TO  HENRY  WARD 

BEECHER. 

To  adequately  elucidate  the  meaning  of  this  phrase,  which  has  been 
given  me  as  my  title,  and  to  attempt  to  demonstrate  the  truth  which  it 
expresses,  would  require  a  wealth  of  scholarship  which  I  do  not  possess 
and  a  length  of  time  which  it  is  impossible  shall  be  accorded  to  any  one 
topic  on  such  an  occasion  as  this.  I  shall  not  occupy  your' time  in  any 
words  of  introduction  or  peroration,  nor  shall  I  attempt  the  truth  of  the 
proposition  which  I  have  been  asked  to  speak  to.  I  shall  simply  endeavor, 
in  a  series  of  statements,  to  elucidate  and  interpret,  and,  in  some  small 
measure,  apply  it. 

Religion,  then — and  you  will  pardon  me  if  I  speak  in  dogmatic  phrase¬ 
ology;  I  am  giving  you  my  convictions,  and  it  will  be  egotistic,  as  well  as 
needless,  for  me  to  interpolate  continually  “this  is  what  I  think”— religion 
is  essential  to  humanity.  It  is  not  a  something  or  a  somewhat  external  to 
man.  It  is  an  essential  life  of  man.  It  is  not  a  something  apart  from  him 


192 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


vvhich  has  been  imposed  upon  him  by  priests  or  hierarchies  here  or  any¬ 
where.  It  is  not  a  fungus  growth  that  does  not  belong  to  his  nature.  The 
power,  the  baneful  power  of  superstition  lies  in  the  very  fact  that  man  is 
religious  and  that  his  religious  nature,  inherent  in  him,  has  been  too  often 
played  upon  by  evil  or  ignorant  men  for  base  VDr  selfish  purposes.  But  this 
does  not  counterpart  the  truth  that  religion  itself  is  an  essential  integral 
I)art  of  his  own  inherent  nature.  Religion  is  not  a  something  or  a  some¬ 
what  which  has  been  conferred  upon  him  by  any  cultus,  by  any  hierarchy, 
by  any  set  of  religious  teachers.  It  has  not  been  handed  down  from  the 
past  to  him. 

Religion  is  the  mother  of  all  religions,  not  the  child.  The  White  City 
at  yonder  end  of  Chicago  is  not  the  mrent  of  architecture;  architecture  is 
the  parent  of  the  White  City.  AndTlie  temples  and  the  priests  and  the 
rituals  that  cover  this  round  globe  of  ours  have  not  made  religion,  they 
have  been  born  of  the  religion  that  is  inherent  in  the  soul.  Religion  is  not 
the  exceptional  gift  of  exceptional  geniuses.  It  is  not  what  men  have 
sometimes  thought  poetry  or  art  or  music  to  be,  a  thing  that  belongs  to  a 
favored  few  great  men.  It  is  the  universal  characteristic  of  humanity.  It 
belongs  to  man  as  man.  Religion  is  not  a  somewhat  that  has  been  conferred 
upon  him  by  any  supernatural  act  of  irresistible  grace  either  upon  an  elect 
few  or  an  elect  many.  Still  less  is  it  a  somewhat  that  has  been  conferred 
upon  a  few,  so  that  the  many,  strive  never  so  hard  to  conform  their  lives  to 
the  light  of  nature,  unless  aided  by  some  supernatural  or  extraordinary 
acts  of  grace,  can  never  attain  to  it.  Religion  belongs  to  man  and  is  inherent 
in  man. 

If  I  may  be  allowed  to  use  the  terminology  of  our  own  theology,  it  is  not 
conferred  upon  man  in  redemption,  it  is  conferred  upon  man  in  creation. 
It  was  not  first  brought  into  existence  at  Mount  Sinai,  it  was  not  first 
brought  into  existence  at  Bethlehem.  Christ  came  not  to  create  religion, 
but  to  develop  the  religion  that  was  already  in  the  human  soul.  In  the 
beginning  God  breathed  the  breath  of  life  into  man,  and  into  every  man, 
and  all  men  have  something  of  that  divine  breath  in  them.  They  may 
stifle  it,  they  may  refuse  to  olDey  that  to  which  it  calls  them,  but  still  it  is 
in  them.  They  are  children  of  God  whether  they  know  it  or  know  it  not. 
And  to  their  God  they  are  drawn  by  a  power  like  that  which  draws  the 
earth  to  the  sun. 

Religion,  that  is,  the  power  of  perceiving  the  infinite  and  the  eternal,  is 
a  characteristic  of  man,  as  man.  Man  is  a  wonderful  machine.  This  body 
of  his  is,  I  suppose,  the  most  marvelous  mechanism  in  the  world.  Man  is 
an  animal,  linked  to  the  animal  race  by  his  instincts,  his  appetites,  his 
passions,  his  social  nature.  He  has  all  that  the  animal  possesses,  only  in  a 
higher  and  larger  degree;  but  he  is  more  than  a  machine,  he  is  more  than 
an  animal.  He  is  linked  to  more  than  the  earth  from  which  he  was 
formed;  he  is  more  than  the  animal  from  which  he  was  produced;  he  is 
linked  to  the  divine  and  the  eternal.  He  has  in  him  a  faith,  a  hope,  and 
love— a  faith  which,  if  it  does  not  always  see  the  infinite,  at  all  events 
always  tries  to  see  the  infinite,  groping  after  Him  if  happily  he  may 
find  Him  —  a  hope  which  if  it  be  sometimes  elusive,  nevertheless 
beckons  him  on  to  higher  and  higher  achievements  in  character  and 
in  condition  —  a  love  which,  beginning  in  the  cradle,  binding  him  to 
his  mother,  widens  in  ever  broadening  circles  as  life  enlarges,  including  the 
children  of  the  home,  the  villagers,  the  tribe,  the  nation,  at  last  reaching 
out  and  taking  in  the  whole  human  race,  and  in  all  of  this  learning  that 
there  is  a  still  larger  life  in  which  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being, 
toward  which  we  tend  and  by  which  we  are  fed  and  are  inspired. 

Max  Mueller  has  defined  religion  —  I  quote  from  memory,  but  I  believe 
I  quote  with  substantial  accuracy  —  as  a  perception  of  such  a  manifesta¬ 
tion  of  the  infinite  as  produces  an  effect  upon  the  moral  character  an^ 


RELIGION  CHARACTERISTIC  OF  HUMANITY. 


193 


conduct  of  man.  It  is  not  merely  the  moral  character  and  conduct:  That 
is  ethics.  It  is  not  merely  a  perception  of  the  infinite:  That  is  theology. 
It  is  such  a  perception  of  the  infinite  as  produces  an  infiuence  on  the  moral 
character  and  conduct  of  man:  That  is  religion. 

My  proposition  then  is  this:  That  in  every  man  there  is  an  inherent 
capacity  so  to  perceive  the  infinite,  and  to  every  man  on  this  round  globe 
of  ours  God  has  so  manifested  himself  in  nature  and  in  inward  experience, 
as  that,  taking  that  manifestation  on  the  one  hand  and  a  power  of  per¬ 
ception  on  the  other,  the  moral  character  and  the  conduct  of  man,  if  he 
follows  the  light  that  he  receives,  will  be  steadily  improved  and  enlarged 
and  enriched  in  his  upward  jjrogress  to  the  infinite  and  the  eternal.  Man 
is  conscious  of  himself  and  he  is  conscious  of  the  world  within  himself.  He 
is  conscious  of  a  perception  that  brings  him  in  touch  with  the  outer  world. 
He  is  conscious  of  reason  by  which  he  sees  the  relation  of  things.  He  is 
conscious  of  emotions,  feelings  of  hope,  of  fear,  of  love.  He  is  conscious  of 
will,  of  resolve,  of  jmrpose.  ^>metinies  painfully  conscious  of  resolves  that 
have  been  broken.  Sometimes  gladly  conscious  of  resolves  that  have  been 
kept.  And  in  all  of  this  life  he  is  conscious  of  these  things:  That  he  is  a 
perceiving,  thinking,  feeling,  willing  creature. 

He  is  also  conscious  of  the  world  outside  of  himself.  A  world  of  form, 
of  color,  of  material,  of  phenomena.  They  are  borne  in  upon  him  by  his 
perceiving  faculties.  And  he  is  also  conscious  of  a  relation  between  him¬ 
self,  this  thinking,  willing  creature  that  he  is,  and  this  outward  world  that 
impinges  upon  him.  He  is  conscious  that  the  fragrance  of  the  rose  gives 
him  pleasure  and  the  fragrance  of  the  bone-boiling  establishment  does  not 
give  him  pleasure.  He  is  conscious  that  fire  warms  him,  and  he  is  conscious 
that  fire  burns  and  stings  him.  He  is  conscious  of  hunger;  he  is  conscious 
of  t  he  satisfaction  that  comes  through  the  feeding  of  himself  when  hungry. 
He  is  brought  into  perpetual  contact  with  this  outward  world,  so  he  becomes 
conscious  of  three  things. 

First,  himself;  second,  the  not-self;  third,  the  relation  between  himself 
and  this  not-self.  And  this  relationship  is  forced  upon  him  by  every  move¬ 
ment  of  his  life.  It  begins  with  the  cradle  and  does  not  end  until  the  grave. 
Life  is  perpetually  an  impinging  upon  him,  He  himself  is  coerced  whether 
he  will  or  whether  he  will  not,  to  ascertain  what  is  the  relationship,  the 
true,  the  right,  the  just,  the  accurate  relationship  between  this  thinking, 
feeling  creature  that  he  calls  self  and  this  outward  and  material  and  phe¬ 
nomenal  world  in  the  midst  of  which  he  lives. 

In  the  pursuit  of  this  inquiry  he  begins  by  attributing  to  all  the  phe¬ 
nomena  that  impinges  upon  him  the  continuous  life  that  is  within  him. 
He  thinks  that  all  things  are  themselves  persons.  He  very  soon  learns 
from  his  grouping  together  of  this  outward  phenomena  differently.  He 
groups  them  in  classes,  he  produces  them  in  provinces,  he  becomes  poly¬ 
theistic.  He  goes  but  a  very  little  way  through  life  before  he  learns  there 
is  a  larger  unity  of  life  than  at  first  he  thought.  He  learns  that  all  phe¬ 
nomena  of  life  are  bound  together  in  some  one  common  bond.  He  learns 
that  behind  all  the  phenomena  of  nature  there  is  a  cause,  that  behind  the 
apparent  there  is  the  real,  behind  the  shadow  there  is  the  substance, 
behind  the  transitory  there  is  the  eternal.  The  old  teachers  of  the  old 
religion,  the  old  teachers  of  the  Japanese  religion,  they,  as  well  as  the  old 
teachers  of  the  Hebrew  religion,  did  see  that  truth  which  Herbert  Spencer 
has  put  in  axiomatic  form  in  these  later  days:  “Midst  all  mysteries  by 
which  we  are  surrounded,  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  we  are  in  the 
presence  of  an  infinite  and  eternal  energy  from  which  all  things  proceed.” 

Now  he  begins  to  study  this  energy,  for  the  success  of  his  life,  the  well¬ 
being  of  his  life  here,  even  if  there  were  no  hereafter,  depends  on  his 
understanding  what  are  his  relations,  not  only  to  the  related  phenomena  of 
life,  but  to  the  infinite  and  eternal  energy  from  which  all  these  phenomena 


194 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


spring.  And  in  the  study  of  this  energy  he  very  soon  discovers  that 
it  is  an  intellectual  energy.  All  the  phenomena  of  life  have  behind  them 
thought  relations.  The  world  has  not  happened;  life  is  not  a  chapter  of 
accidents;  the  universe  is  not  a  heap  of  disjected  membria;  there  is  a  unity 
which  makes  life  what  it  is.  It  is  summed  up  in  the  very  word  by  which 
we  endeavor  to  describe  all  things,  “Uni  Verse” — all  forces  combined  in 
one. 

The  relation  of  these  phenomena  one  to  the  other  he  seeks  to  learn.  He 
talks  of  laws  and  forces.  Science  is  not  merely  the  gathering  of  phenom¬ 
ena  here  and  there,  science  is  the  discovery  of  the  relations  which  exist 
between  phenomena  and  which  have  existed  through  eternity.  The  scientist 
does  not  create  those  relations,  he  discovers  them.  He  does  not  make  the 
laws,  he  finds  them.  Science  is  ,a  thought  of  man  trying  to  find  the  divine 
reality  that  is  behind  all  this  transitoriness.  Science  is  the  thinking  of  the 
thoughts  of  God  after  him.  He  perceives  art,  the  relations  of  beauty  in 
form,  in  color,  in  music.  He  endeavors  <to  discover  what  are  those  relations 
of  beauty  in  form,  in  art,  in  color.  He  does  not  create  them;  he  discovers 
them.  They  existed  before  he  came  upon  the  stage,  and  they  will  continue 
to  exist;  if  by  some  cataclasm  all  humanity  should  be  swept  off  the  stage. 
And  in  this  search  for  beauty  he  finds  there,  too,  that  he  has  perceived  the 
infinite.  Bach  knocks  at  one  door  and  out  there  issues  one  form  of  music, 
Mozart  another,  Mendelssohn  another,  Beethoven  another,  Wagner  another; 
each  one  interprets  something  of  the  beauty  that  lies  wrapt  up  in  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  sound,  and  still  the  march  goes  on,  still  the  doors  swing  open, 
still  the  notes  come  tripping  out,  still  the  music  grows  and  grows  and  grows, 
and  will  grow  while  eternity  goes  on,  for  in  music  we  are  searching  for  the 
infinite  and  eternal  whether  we  know  it  or  know  it  not. 

He  perceives,  however,  not  only  the  outward  world  of  things.  He  per¬ 
ceives  an  outward  world  of  sentient  beings  like  himself.  He  sees  about 
him  his  fellowmen,  that  they  also  perceive,  that  they  also  reason,  that  they 
also  hope  and  fear,  and  love  and  hate,  that  they  alsoi^resolve  and  break  their 
resolves  and  keep  their  resolutions.  He  sees  that  he  is  but  one  of  the  great 
company  marching  along  the  same  highway  out  of  the  great  unknown  in 
the  past  toward  the  same  great  unknown  goal  in  the  future  ;  and  he  finds, 
he  discerns,  that  there  is  a  unit  in  this  humanity.  First,  he  sees  it  in  the 
family,  then  in  the  tribes,  then  in  the  nations,  and,  last  of  all,  in  the  whole 
race.  If  there  were  no  unit  in  the  human  race,  there  could  be  no  history. 
History  is  not  the  mere  narration  of  things  that  have  happened ;  history  is 
the  evolution  of  the  progress  of  a  united  race,  coming  from  the  egg  into  the 
fulfilled  bird  of  the  future.  There  could  be  no  political  economy  if  there 
were  no  unit  in  the  human  race,  no  science,  no  religion,  no  nothing.  We 
are  not  a  mere  set  of  disintegrated,  separate  pieces  of  sand  in  one  great 
heap  which  we  are  building  up  to  be  blown  asunder.  All  humanity  is 
united  together  by  unmistakable  ties — united  with  a  power  that  far  tran¬ 
scends  the  local  temple,  the  temple  of  tribes,  or  nations,  or  creeds,  or  cir¬ 
cumstances.  And  we  thus  discern  that,  as  there  is  back  of  all  the  material 
phenomena  an  ethical  culture,  so  there  is  back  of  all  moral  phenomena 
moral  culture. 

History,  political  economy,  sociology,  the  whole  course  of  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  human  race  is  a  witness  that  there  is  not  only  an  infinite,  but 
an  eternal  energy  from  which  things  proceed,  but  an  infinite  and  eternal 
moral  energy  from  which  all  human  life  in  its  last  analysis  has  its  uni¬ 
fying  element.  Vital  man  is  compelled  to  study  what  this  bond  of  union 
is.  He  must  know  what  are  the  right  relationships  between  himself  and 
his  fellowmen.  If  he  fails,  all  sorts  of  distress  and  calamities  come  upon 
him. 

He  must  find  out  what  are  the  right  relationships  between  employer  and 
employed^  what  are  the  right  relationships  between  governor  and  governed, 


RELIGION  CHARACTERISTIC  OF  HUMANITY. 


195 


what  are  the  right  relationships  between  parent  and  children.  Again,  he 
does  not  make  them,  but  finds  out  what  they  are.  Let  Congress,  with  a 
power  of  thirty  millions  of  people  behind  it,  enact  slavery  in  the  American 
constitution;  let  the  thirty  millions  say,  “  we  will  make  a  law  that  the 
blacks'  shall  be  the  hewers  of  wood  and  the  drawers  of  water,  and  the  white 
men  shall  be  served  by  them,”  and  the  law  that  Congress  makes,  with  thirty 
millions  of  people  behind  it,  infringes  against  the  divine,  eternal  and  infin¬ 
ite  law  of  human  liberty,  and  it  goe6  down  with  one  great  clash  and  is 
buried  forever. 

So  man  is  compelled  by  the  very  nature  of  his  social  and  civil  organiza¬ 
tion  to  seek  for  an  infinite  and  eternal  behind  humanity,  an  infinite  and 
eternal  behind  the  material  and  behind  the  aesthetic.  Unconsciously  he 
has  been  seeking  for  the  divine,  but  he  awaits  the  consciousness.  He 
knows  that  there  is  a  divine  somewhat,  an  eternal  somewhat,  an  infinite 
somewhat;  an  ideal  somewhat,  if  you  like,  behind  all  material  and  behind 
all  spiritual  phenomena,  and  his  emotions  are  stirred  toward  that  some¬ 
what,  stirred  to  awe,  stirred  to  fear,  stirred  to  reverence,  stirred  to  curiosity, 
but  stirred.  So  with  temple  and  with  worship,  and  with  ritual  and  with 
priest,  he  endeavors  consciously  to  Jearn  who  and  what  this  somewhat  is 
who  draws  him  in  his  moral  resolutions  to  his  fellow-man,  who  speaks  the 
inward  voice  of  righteousness  in  the  conscience  of  the  individual. 

Thus  we  get  out  of  religion  religions — religions  that  vary  with  one 
another,  according  as  curiosity  or  fear  or  hope  or  the  ethical  element  or  the 
personal  reverence  predominates.  Religious  curiosity  wants  to  know  about 
the  infinite  and  eternal,  and  it  gives  us  creeds  and  theologies;  the  religion  of 
fear  gives  us  the  sacrificial  system  with  its  atonement  sand  propitiations;  the 
religion  of  hope  expects  some  reward  or  recompense  from  the  great  Infinite, 
and  expresses  itself  in  services  and  gifts,  with  the  expectation  of  rewards  here 
or  in  some  elysium  hereafter.  Then  there  is  the  religion  which,  although 
it  can  never  learn  the  nature  of  the  lawgiver,  still  goes  on  trying  to  under¬ 
stand  the  nature  of  his  laws ;  and,  finally,  the  religion  which  more  or  less 
clearly  sees  behind  all  this  that  there  is  one  who  is  the  ideal  of  humanity, 
the  Infinite  and  Eternal  Ruler  of  Humanity,  and  therefore  reveres  and  wor¬ 
ships,  and  last  of  all  learns  to  love. 

If,  in  this  very  brief  summary,  I  have  carried  you  with  me,  you  will  see 
that  the  object  of  man’s  search  is  not  merely  religion.  He  is  seeking  to 
know  the  infinite  and  eternal,  not  merely  the  priests  and  the  hierarchies, 
not  merely  the  men  and  women,  with  their  services,  and  their  rituals,  and 
their  prayer-books,  but  the  who’e  current  and  tendency  of  human  life  is  a 
search  for  the  infinite  and  the  divine.  All  science,  all  art,  all  sociology,  all 
business,  all  government,  as  well  as  all  worship,  is  in  the  last  analysis  an 
endeavor  to  comprehend  the  meaning  of  the  great  words:  Honesty,  justice, 
truth,  pity,  mercy,  love.  In  vain  does  the  atheist  or  agnostic  try  to  stop 
our  search  to  know  the  infinite  and  eternal;  in  vain  does  he  tell  us  it  is  a 
useless  quest.  Still  we  press  on  and  must  press  on.  The  incentive  is  in 
ourselves,  and  nothing  can  blot  it  out  of  us  and  still  leave  us  men  and 
women. 

God  made  us  out  of  Himself,  and  God  calls  us  back  to  Himself.  It  would 
be  easier  to  kill  the  appetite  of  man  and  let  us  feed  by  merely  shoveling  in 
carbon  as  into  a  furnace;  it  would  be  easier  to  blot  ambition  out  of  man 
and  to  consign  him  to  endless  and  nerveless  content;  easier  to  blot  love  out 
of  man  and  banish  him  to  live  the  life  of  a  eunuch  in  the  wilderness,  than 
to  blot  out  of  the  soul  of  man  those  desires  and  aspirations  which  knit  him 
to  the  infinite  and  eternal — give  him  love  for  his  fellowmen  and  reverence 
for  God.  In  vain  does  the  philosopher  of  the  barnyard  say  to  the  egg: 
“You  are  made  of  egg;  you  always  were  an  egg;  you  always  will  be  an  egg; 
don’t  try  to  be  anything  but  an  egg.”  The  chicken  pecks  and  pecks  until 
he  breaks  the  shell  and  comes  out  to  the  sunlight  of  the  world. 


196 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


We  welcome  here  to-day,  in  this  most  cosmopolitan  city  of  the  most  cos¬ 
mopolitan  race  on  the  globe,  the  representatives  of  all  the  various  forms  of 
religious  life  from  East  to  West  and  North  to  South.  We  are  glad  to  wel¬ 
come  them.  We  are  glad  to  believe  that  they,  as  we,  have  been  seeking  to 
know  something  more  and  better  of  the  Divine  from  which  we  issue,  of  the 
Divine  to  which  we  are  returning.  We  are  glad  to  hear  the  message  they 
have  to  bring  to  us.  We  are  glad  to  know  what  they  have  to  tell  us,  but 
what  we  are  gladdest  of  all  about  is  that  we  can  tell  them  what  we  have 
found  in  our  search,  and  that  we  have  found  the  Christ. 

I  do  not  stand  here  as  the  exponent,  the  apologist,  or  the  defender  of 
Christianity.  In  it  there  have  been  the  blemishes  and  spots  of  human 
handiwork.  It  has  been  too  intellectual,  too  much  a  religion  of  creeds.  It 
has  been  too  fearful,  too  much  a  religion  of  sacrifices.  It  has  been  too  self¬ 
ishly  hopeful;  there  has  been  too  much  a  desire  of  reward  here  or  hereafter. 
It  has  been  too  little  a  religion  of  unselfish  service  and  unselfish  reverence. 
No!  It  is  not  Christianity  that  we  want  to  tell  our  brethren  across  the  sea 
about;  it  is  the  Christ. 

What  is  it  that  this  universal  hunger  of  the  human  race  seeks?  Is  it 
not  these  things — a  better  understanding  of  our  moral  relations,  one  t() 
another,  a  better  understanding  of  what  we  are  and  what  we  mean  to  be, 
that  we  may  fashion  ourselves  according  to  the  idea  of  the  ideal  being  in 
our  nature,  a  better  appreciation  of  the  Infinite  One  who  is  behind  all 
phenomena,  material  and  spiritual?  Is  it  not  more  health  and  added 
strength  and  clearer  light  in  our  upward  tendency  to  our  everlasting 
Father’s  arms  and  home?  Are  not  these  the  things  that  most  we  need 
in  the  world?  We  have  found  the  Christ  and  loved  him  and  revered 
him  and  accepted  him,  for  nowhere  else,  in  no  other  prophet,  have  we  found 
the  moral  relations  of  men  better  represented  than  in  the  golden  rule, 
“Do  unto  others  that  which  you  would  have  others  do  unto  you.”  We  do 
not  think  that  he  furnishes  the  only  ideal  the  world  has  ever  had.  We 
recognize  the  voice  of  Godin  all  prophets  and  in  all  time.  But  we  do  think 
that  w^e  have  found  in  this  Christ,  in  his  patience,  in  his  courage,  in  his 
heroism,  in  his  self-sacrifice,  in  his  unbounded  mercy  and  love  an  idea  that 
transcends  all  other  ideals  written  by  the  pen  of  poet,  painted  by  the  brush 
of  artists;  or  graved  into  the  life  of  human  history. 

We  do  not  think  that  God  has  spoken  only  in  Palestine  and  to  the  few 
in  that  narrow  province.  We  do  not  think  he  has  been  vocal  in  Christen¬ 
dom  and  dumb  everywhere  else.  No!  We  believe  that  He  is  a  speaking 
God  in  all  times  and  in  all  ages.  But  we  believe  no  other  revelation  tran¬ 
scends  and  none  other  equals  that  which  he  has  made  to  man  in  the  one 
transcendental  human  life  that  was  lived  eighteen  centuries  ago  in  Pales¬ 
tine.  And  we  think  we  find  in  Christ  one  thing  that  we  have  not  been 
able  to  find  in  any  other  of  the  manifestations  of  the  religious  life  of  the 
world.  All  religions  are  the  result  of  man’s  seeking  after  God.  If  what  I 
have  portrayed  to  you  this  morning  so  imperfectly  has  any  truth  in  it  the 
whole  human  race  seeks  to  know  its  eternal  and  divine  Father.  The  mes¬ 
sage  of  the  incarnation — that  is  the  glad  tidings  we  have  to  give  to  Africa, 
to  Asia,  to  China,  to  the  isles  of  the  sea. 

The  everlasting  Father  is  also  seeking  the  children  who  are  seeking 
Him.  He  is  not  an  unknown,  hiding  himself  behind  a  veil  impenetrable. 
He  is  not  a  being  dwelling  in  the  eternal  silence;  he  is  a  speaking,  reveal¬ 
ing,  incarnate  God.  He  is  not  an  absolute  justice,  sitting  on  the  throne  of 
the  universe  and  bringing  before  him  imperfect,  sinful  man  and  judging  him 
with  the  scales  of  unerring  justice.  He  is  a  father  coming  into  human  life 
and  coming  into  one  transcendental  human  life,  coming  into  all  human 
life  for  all  time.  Perhaps  we  have  sometimes  misrepresented  our  own  faith 
respecting  this  Christ.  Perhaps  in  our  metaphysical  definitions,  we  have 
sometimes  been  too  anxious  to  be  accurate  and  too  little  anxious  to  be  true. 


co-opehation  of  men  and  women. 


107 


fie  himself  has  said  it — He  is  a  door.  We  do  not  stand  merely  to  look  at 
the  door  for  the  beauty  of  the  carving  upon  it.  We  push  the  door  open 
and  go  in.  Through  that  door  God  enters  into  human  life;  through  that 
door  humanity  enters  into  the  Divine  life;  man  seeking  after  God,  the 
incarnate  God  seeking  after  man;  the  end  in  that  great  future  after  life’s 
troubled  dream  shall  be  o’er,  and  we  shall  awake  satisfied  because  we  awake 
in  His  likeness. 


DIVINE  BASIS  OF  THE  CO-OPERATION  OF  MEN  AND 

WOMEN. 

MRS.  LYDIA  H.  DICKINSON. 

What  is  the  divine  basis  of  the  co-operation  of  men  and  women?  In 
attempting  briefiy  to  answer  this  question,  we  must  consider  first  the 
nature  of  the  original  bond  between  man  and  woman.  And  here  secular 
history  gives  us  no  help.  We  find  them  separated  when  history  begins. 
The  woman  is  subject  to  the  man,  and  custom,  law,  and  the  parties  them¬ 
selves  are  acquiescent  in  the  subjection — woman  quite  equally  with  man. 
Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  history  bears  ample  witness  to  an  intuition  at 
variance  with  all  these,  an  intuition  that  has  recognized  in  woman  a 
commanding  factor  in  the  world’s  progress  and  given  to  her  thrones  of 
judgment  and  dominion.  True,  these  concessions  have  been  made  to  the 
exceptional  woman  or  in  the  interest  of  hereditary  kingship — have  been 
made  to  the  Helens,  the  Deborahs,  the  Catherines,  and  Elizabeths.  But 
the  concession  proves  the  intuition,  the  more  as  the  women  themselves  have 
accepted  the  position  and  filled  them  creditably.  For  the  rest,  there  has 
never  been  a  people,  except,  perhaps,  admitted  barbarians,  among  whom, 
before  marriage,  the  woman  has  not  only  been  equal  but  superior  in  love. 
Universal  man  in  all  the  historic  past  has  been  her  subject  here. 

Again,  the  law  in  holding  women  the  same  as  men  amenable  to  pun¬ 
ishment  as  offenders  takes  a  position  also  at  variance  with  the  idea  of  sub¬ 
jection.  It  recognizes  the  individuality  of  woman,  her  personal  responsibil¬ 
ity,  and  so  far  contradicts  itself  whenever  it  denies,  not  her  right,  but  her 
duty  to  act  as  an  individual  in  all  her  relations  with  him  and  society.  In 
truth,  the  position  of  woman  in  the  past  has  been  so  paradoxical  that  to  a 
superficial  judgment  the  development  in  her  of  a  consistent  self-conscious¬ 
ness  would  seem  almost  miraculous.  She  has  been  at  once  citizen  and 
alien,  subject  and  queen.  She  has  by  common  consent  been  responsible  for 
all  the  evil  and  the  inspiration  to  all  the  good  that  men  do.  Sentimentally 
man’s  superior,  practically  his  inferior,  she  has  been  anything  rather  than 
what  she  alone  is — his  equal.  The  namelwoman  has  been  the  synonym  for 
all  that  is  contradictory  in  human  character  and  experience. 

But  let  us  inquire  into  the  original  bond  between  man  and  woman — the 
bond  that  determines  their  relations  to  each  other.  To  those  who  accept 
it,  sacred  history  satisfactorily  answers  the  question.  From  this  source  we 
learn  that  He  who  made  them  in  the  beginning  made  them  male  and 
female;  that  the  creative  bond  between  them  is  the  bond  of  marriage 
admitting  of  no  divorce,  because  they  are  no  longer  two,  but  one,  being 
joined  together  by  God  himself — that  is,  creatively.  In  a  relation  of  essen¬ 
tial  oneness,  such,  as  is  contemplated  here,  there  can  of  course  be  no  subjection 
of  one  to  the  other — no  separation  between  them.  They  are  complemen¬ 
tary  of  each  other.  They  are  each  for  the  other  quite  equally.  It  is  clear, 
however,  that  this  prospective  relation  of  essential  oneness  between  the 
individual  man  and  woman  presupposes  two  things — first,  a  basic  marriage  in 
the  universal,  a  marriage  of  man  as  man  with  woman  as  woman,  a  marriage 


198 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


in  other  words  of  the  essentially  masculine  with  the  essentially  feminine, 
such  a  marriage  or  oneness  of  interest  and  work  in  all  their  relations 
with  one  another  as  would  lay  the  proper  foundation  for  a  marriage  or 
oneness  of  interest  and  work  in  their  more  important,  because  command¬ 
ing  relation  with  each  other — commanding  because  individual  marriage 
though  last  in  front  is  first  in  end.  It  gives  the  law..  As  is  this  relation 
ideally  or  actually,  such  is  society,  mutually  peace-giving  and  helpful,  or 
the  reverse.  This  prospective  relation  of  essential  oneness  between  the 
individual  man  and  woman,  presupposes  a  marriage  in  each  individual,  an 
at-one-ment  with  one’s  self  that  would  make  at-one-ment  with  onefotber 
possible.  Christ's,  words  unquestionably  refer  to  a  time  when,  by  implica¬ 
tion,  harmony  prevailed  on  all  the  planes  of  our  individual  and  associated 
life.  “  In  the  beginning,”  he  said,  “it  was  not  so.”  Divorce  was  impossi¬ 
ble,  because  they  are  made  male  and  female,  the  perfect  complements  of 
each  other. 

It  may  be  said  that  harmony  on  all  the  planes  of  our  being  would  pre¬ 
clude  the  idea  of  government  as  we  know  it,  the  need  of  contending  parties 
and  of  the  ballot,- to  decide  which  one  shall  rule.  This,  in  a  sense,  is  true. 
Our  idea  of  government,  under  these  conditions,  would  change  undoubtedly. 
As  we  know  it,  government  means  not  the  love  of  service,  but  the  love  of 
dominion,  and  this,  if  my  premise  is  correct,  came  about,  first,  through 
defection  in  the  individual  from  a  state  of  at-one-ment  in  himself,  and  then, 
as  a  consequence,  by  the  departure  of  the  individual  man  and  woman  from 
the  idea  of  mutual' service  in  their  relations  with  each  other. 

The  proof  that  the  premise  is  correct  will,  I  think,  appear  when  we  con¬ 
clude  what  society  of  necessity  would  be  were  the  idea  of  service  the  only 
ruling  in  the  marriage  relation  of  to-day.  Of  course,  our  individual  and 
social  experiences  keep  pace  with  each  other.  We  realize  simultaneously 
on  both  planes.  And  the  social  acts  upon  as  well  as  reacts  toward  the  indi¬ 
vidual.  But  the  individual  gives  the  law.  According  to  sacred  history, 
then,  marriage,  a  relation  of  perfect  oneness  or  equality,  a  complementary 
relation,  precluding  the  idea  of  separation  or  subjection,  is  the  original 
bond  between  individual  men  and  women,  because  it  is  the  bond  between 
masculine  and  feminine  principles  in  the  individual  mind.  But  marriage, 
as  we  have  seen,  means  harmony,  and  we  have  discord  in  ourselves  and  in 
our  relations  with  each  other.  How,  then,  came  the  departure  from  the 
true  idea?  The  separation,  we  are  told,  dates  from  Eden  and  the  sin  of 
Eve,  and  one  of  the  consequences  of  the  sin  is  recorded,  not,  however,  as  the 
vindicating  judgment  of  the  Almighty,  but  as  the  fact,  merely,  in  the 
so-called  curse  upon  the  woman  for  listening  to  the  voice  of  the  serpent. 
“  He — thy  husband — shall  rule  over  thee.” 

Let  us  for  a  moment  consider  this  fact  in  its  relation  to  the  individual 
mind.  For  all  truth  is  true  for  us  primarily  as  individuals.  What  we  are 
to  others  depends  on  what  we  are  to  ourselves.  We  have.  then,  in  this 
declaration  a  case  not  of  marriage,  but  of  divorce.  The  mind  is  at  variance 
with  itself.  One  part  rules,  the  other  must  obey.  For  the  mind,  like  man 
and  woman,  is  dual,  and  is  one  only  in  marriage.  It  is  a  discordant,  too, 
when  we  love  what  the  truth  forbids,  and  a  harmonious,  complementary 
one  when  we  love  what  the  truth  enjoins.  By  common  perception  love  is 
the  feminine  and  truth  the  masculine  })rinciple.  Love,  when  it  is  the  love 
of  self,  leads  us  astray.  It  led  us  astray  as  a  race.  It  blinded  us  to  the 
real  good.  Truth  brings  Ub  back  to  our  moorings  But  it  can  only  do  so 
by  its  temporary  supremacy  over  love.  This  is  all  we  know.  Our  desires 
must  be  subject  to  our  knowledge.  History'  repeats  the  story  of  our  indi¬ 
vidual  experience  in  larger  character  in  the  relation  between  man  and 
woman.  Each  is  an  individual,  that  is,  each  is  both  masculine  and  femi¬ 
nine  in  himself  and  herself,  but  in  their  relations  to  each  other  man  stands 
for  and  expresses  truth  in  his  form  and  activities,  while  woman  ‘^tands  for 


CO-OPERATION  OF  3IEN  AND  WOMEN. 


199 


and  expresses  love.  Here  also,  as  in  the  individual,  the  original  bond  is 
marriage,  implying  no  subjection  on  the  part  of  either  wife  or  husband, 
implying  on  the  contrary  perfect  oneness,  mutual  and  equal  helpfulness. 
But  except  in  the  symbolic  story  of  Edenic  peace  and  happiness,  none  the 
less  true,  however,  because  merely  symbolic,  we  have  no  historic  record  of 
that  infantile  experience  of  the  race. 

Love,  when  it  is  good,  unites  the  truth  in  herself.  But  when  it  is  the 
love  of  evil  or  self,  she  divorces  truth  and  unites  herself  with  the  false. 
This,  briefly,  is  the  meaning  of  the  separation  between  man  and  woman  in 
the  past;  namely,  first,  the  degradation  of  love  into  self-love,  and  the  con¬ 
sequent  separation  between  love  and  truth  in  the  individual  mind,  a 
separation  that,  binding  us  to  the  highest  good,  makes  it  no  longer  safe  for 
us  to  follow  our  desires;  second,  the  separation  between  man  and  woman  in 
the  marriage  relation,  and  as  a  farther  consequence,  between  man  and  man 
socially. 

If  what  I  have  already  said  be  true,  the  prominence  which  the  question 
of  woman  suffrage  has  assumed  in  the  present  may  be  easily  understood. 
Woman  suffrage  more  or  less  intelligently  for  the  universal  intuition  of  the 
truth  I  have  tried  to  present,  namely,  the  truth  of  the  creative  oneness  of 
man  and  woman.  Human  history,  it  is  true,  is  the  record  of  a  seeming 
divorce  between  them.  But  what  God  hath  joined  together  man  can  not 
put  asunder.  Creatively  one,  man  and  woman  can  not  be  permanently 
separated.  Indeed,  their  temporary  separation  is  providentially  in  the 
interest  of  their  higher  ultimate  union.  We  are  on  our  way  back  to  rela¬ 
tions  between  them  of  which  those  of  our  racial  infancy  were  the  sure 
promise  and  held  the  potency.  Truth  divinely  implanted  in  the  soul  is  our 
leader  because  truth,  being  essentially  separative  or  critical,  can,  when 
necessary,  lead  against  desire.  We  have  emerged  from  infancy  and  must 
prove  our  manhood  by  overcoming  the  obstacles  to  harmony  we  have  our¬ 
selves  created.  First,  nature  without  us,  always  responsive  to  nature 
within,  is  in  rebellion  and  must  be  subdued.  Here,  again,  “in  the  sweat  of 
thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,”  is  not  a  curse,  but  the  provision  of  infinite 
love  for  our  development,  physically  and  mentally.  Nature  no  longer 
responds  spontaneously  to  the  needs  of  man,  but  brings  forth  thorns  and 
thistles  and  yields  bread  only  under  compulsion,  the  compulsion  of  the 
clay-cold,  masculine  intellect,  which  alone  is  able  to  master  nature’s  secrets 
and  nature  herself.  She  understands  the  law  of  must,  and  submits  to  the 
might  of  masculine  muscle. 

Woman  has  ajjparently  no  place  in  this  needful  preliminary  work  save 
to  sustain  the  worker.  True,  in  her  representative  capacity  of  love,  the 
highest  in  both,  she  is  under  subjection,  yet  she  sees,  not  rationally,  of 
course,  in  the  beginning,  but  intuitively,  the  reason  why;  acquiesces,  and 
hidden  from  view  still  leads  while  she  follows — still  rules  in  obeying.  For 
love,  or  its  opposite,  self-love,  is  always  the  very  life  of  man,  as  love  is  the 
life  of  God  who  created  him.  It  is  always  the  woman  within  us  that  gives 
first  birth,  and  then  responding  to  the  voice  of  truth  and  falsity  without, 
leads  us  on  and  out  of  the  wilderness  or  sends  us  back  to  wander  another 
forty  years  before  we  enter  our  Canaan.  Woman — yes,  and  women — are, 
primarily,  even,  although  sometimes  ignorantly  responsible  from  first  to 
last.  It  has  not  always  seemed  so.  The  past  has  been  so  predominately 
masculine  as  seemingly  to  obliterate  the  feminine  by  absorption — to  make 
the  man  and  the  woman  one,  and  that  one  the  man.  Yet  only  in  seeming. 
In  reality  woman  has  been  the  inspiration  of  all  that  has  been  done,  both 
good  and  evil.  Tennyson  does  not  see  clearly  when  he  says:  “As  the 
husband,  so  the  wife.”  It  is  always  the  other  way.  It  is  always  the  clown 
within  and  not  without  herself  that  drags  a  woman  down  and  the  man 
with  her. 

But  let  us  take  another  step.  Our  way  back  involves  not  only  the  over- 


200 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


coming  of  obstacles  to  harmony  of  nature  without  us,  the  subjugation  of 
nature,  and  the  consequent  establishment  of  a  scientific  consciousness  in 
accord  with  spiritual  truth,  that  harmony  for  man  presupposes  his  rightful 
lordship  over  all  below  him,  it  also  involves  the  overcoming  of  nature  within, 
an  at-one-ment  of  man  with  himself.  And  here  the  w^ork  is  alike  for  both, 
in  that  both  are  alike  subject  to  truth.  In  addition,  however,  she  has  been 
externally  subject  to  him.  And  her  temptation  has  been  to  identify  the 
voice  of  truth  within  herself  with  his  voice,  his  idea  of  the  truth  for  her. 
This,  when  both  are  led  by  love,  is  the  true  idea  for  both,  since  then  his 
voice  is  the  voice  of  truth.  But,  led  by  self-love,  she  too  must  listen  to  the 
voice  within.  And  more.  She  must  listen  for  him  as  well  as  for  herself. 
Because,  so  listening,  she  is  the  very  form  or  embodiment  of  that  love  of  the 
truth  which  alone  can  lead  them  back  to  harmony  in  themselves,  with  each 
other,  and  with  all  others.  In  other  words,  so  listening  she  is  the  revela¬ 
tion  of  the  truth  to  man. 

The  legal  disfranchisement  of  woman  in  the  past  has  been  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  truth  for  the  past.  It  has  been  a  strict  necessity  of  the  sit¬ 
uation,  a  necessity  for  women  as  well  as  for  men,  and  with  it  in  the  past  we 
can  have  no  conceivable  quarrel.  Masculine  supremacy,  the  supremacy  of 
truth,  has  been  needed  to  layithe  foundation  of  Christian  character  and  a 
Christian  society  in  the  subjection  of  nature  and  self-love.  But  the  foun¬ 
dations  broadly  and  deeply  laid  in  natural  and  social  science,  we  can  at 
least  see  that  the  corresponding  superstructure  can  be  after  no  petty  or 
personal,  partial  or  class  pattern,  but  must  be  divinely  perfect^ — that  is, 
perfect  “according  to  the  measure  of  a  man,”  of  man  physical,  intellectual 
and  spiritual,  of  man  individual  and  social,  and  finally  of  man  feminine  as 
well  as  masculine.  We  can  at  last  see  that  love  is  the  fulfillment  of  law. 

This  truth  human  law  must  sometimes  embody  in  order  to  its  universal 
acceptance.  Beliefs  crystallized  into  creeds  and  statutes  hold  the  human 
mind.  It  is  certain  that  belief  in  the  creative  equality  of  man  and  woman 
will  not  ijrevail  so  long  as  the  statute  book  proclaims  the  contrary.  Neither 
this  nor  a  practical  belief  in  the  creative  quality  of  man  and  man.'  This 
waits  upon  that,  that  upon  individual  enlightenment  sufficiently  focalized 
to  lead  the  general  mind.  A  relation  of  marriage,  or,  in  other  words,  of 
mutual  co-operation  all  the  way  through  in  all  the  work  of  both,  is  the  cre¬ 
ative  relation  between  man  and  woman.  It  follows  that,  as  this  truth  is 
seen  and  realized  by  individual  men  and  women,  society  will  see  the  same 
truth  as  its  own  law  of  life,  to  be  expressed,  ultimate  in  all  human  relations 
and  in  the  work  of  the  world.  This  truth  alone  will  lead  us  back  to  har¬ 
mony  in  all  the  planes  of  our  associated  life,  and  the  dawning  recognition 
of  this  truth  explains,  as  I  believe,  the  growing  interest  in  the  modern 
question  of  woman  suffrage. 

One  objection  to  the  further  extension  of  the  right  of  suffrage  has 
weight.  It  should  have  been  considered  when  the  negro  was  admitted  to 
citizenship.  Ignorance  is  a  menace  to  the  state.  All  women  are  not  intel¬ 
ligent.  Certainly  there  is  no  reason  in  advocating  educated  suffrage.  But 
I  know  of  no  other  discrimination,  except,  of  course,  against  criminals  and 
idiots,  that  can  consistently  be  made  against  a  citizen  under  a  government 
that  professes  to  derive  its  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed. 

Opinions  vary  as  to  the  actual  effect  of  the  introduction  of  the  woman 
element  into  practical  politics.  It  is  my  own  belief,  of  course,  that  the 
prophets  of  evil  will  find  themselves  greatly  at  fault  in  their  specific  prog¬ 
nostications.  Woman  suffrage  does  not  mean  to  women  the  pursuit  of  pol¬ 
itics  after  the  fashion  of  men.  But  questions  are  even  now  before  us,  and 
more  will  arise,  that  she  should  help  to  decide — questions  relating  to  the 
saloon,  to  education,  to  the  little  waifs  of  society,  worse  than  orphaned,  to 
prison  reforms,  to  all  that  side  of  life  that  most  vitally  touches  woman  as 
the  mother  of  the  race.  Women  hold,  or  could  hold,  intelligent  opinions 
on  all  such  questions,  and  the  state  should  have  the  benefit  of  them, 


CO-OPERATION  OF  MEN  AND  WOMEN. 


201 


Woman  suffrage  does  not  mean,  as  has  been  charged,  a  desire  on  the 
part  of  women  to  be  like  men  or  to  assume  essentially  masculine  duties  or 
prerogatives.  God  takes  care  of  that.  The  inmost  desire  of  the  acorn  is  to 
become  an  oak  and  nothing  else.  Equally  true  is  it  that  the  soul  of  women 
irresistibly  aspires  to  the  fulfillmeat  of  its  own  womanly  destiny  as  wife 
and  mother,  and,  as  a  rule,  to  nothing  that  definitely  postpones  such 
destiny.  Most  emphatically  woman  suffrage  does  not  mean  any  persistent 
blindness  on  the  part  of  women  to  their  high  calling  as  the  outward  embod¬ 
iment  and  repr(  sentative  of  what  is  highest  and  best  in  human  nature. 
Blind  she  has  been  and  is,  but  God  is  her  teacher.  He  has  kept  the  soul 
of  woman  through  all  the  ages  of  her  acquiescent  subjection  to  man.  He 
has  led  her,  and,  all  unconsciously  to  himself,  has  led  man  through  her  up 
and  out  upon  the  high  table-land  of  to-day,  whence  both  can  see  the  large 
meaning  of  subjection  in  the  past,  and  the  larger  realizations  that  await 
their  accordant  union  in  the  future. 

Imperfectly  as  she  now  apprehends  it,  woman  suffrage  does  neverthe¬ 
less  mean  for  woman  a  consistent,  rational  sense  of  personal  responsibility, 
and  it  means  this  so  pre-eminently  that  I  could  almost  say  that  it  means 
nothing  else.  Because  upon  this  new  and  higher  sense  of  personal  respon¬ 
sibility  is  to  be  built  all  the  new  and  higher  relations  of  woman  in  the  future 
with  herself,  with  men  and  with  society.  This  is  a  theme  in  itself.  I  will 
only  say  in  passing  that  we  are  ready  for  new  and  higher  relations  between 
men  and  women,  that  women  must  inaugurate  these  relations,  that  an  intu¬ 
ition  of  the  truth  is  the  secret  of  the  so-called  woman  movement,  of  the 
intellectual  awakening  of  women,  of  their  desire  for  personal  and  pecu¬ 
niary  freedom,  their  laudable  efforts  to  secure  such  freedom,  the  sympathy 
and  co-operation  of  the  best  men  in  these  efforts,  and  that  the  bearing  of 
all  these  aspects  of  the  movement  upon  the  future  of  society  gives  us  the 
vision  of  the  poet,  true  poet  and  true  prophet  in  one: 

Then  comes  the  statelier  Eden  back  to  men. 

Then  reign  Che  world’s  ^a*eat  brid  ils  chaste  and  calm, 

Th>^n  springs  the  crowning  race  of  humankind. 

I  wish  to  emphasize  the  point  that  without  the  consent  of  woman  her 
subjection  could  never  have  been  a  fact  of  history.  Nothing  is  clearer  to 
my  mind  than  that  man  and  woman  (and  because  of  her  let  me  insist)  have 
all  along  been  one  in  their  completeness,  as  they  originally  were,  and  one 
day  again  will  be  one  in  their  completeness.  In  any  relation  between  man 
and  woman,  the  most  perfect  as  well  as  the  most  imperfect  man  stands  for 
the  external  or  masculine  principle  of  our  common  human  nature.  Thus, 
of  course,  women  always  have,  do  now,  and  always  will  delight  in  his  external 
leadership. 

Now,  however,  we  are  confronting  another  aspect  of  the  relation  between 
man  and  woman.  Under  a  new  impulse  derived  from  woman  herself,  man 
is  abdicating  his  external  leadership,  his  external  control,  over  her.  She  is 
becoming  self-supporting,  self-sustaining,  self-reliant.  She  is  learning  to 
think  and  to  express  her  thought,  to  form  opinions  and  to  hold  to  them. 
In  doing  this  she  is  apparently  separating  herself  from  man  as  in  the  past 
he  has  separated  himself  from  her.  Really  separating  herself,  some  say, 
but  we  need  not  fear.  She  is  simply  doing  her  part,  making  herself  ready 
for  the  new  and  higher  relation  with  man  to  which  both  are  divinely  sum¬ 
moned.  The  end  to  be  attained,  a  perfect  relation  between  man  and  woman, 
symbolized  by,  but  as  yet  imperfectly  realized  in,  the  divine  institution  of 
marriage,  involves  for  its  realization  equal  freedom  for  both.  Not  inde¬ 
pendence  on  the  part  of  either.  No  such  thing  is  possible. 

Inequality  of  natural  opportunity  operates  hardly  against  woman.  It  is 
against  this  inequality  that  she  is  now  struggling  on  the  material  and  intel¬ 
lectual  plane — that  they  are  struggling,  let  me  say,  for  no  reflecting  person 
can  for  an  instant  suppose  that  the  woman  movement  does  not  include  men 


202 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


equally  with  women.  They  are  one,  man  and  woman,  let  us  continue  to 
repeat,  until  we  have  effectually  unlearned  the  contrary  supposition  The 
woman  movement  means,  in  the  divine  providence,  “  the  hard-earned  release 
of  the  feminine  in  human  nature  from  bondage  to  the  masculine.”  It  means 
the  leadership  henceforth  in  human  affairs  of  truth,  no  longer  divorced  from 
but  one  with  love.  It  is  the  last  battle-ground  of  freedom  and  slavery. 
We  are  in  the  dawn  of  a  new  and  final  dispensation.  This  is  why  I  welcome 
the  struggle  of  personal  freedom  on  the  part  of  woman,  including  her  strug¬ 
gle  for  personal  freedom  on  the  part  of  woman,  including  her  struggle  for 
the  right  of  citizenship.  It  is  altogether  a  new  recognition  by  what  is 
highest  in  man  of  the  sacredness  of  the  individual,  and  it  insures  the  tri¬ 
umph  of  the  new  impulse. 

The  personal  freedom  of  woman  when  achieved  on  all  planes — material, 
mental,  and  spiritual — will  not  separate  her  from  man.  It  will  not  harm 
the  woman  nature  in  woman.  It  will,  on  the  contrary,  tend  to  develop  that 
nature  as  a  fitting  complement  of  the  nature  of  man.  It  will  give  her  the 
same  opportunity  that  he  has  to  exercise  all  her  faculties  free  from  out¬ 
ward  constraint.  It  is  distinctive  character  that  we  want  in  both  men  and 
women  to  base  true  relations  between  them,  and  freedom  is  the  only  soil  in 
which  character  will  grow.  We  are  still  measurably  ignorant  of  the  nature 
of  woman  in  women,  of  her  real  capacities,  inclinations,  and  powers,  nor 
shall  we  know  these  until  women  are  free  to  express  them  in  accordance 
with  their  own  ideas,  and  not,  as  hitherto,  in  accordance  with  man’s  ideas 
of  them. 

In  conclusion,  there  could,  of  course,  be  no  legal  act  disenfranchising 
^^oman,  since  she  was  never  legally  enfranchised.  But  as  it  is  her  divinely 
conferred  privilege  to  be  one  with  man  the  law  as  it  has  come  to  be  under¬ 
stood  simply  stands  for  something  that  could  not  be,  and  is  therefore  mis¬ 
leading  and  vicious.  It  stands  not  only  for  the  subjection  of  woman,  which 
it  has  had  a  right  to  stand  for,  but  it  has  also  come  to  mean  a  real  and  not 
apparent  separation  between  man  and  woman.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that 
this  apparent  separation  is  always  of  the  man  from  the  woman,  the  mas¬ 
culine  from  the  feminine,  truth  from  love. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  INTENT. 

REV.  E.  T.  REXFORD,  D.  D.,  OF  BOSTON. 

A  Universalist  clergyman  and  formerly  president  of  a  church 
college  at  Akron,  Ohio,  and  later  located  in  Detroit. 

Venerable  Brothers:  By  the  leading  of  that  beneficial  providence 
which  has  always  attended  the  fortunes  of  men  we  are  brought  to  this 
most  significant  hour  in  the  history  of  religious  fellowship,  if,  indeed,  it  be 
not  the  most  significant  hour  in  the  history  of  the  religious  development  of 
the  world.  What  event  in  the  earlier  or  the  later  centuries  has  ever  tran¬ 
scended  or  even  closely  approached  in  its  import  the  meeting  of  this 
assembly?  What  day  in  all  the  fragmentary  annals  of  good  will  ever  wit¬ 
ness  a  fraternity  so  manifold  or  a  congress  whose  constituency  was  so 
essentially  cosmopolitan?  This  is  a  larger  Pentecost,  in  which  a  greater 
variety  of  people  than  of  old  are  telling  in  their  various  language,  custom, 
and  achievement  of  the  wonderful  works  and  ways  of  God.  The  Emperor 
Akbar,  in  overreaching  the  special  limits  of  his  chosen  sect  that  he  might 
pay  a  fitting  tribute  to  the  spirit  of  religion  in  its  several  forms,  displayed 
a  noble  catholicity  of  spirit,  but,  unsupported  by  the  popular  sympathies 
of  his  age,  his  generosity  was  largely  personal  and  resulted  in  no  represent¬ 
ative  movement. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  INTENT 


203 


We  have  had  our  national  and  international  evangelical  alliances  among 
Christians,  and  likewise  our  national  and  international  Young  Men’s  Chris¬ 
tian  Associations,  with  assemblies  tilling  the  largest  halls  of  Europe  and 
America,  but  these  fellowships  have  embraced  only  a  slight  diversity  of 
opinions  and  practices  in  one  division  of  the  religious  world,  while  larger 
numbers  of  even  fellow-Christians  have  been  excluded.  The  portals  of  the 
divine  kingdom  have  been  held  but  slightly  ajar  by  such  untrained  Chris¬ 
tian  hands,  while  it  has  been  left  to  the  mightier  spirit  of  this  day  to  throw 
those  gates  wide  open,  and  to  bid  every  sincere  worshiper  in  all  the  world, 
of  whatever  name  or  form,  “Welcome  in  the  great  and  all-inclusive  name 
of  God,  the  common  Father  of  all  souls.” 

This  is  a  day  and  an  occasion  sacred  to  the  sincere  spirit  in  man,  and  it 
is  devoutly  to  be  hoped  that,  out  of  its  generosity  and  its  justice,  a  new  and 
self -vindicating  definition  of  true  and  false  religion,  of  true  and  false  wor¬ 
ship,  may  appear.  I  would  that  we  might  all  confess  that  a  sincere  worship 
anywhere  and  everywhere  in  the  world  is  a  true  worship,  while  an  insincere 
worship  anywhere  and  everywhere  is  a  false  worship  before  God  and  man. 
The  unwritten  but  dominant  creed  of  this  hour  I  assume  to  be,  that  what¬ 
ever  worshiper  in  all  the  world  bends  before  the  best  he  knows,  and  walks 
true  to  the  purest  light  that  shines  for  him,  has  access  to  the  highest  bless¬ 
ings  of  heaven,  while  the  false-hearted  and  insincere  man,  whatever  his 
creed  or  form  may  be,  has  equal  access,  if  not  to  the  flames,  then  at  least 
the  dust  and  ashes  and  darkness  of  hell. 

I  doubt  if,  at  any  period  very  long  anterior  to  this,  such  an  assembly 
could  have  been  convened.  Those  great  aggregations  of  the  world’s  inter¬ 
est  at  Paris  and  London  and  Philadelphia  had  no  such  feature.  Men 
sought  to  have  the  world’s  activity  as  completely  represented  in  those 
expositions  as  possible,  but  no  man  had  the  courage  or  the  inclination  to 
suggest  a  scheme  so  daring  as  that  of  a  Congress  of  Religions.  This 
achievement  was  left  to  the  closing  years  of  a  wonderful  century  wherein  a 
mightier  spirit  seems  swaying  the  lives  of  men  to  higher  issues,  at  a  time 
when  the  very  gods  seem  crowning  all  the  doctrines  of  the  past  with  the 
imperial  dogma  of  the  solidarity  of  the  race.  The  time-spirit  has  largely 
conquered,  though  we  can  not  close  our  ears  entirely  to  the  sullen  cry  of  a 
baffled  and  retreating  anger,  charged  with  the  accusation  that  the  whole 
import  of  this  congress  is  that  of  infidelity  to  the  only  divine  and  infallible 
religion.  Everyman  is  the  true  believer,  himself  being  the  judge,  while 
nobody  is  the  true  believer  if  somebody  else  is  permitted  to  decide.  I  am 
not  willing  to  stand  within  the  limits  of  my  sect  or  party  and  from  thence 
judge  of  the  world.  I  prefer  rather  to  stand  in  the  world  as  a  part  of  it, 
and  from  thence  judge  of  my  party  or  sect,  and  even  of  that  great  religious 
division  of  the  world’s  faith  and  life  in  which  my  lot  has  fallen.  There  is 
no  separableness  in  the  providence  of  that  Infinite  Being  who  is  over  all  and 
through  and  in  us  all. 

The  primary  fact  or  condition  which  justifies  this  congress  in  the  minds 
of  all  reverent  and  rational  men  is  that,  among  all  sincere  worshipers  of  all 
ages  and  lands,  the  religious  intent  has  always  been  the  same.  Briefly,  but 
broadly  stated,  that  intent  has  been  to  establish  more  advantageous 
relations  between  the  worshiper  and  the  being  or  beings  worshiped.  The 
reverse  of  this  is  practically  unthinkable.  To  substitute  any  other  motive 
would  be  impossible.  This  one  fact  lies  at  the  foundation  of  every  religious 
structure  in  the  world.  Here  is  the  basis  of  our  fellowship.  Claude  Lor¬ 
raine  once  said  that  the  most  important  thing  for  a  landscape  painter  to 
know  is  where  to  sit  down  in  order  to  command  a  full  and  fair  view  of 
every  determining  feature  in  the  landscape.  Such  a  rule  must  be  essential 
in  art,  but  it  is  no  less  imperative  in  the  treatment  of  that  spectacle  which 
religion  presents  to  us  in  its  wide  fields,  and  this  observation  point  of  the 
identity  of  the  religious  intent  of  all  the  world  commands  the  permanent 
features  of  every  religion  in  the  history  of  mankind. 


204 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS 


Some  men  stand  aloof  and  scorn  and  scoff  the  thought  that  there  is  any 
possible  relation  between  their  religion  and  that  of  widely  diverse  types, 
but  this  anchor  will  hold  amid  all  the  tempests  of  religious  wrath  that 
may  rage.  And  after  these  storms  of  vituperation  shall  have  spent  their 
fury,  and  editors  shall  have  written  leading  articles  and  archbishops  and 
sultans  shall  have  predicted  dire  calamities,  it  will  be  found  that  the 
religious  world,  as  well  as  the  scientific  and  the  commercial,  is  in  the 
relentless  grasp  of  a  divine  purpose  that  will  not  let  the  people  separate  in 
the  deep  places  of  their  lives. 

Men  in  the  lesser  stages  of  development  have  been  alienated  in  their 
religion  and  by  their  religion,  as  if  they  have  been  thrust  upon  this  earth 
from  worlds  created  by  hostile  gods  for  ever  at  war  with  each  other,  and 
whose  children  should  legitimately  fight  in  the  names  of  their  parent  deities. 
If  the  history  of  religion  in  this  world  could  have  commenced  with  the 
monotheistic  conception,  the  bitter  chapters  of  alienation  would  have  been 
omitted.  But  history  could  not  begin  on  that  high  level  in  a  world  where 
humanity  was  destined  to  work  out  its  own  salvation,  not  only  with  fear 
and  with  trembling,  but  with  strife  and  sorrow  and  vast  misapprehension, 
from  an  almost  helpless  ignorance,  to  the  freedom  and  grace  of  self-poised 
and  masterful  souls. 

The  Infinite  Wisdom  of  this  universe  seems  to  have  decreed  that  man 
shall  have  a  great  part  in  the  noble  task  of  making  himself.  A  human 
being,  fashioned  and  completed  by  a  foreign  power,  could  never  be  what 
man  has  already  become  by  his  failures,  and  his  successes  in  the  struggle 
to  win  the  best  results  of  character.  A  diadem  made  of  the  celestial  jewels 
by  the  combined  skill  of  all  the  angels  in  heaven  could  not  compare  with 
that  crown  which  the  human  being  himself  shall  create  by  his  own  heroic 
and  persistent  determination  to  wrest  victory  from  defeat,  success  from 
failure — the  determination  to  pluck  the  truth  out  of  its  mysterious  dis¬ 
guises,  and  at  last  to  “  think  God’s  thoughts  after  Him.” 

It  has  been  a  difficult  problem  for  the  interpreters  of  man  to  solve — this 
fact  of  frailty  and  imperfection  in  the  hands  of  a  perfect  deity.  Man  was 
created  perfect  by  the  perfect  God,  but  he  fell  from  that  high,  original 
estate  and  thus  became  the  poor  creature  he  is. 

The  distance  between  the  first  blind  and  helpless  groping  after  God 
with  its  characteristic  griefs,  failures  and  fallings  and  the  intelligent  com¬ 
prehension  of  God  and  man  and  religion  and  duty  and  the  fellowship  of 
to-day  is  almost  amazing  and  yet,  in  all  the  tragic  though  ever  brightening 
way,  there  is  no  point  where  the  line  of  succession  breaks  off. 

God’s  working  is  by  development  and  we  have  only  to  look  into  the 
magic  White  City  to  see  that  man’s  work  follows  the  same  law  and  method. 
Not  a  single  excellence  is  there  that  has  not  had  its  imperfection  that  it 
might  be  even  as  perfect  as  it  is.  Not  a  science  exists  to-day  in  all  its 
•  beautiful  adaptations  that  was  not  an  offensive  vulgarism  at  an  earlier  day. 
And  religion — shall  we  say  of  it  that  here  is  a  fact  in  human  life  that 
reverses  in  its  movement  and  method  all  the  human  and  divine  ways  with 
everything  else?  If  there  be  one  pre-eminent  fact  in  the  history  of  religion, 
that  fact  is  the  growth  of  religion.  There  is  no  religion  in  the  world,  if  it 
be  a  living  religion,  that  is  to-day  what  it  was  one,  two  or  ten  centuries  ago. 
The  Christian  religion  is  not  to-day  what  it  was  five  centuries  ago  in  the 
thought  of  the  people,  and  what  the  religion  or  anything  else  is  in  the 
actual  thought  of  the  people  that  the  thing  practically  is. 

And  if  this  great  exposition  is  wanting  in  one  of  the  most  significant 
exhibits  conceivable  it  is  a  hall  that  should  contain  a  historic  illustration 
of  religion.  Max  Muller  would  be  one  of  the  few  men  who  could  arrange 
the  order  of  such  a  hall.  And  who  could  visit  it  without  feeling  a  great 
uplift  of  faith  and  love  and  joy  that  we  have  been  what  we  have  and  have 
become  what  we  are?  I  expect  that  this  suggestion  of  an  evolutionary 


THE  RELIGIOUS  INTENT. 


‘205 


unity  of  religion  may  disturb  some  classes  of  men,  but  you  shall  see  no  man 
in  all  the  retreating  centuries  performing  his  devotions  with  whatever 
tragic  or  forbidden  accompaniment  without  saying  and  being  compelled  to 
say:  “That  man  might  have  been  myself,  or  I  might  have  been  as  he  and 
should  have  been  had  I  lived  in  his  country  and  been  educated  as  he  was.” 
It  is  quite  too  superficial  for  us  to  suppose  that  this  Great  Spirit  bestowed 
his  blessings  on  the  score  of  the  geography  and  the  centuries. 

Personal  infallibility  is  not  yet  attained  by  anyone,  inasmuch  as  personal 
fortunes  are  related  to  the  infinite,  and  that  sense  of  a  lingering  weakness, 
which  must  be  felt  by  all  men,  must  ally  them  with  the  world-wide  neces¬ 
sity  of  a  rugged  and  persistent  sympathy.  The  world  has  been  wounded 
by  fragments  of  truth,  whereas  no  man  can  ever  be  wounded  by  an  entire 
truth.  A  detached  truth  fallen  even  from  heaven  would  be  voiceless,  but 
relate  it  to  the  economy  of  God’s  purposes,  and  immediately  it  becomes 
vocal.  It  bears  in  its  joyous  or  its  tremulous  tones  the  varying  fortunes  of 
every  soul  that  God  has  made,  and  it  tells  the  story  of  the  divine  Spirit 
working  in  and  for  all.  And  if  the  various  and  multiplied  systems  of  the¬ 
ology  had  been  written  while  the  theologians  were  looking  in  the  faces  of 
their  human  brothers,  many  a  judgment  and  confusion  would  have  been 
greatly  modified.  If  one  hand  had  written  while  the  other  clasped  a  human 
hand,  the  verdict  would  have  been  changed.  The  Word  made  flesh,  or  the 
divine  Spirit  set  forth  in  human  form  and  fashion,  gleaming  out  from  human 
faces,  becomes  very  tender  and  very  considerate,  while  the  mere  theories  of 
men  lay  no  check  upon  those  severities  of  judgment  which  have  shattered 
this  human  world  and  rent  it  asunder  in  the  name  of  religion. 

Back  to  the  primal  unity  where  man  appears  as  a  child  of  God  before 
he  is  a  Christian  or  Jew,  Brahman  or  Buddhist,  Mohammedan  or  Parsee, 
Confucian,  Taoist,  or  aught  beside — back  to  this  must  we  go  if  we  will  be 
loyal  to  our  kind  and  loyal  to  that  imperishable  religion  that  is  born  of 
human  souls  in  contact  with  the  spirit.  Back  to  this  and  thence  we  must 
follow  the  struggle  of  the  Infinite  Child  upward  along  his  perilous  ascent 
through  the  societies’  weary  centuries  to  the  ineffable  light  and  glory  that 
await  him,  led  by  the  patient  hand  of  God. 

I  am  perfectly  well  aware  that  this  idea  of  religious  unity,  and  at  the 
base  religious  identity,  must  fight  its  way  through  the  great  fields  of  relig¬ 
ious  traditions  if  it  will  gain  recognition — fields  preoccupied  and  bristling 
with  inveterate  hostility.  It  must  meet  the  warlike  array  of  “  special  pro¬ 
vidences,”  and  “  divine  elections,”  and  “  sacred  books,”  and  “  revelations,” 
and  “  inspirations,”  and  “  the  chosen  jjeople,”  and  “  sacraments,”  and  “  infal¬ 
libilities,”  and  institutionalisms  of  nameless  and  numberless  kinds,  but  it 
is  not  timid  and  it  has  resources  of  great  endurance.  Who  will  say  that 
any  man  ever  sincerely  chose  any  religion  for  any  other  than  a  good  pur¬ 
pose  ?  It  is  incredible.  And  before  the  spectacle  of  an  immortal  soul 
seeking  for  and  communing  with  its  God,  all  hostilities  must  pause.  No 
missile  must  be  discharged.  All  the  angers  and  furies  must  await  on  that 
mood  and  fact  of  worship,  for  an  immortal  soul  talking  with  God  is  greater 
than  a  king.  And  while  we  wait  in  this  divine  silence  let  us  read  the  pro¬ 
found  and  befitting  word  which  heaven  has  vouchsafed  to  the  people 
of  the  Orient,  and  which  has  been  preserved  to  us  through  the  ages 
in  one  of  the  “  Sacred  books  of  the  East.”  The  great  deity  said  to  the 
inquiring  Arduna  concerning  the  many  forms  of  worship:  “  Whichever 
form  of  deity  any  worshiper  desires  to  worship  with  faith,  to  that  form  I 
render  his  faith  steady.  Possessed  of  that  faith  he  seeks  to  propitiate  the 
deity  in  that  form,  and  he  obtains  from  it  those  beneficial  things  which 
he  desires,  though  they  are  readily  given  by  me.” — Bhagavad  Gita, 
chapter  vii. 

If  we  could  duly  regard  the  charitable  philosophy  of  such  a  word  the 
hostilities  would  never  be  resumed.  No  ruthless  hand  shall  justly  destroy 


206 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


any  form  of  deity,  while  yet  it  arrests  the  reverent  mind  and  the  heart  of 
man.  There  is  only  one  being  in  the  world  who  may  legitimately  destroy 
an  idol,  and  that  being  is  the  one  who  has  worshiped  it.  He  alone  can  tell 
when  it  has  ceased  to  be  of  service.  And  assuredly  the  Great  Spirit  who 
works  through  all  forms  and  who  makes  all  things  his  ministers,  can  make 
the  rudest  image  a  medium  through  which  he  will  approach  his  child. 

There  is  no  plea  of  “  revelation  ”or  “  jjrovidence  ”  or  “  the  Sacred  Book” 
that  may  not  be  interpreted  in  perfect  accord  with  this  greater  plea  of  the 
religious  unity  of  mankind.  Nothing  is  a  revelation  till  its  meaning  is  dis¬ 
covered.  God’s  revelations  are  made  to  the  world  by  man’s  discovery  of 
God’s  meaning  to  the  world.  Revelation  by  discovery  is  the  eternal  law. 
The  ”  Sacred  Books”  of  the  world,  instead  of  being  a  revelation  from  God 
are  the  records  of  a  revelation  or  the  record  of  the  human  understanding 
of  what  God  has  done.  Not  a  truth  of  life  in  any  or  all  the  holy  books  was 
ever  written  till  it  had  been  experienced.  Not  all  the  meaning  of  any  great 
soul  in  life  has  ever  been  set  down  in  the  words.  The  divine  ‘‘  Word  ”  was 
made  flesh;  it  was  not  made  a  book.  And  all  the  holy  books  of  the  world 
must  fall  short  of  that  holiest  experience  of  the  soul  in  communion  with 
God. 

Max  Muller  says  that  what  the  world  needs  is  a  “  bookless  religion.”  It 
is  precisely  this  bookless  religion  that  the  world  already  has,  but  does  not 
realize  it  as  it  should.  There  is,  I  repeat,  an  experience  in  human  souls 
that  lies  deeper  than  the  conviction  of  any  book — a  religious  sense,  a  holy 
ecstasy  that  no  book  can  create  or  describe.  The  book  does  not  create  the 
religion — the  religion  creates  the  book.  We  should  have  religion  left  if  all 
the  books  should  perish.  The  eternal  emphasis  must  be  placed  upon  that 
living  spirit  that  lies  back  of  all  bibles,  back  of  all  institutions,  and  is  the 
eternal  reality  forever  discoverable,  but  never  completely  discovered.  There 
is  not  a  piece  of  mechanism  in  all  this  Columbian  Exposition  that  does  not 
owe  its  defectiveness  to  a  nearer  approach  to  the  idea  which  God  con¬ 
cealed  in  the  mechanical  laws  of  the  universe.  The  revelation  came  through 
somebody’s  discovery  of  it,  and  the  same  law  holds  good  from  the  dust 
beneath  our  feet  to  the  star  dust  of  all  the  heavens,  from  the  trembling  of 
a  forest  leaf  to  the  trem’oling  ecstasies  of  the  immortal  soul. 

The  “special  providence”  that,  pleaded  by  those  who  are  unwilling  to 
take  their  places  in  the  common  ranks  of  men,  are  wholly  admissible  if 
it  be  meant  that  the  specialties  are  created  from  the  human  side.  The 
“  divine  election  ”  is  on  the  human  side,  and  to-day  it  largely  means  the 
right  of  any  man  to  elect  himself  to  the  highest  offices  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.  This  is  a  noble  doctrine  of  election;  but,  to  place  the  electing  mind 
on  the  divine  side  and  to  say  that  the  common  Father  elects  some  and 
rejects  others,  forgets  some  and  remembers  others  in  the  sense  of  finality,  is 
to  proclaim  a  Fatherhood  little  needed  on  this  earth.  Because  I  am  a  Chris¬ 
tian  and  my  brother  is  a  Buddhist  is  not  construed  by  me  as  a  proof  that 
God  loves  me  better  than  He  does  him.  I  am  not  willing  to  be  so  victim¬ 
ized  by  love.  He  is  no  more  cursed  by  such  divine  forgetfulness  than  I  am 
by  such  capricious  remembrance.  Let  the  specialties  and  let  love  be  one 
and  our  faith  remains  in  their  eternal  benignity. 

And  the  great  religious  teachers  and  founders  of  the  world — have  they 
not  secured  their  immortal  places  in  the  love  and  generation  of  mankind 
by  teaching  the  people  how  to  find  and  use  this  large  beneficence  of  heaven? 
They  have  not  created;  they  have  discovered  what  existed  before  Some 
have  revealed  more,  others  less,  but  all  have  revealed  some  truth  of  God 
by  helping  the  world  to  s^-e.  They  have  asked  nothing  for  themselves  as 
finalities.  They  have  lived,  and  taught,  and  suffered,  and  died,  and  risen 
again.  That  they  might  bring  us  to  themselves?  No,  but  that  they  might 
bring  earth  to  God.  “  God’s  consciousness,”  to  borrow  a  noble  word  from 
Calcutta,  has  been  the  goal  of  them  all.  It  is  still  before  all  nations.  There 


SPIRITUAL  FORCES  IN  HUMAN  PROGRESS. 


207 


in  the  distance — is  it  so  great? — is  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  rising  before 
us  into  the  serene  and  the  cloudless  heavens. 

Let  all  the  kingdoms  and  nations  and  religions  of  the  world  vie  with 
each  other  in  the  rapidity  of  the  divine  ascent-  Let  them  cast  off  the  bur¬ 
dens  and  break  the  chains  which  retard  their  progress.  Our  fellowship  will 
be  closer  as  we  approach  the  radiant  summits,  and  there,  on  the  heights, 
we  shall  be  one  in  love  and  one  in  light,  for  God,  the  infinite  life,  is  there, 
of  whom  and  through  whom  and  to  whom  are  all  things,  and  to  whom  be 
the  glory  forever. 


SPIRITUAL  FORCES  IN  HUMAN  PROGRESS. 

DR.  EDWARD  EYERETT  HALE. 

Dr.  Barrows,  in  introducing  Bev.  Dr.  Edward  Everett  Hale, 
spoke  of  him  as  “  one  whose  heart  is  as  large  as  humanity,  one 

who  has  a  country  and  loves  it,  and  yet  loves  all  mankind.” 

We  speak  and  think  in  this  matter  of  the  celebration  of  the  discovery 
of  our  country  as  if  everybody  else  had  always  spoken  and  thought 
as  we  do.  Now,  this  is  by  no  means  so.  Only  a  century  ago,  when 
Columbus’  discovery  was  300  years  old,  the  whole  world  of  science,  the 
whole  world  of  literature,  the  whole  world  of  history,  was  very  doubtful 
whether  we  had  done  any  good  to  the  world  at  all.  In  fact  the  general 
weight  of  opinion  was  that  America  was  a  nuisance  and  had  done  more 
harm  than  good  to  civilized  men.  And,  if  you  think  of  it,  they  had 
some  reason  for  this  impression.  America  had  launched  the  European 
nations  in  all  their  wars.  England  was  just  then  disgraced  by  the  loss  of 
her  colonies.  France  was  in  debt  and  disgraced  by  the  loss  of  Canada. 
The  discovery  of  gold  and  silver  in  America  had,  strange  to  say,  impover¬ 
ished  Spain  and  Portugal — the  gentlemen  at  Washington  can  tell  you  why 
and  how — and  the  whole  commercial  arrangements  of  the  world  were 
thrown  out  of  joint,  because  this  untoward  discovery  of  America  had  been 
made.  There  were  diseases  v/hich  it  was  universally  said,  had  been  intro¬ 
duced  from  America,  and  there  had  been  no  additions  to  the  arts  or  the 
sciences;  no  additions  to  those  things  which  seem  to  make  life  worth  living 
which  they  were  willing  to  deem  as  received  from  America.  The  Literary 
Society  at  Lyons  offered  a  great  prize  to  be  awarded  in  1792,  for  an  essay 
on  “  The  Advantages  and  Disadvantages  of  the  Discovery  of  America,” 
When  the  time  came  for  the  prize  to  be  awarded  the  society  was  so  impecu¬ 
nious,  and  France  was  so  much  engaged  in  other  matters  of  more  import¬ 
ance  to  France  and  her  poor  king,  that  the  prize  was  never  given. 

But  the  papers  exist  which  were  written  for  that  prize.  Among  them 
is  the  very  curious  paper  of  the  Abbe  de  Janty.  The  abbe,  after  going  from 
the  north  pole  to  the  south,  from  Patagonia  to  Greenland,  comes  out  with 
the  view  that  America  has  never  been  of  any  use  to  the  world  so  far;  and, 
if  it  is  to  be  of  any  use,  it  will  be  because  of  the  moral  virtues  of  3,000,000 
people  in  the  United  States.  It  has  proved  that  the  abbe  was  perfectly 
right.  All  that  the  world  owes  to  America  it  owes  to  the  spiritual  forces 
which  have  been  at  work  in  the  United  States  in  the  last  100  years. 

I  do  not  think  you  will  expect  me,  in  the  brief  time  at  my  disposal,  to 
state  exhaustively  what  these  spiritual  forces  are.  I  had  rather  allude  in 
more  detail  to  one  alone  and  let  the  others  speak  for  themselves  at  the  lips 
of  other  speakers  here.  I  do  not  believe  that  Americans  of  to-day  sufficiently 
appreciate  the  strength  which  was  given  to  this  country  when  every  man  in  it 
went  about  his  own  business  and  was  told  that  he  must  “  paddle  his  own 


‘208 


THE  parliament  of  RLLIGIOK^. 


canoe,”  that  he  must  “  play  the  game  alone,”  that  he  must  get  the  best  and 
that  he  must  not  trust  to  anybody  about  him  to  work  out  these  miracles 
and  mysteries.  And  the  statement  of  these  duties,  these  necessities  to  each 
man  and  to  every  man  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  gave  an  amount 
of  power  to  the  United  States  of  America  which  the  United  States  of 
America  does  not  enough  realize  to-day.  It  is  power  given  to  America  that 
the  European  writers  never  could  conceive  of,  and,  with  one  or  two  excep¬ 
tions,  do  not  conceive  of  to  this  hour. 

When  you  send  a  man  off  into  the  desert  and  tell  him  he  is  to  build  his 
own  cottage  and  break  up  his  own  farm,  make  his  own  road,  and  that  he  is 
not  to  depend  for  these  things  on  any  priest  or  bishop  or  on  any  prefect  or 
mayor  or  council,  that  he  is  not  to  write  home  to  any  central  board  for  an 
order  for  proceeding,  but  that  he  is  to  work  out  his  own  salvation  and  that 
he  himself,  by  the  great  law  of  promotion,  is  to  ascend  to  the  summit  to  add 
incalculably  to  your  national  power,  it  is  a  thing  which  the  earlier  travelers 
in  this  country  never  could  understand.  It  drove  them  frantic  with  rage. 

They  would  come  over  here,  this  French  gentleman,  that  English 
adventurer,  that  Scotchman  w^orking  out  his  fortune — they  would  come 
over  here,  with  that  habit  of  condescension  which  I  must  observe  is  remark¬ 
able  in  all  Europeans  to  this  day  when  they  travel  in  America;  and,  with 
that  habit  of  condescension,  they  were  invariably  disgusted  with  the  lan¬ 
guage  in  which  the  American  pioneer  spoke  of  the  future  of  his  country. 
One  of  these  travelers  traveled  along  on  his  horse  through  the  mud  for 
thirty  miles  over  a  wretched  road,  which  was  not  a  road;  over  a  corduroy 
which  w^as  not  corduroy,  and  at  length  he  received  a  welcome  in  a  dirty 
little  log  cabin  by  a  man  who  was  hospitable  but  he  would  not  stand  non¬ 
sense.  And  this  pioneer  told  him  that  in  that  dirty  home  of  his  were 
growing  up  children  who  were  going  to  live  in  a  palace  on  that  very  spot. 
He  told  him  that  that  roadway  which  he  had  been  following  was  going  to 
be  the  finest  roadway  in  the  world.  He  told  him  that  this  country  around 
him,  with  just  a  few  redskins  in  the  neighborhood,  and  occasionally  the 
howl  of  a  wolf  in  the  fields  at  night,  was  going  to  be  the  most  magnificent 
city  ever  read  of  in  history.  And  the  traveler  never  could  bear  this;  he 
could  never  stand  it. 

What  did  it  mean?  It  meant  that  the  pioneer  had  been  sent  by  the 
nation,  as  one  of  the  children  of  the  nation,  and  that  he  knew  he  had  the 
nation  behind  him;  he  knew  he  had  a  country  which  would  stand  by  him. 
This  country  had  said  to  him:  “  Do  what  you  will,  so  you  do  not  interfere 
with  the  rights  of  others.”  This  country  said  to  him  in  the  great  words  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  that  every  man  is  born  free,  and  every  man 
is  born  with  equal  rights.  It  is  true  that  the  country,  as  it  sent  out  the 
pioneer  did  not  give  him  a  ticket,  did  not  give  him  a  pin  with  w^hich  to 
scratch  his  way  in  the  wilderness.  The  country  said  to  him  in  that  magnifi¬ 
cent  proverbial  phrase,  “  Root,  hog,  or  die,”  you  are  to  live  out  your  own 
life,  but  you  shall  be  free  to  live  out  your  own  life;  you  are  to  work  out  your 
own  salvation,  but  working  out  your  salvation  you  are  to  will  and  do  accord¬ 
ing  to  God’s  good  pleasure. 

The  country  thus  gave  to  him  the  inestimable  privilege  of  freedom. 
What  does  a  country  gain  which  gives  to  its  citizens  this  inestimable  privi¬ 
lege?  Why,  if  that  country  needs  a  million  pioneers  it  sounds  its  whistle, 
and  a  million  pioneers  rise  at  its  order.  If,  in  the  course  of  history,  that 
country  needs  that  every  son  of  hers  shall  rise  in  her  defense,  every  son  of 
her  rises  in  her  defense.  A  government  of  the  people,  for  the  people,  by 
the  people,  gives  the  country  strength  such  as  no  nation  ever  had  before. 
The  pioneer  looks  forward  to  such  strength  as  this  in  that  magnificent 
expression  of  patriotism  which  seemed  so  brutal  to  the  Scotch  or  English  or 
French  adventurer.  It  is  true  that  all  the  time  there  were  vulnerable  points 
in  this  armor  of  American  citizenship.  It  was  all  very  fine  to  say,  “  All  men 


'spiritual  forces  in  human  progress.  209 

are  born  free  and  equal,”  if,  when  you  said  so,  none  of  them  happened  to  be 
born  slaves.  It  was  all  very  fine  to  sing 

The  star-spnngled  banner,  long  may  it  wave 

O’er  the  land  of  the  free  and  the  home  of  the  brave, 

if  you  did  not  remember  that  the  rhyme  sounded  just  as  well  when  you 
sang 

O’er  the  land  of  the  free  and  the  home  of  the  slave, 

and  was  just  as  true.  There  is  something  really  pathetic  in  the  tract  book 
of  historical  speeches  of,  say,  the  first  thirty  years  of  the  century.  There  is 
a  sort  of  wish  and  attempt  to  keep  this  matter  of  slavery  out  of  sight,  you 
know.  Why,  it  is  as  if  we  had  a  fine  boy  come  up  here  to  make  his  exhibi¬ 
tion  speech  and  he  should  forget  his  words  and  you  should  all  pretend  to 
observe  that  he  had  not  forgotten  his  words.  So,  in  the  first  thirty  years  of 
this  century,  we  would  say  our  country  was  the  land  of  the  free  and  the 
home  of  the  brave,  and  we  would  not  remember  that  there  were  some  black 
people  there;  we  would  keep  them  out  of  sight  if  we  could. 

But  this  country  is  ruled  by  ideas;  it  is  not  ruled  by  frivolities  or 
excuses.  And  in  the  middle  of  all  that  keeping  out  of  the  way  the  things 
we  did  not  wish  to  have  seen,  there  was  this  man  and  that  woman  who 
steadily  said,  without  much  rhetoric  or  eloquence,  perhaps,  “  Human 
slavery  is  wrong.”  And  they  kept  saying  it;  would  not  be  silenced. 
“  Human  slavery  is  wrong” — that  is  the  only  answer  they  would  give  to 
arguments  on  the  other  side  to  conventional  statements  of  historical  deduc¬ 
tion.  You  know  what  came  from  that  answer.  You  know  that  the  great 
idealism  of  the  beginning  worked  its  way  along  till,  in  the  blood  of  your 
own  sons,  in  the  sacrifices  of  your  own  home,  it  should  be  proved  that  all 
men  are  born  free,  that  all  men  have  equal  rights,  and  to  prove  these  great 
spiritual  truths,  smoke  and  dust  and  pleasure,  gold  and  silver — these  are 
all  forgotten  and  all  as  nothing,  and  the  things  that  are  remembered  and 
prized  are  the  spiritual  truths  which  have  given  this  country  its  strength 
and  its  power. 

It  is  this  something  which,  on  the  other  side  of  the  water,  is  not  under¬ 
stood.  They  are  forever  telling  that,  when  the  wealth  of  our  prairies  is 
exhausted,  we  shall  have  to  begin  where  they  began;  and  now  they  begin 
to  tell  us  that  it  is  the  accident  of  gold  and  silver,  of  lead  and  copper,  that 
makes  our  country  what  it  is.  No,  all  these  things  were  here  before.  The 
virgin  prairies  were  here,  plenty  of  nuggets  of  gold  were  here.  It  was  not 
till  you  created  men  and  women  who  deserved  the  name  of  children  of  God, 
it  was  not  until  you  sent  every  one  of  them  out,  sure  that  he  was  a  child  of 
God  and  working  under  God’s  law,  that  your  gold  and  silver  were  worth 
anything  more  than  dust  in  the  balance. 

One  is  tempted  to  say  in  passing,  that  it  was  the  people,  not  the  theo¬ 
logians,  so-called — that  it  was  the  people  who  proved  to  be  the  great  theo¬ 
logians  in  this  affair.  The  fall  of  Augustianism,  the  utter  ruin  of  the  theory 
of  the  middle  ages,  that  men  are  children  of  the  devil,  born  of  sin — all  this 
dates  from  the  decision  of  the  people  of  America  that  they  would  live  by 
universal  suffrage.  Universal  suffrage  came  in,  one  hardly  knows  how, 
there  was  so  little  said  about  it.  It  worked  its  way  in.  The  voice  of  the 
people  is  the  voice  of  God,  the  people  said,  and  of  course  you  could  not  strip 
the  Connecticut  Valley  of  its  farmers  and  tell  every  man  from  fifty  to  sixty 
years  of  age  that  he  had  got  to  shoulder  his  musket  and  go  out  against 
Burgoyne,  and  then  tell  him  when  he  came  back  home:  “You  cannot  vote, 
you  are  too  wicked  to  vote;  you  are  the  son  of  the  devil  and  should  not  be 
allowed  to  vote.”  You  had  to  give  them  universal  suffrage.  If  this  Con¬ 
necticut  Valley  farmer  is  good  enough  to  die  for  you,  he  is  good  enough  to 
vote  for  you.  This  custom  of  universal  suffrage  was  in  advance  of  all  the 
theologians  and,  although  they  kept  bits  of  paper  with  statements  of 
Augustianism  on  them  to  the  effect  that  the  people  were  the  children  of 
the  devil,  they  gave  them  a  suffrage  as  sons  of  God. 


210 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Augustianism  died  with  the  fact  of  universal  suffrage — it  had  died  long 
before.  I  speak  with  perfect  confidence  in  this  matter,  because  I  know 
there  was  not  a  pulpit  in  the  country  that  brought  forth  on  that  Sunday 
this  old  doctrine,  which  is  a  doctrine  to  be  preserved  in  a  museum,  but  is 
not  to  be  paraded  at -the  present  day.  The  doctrine  for  us  was  the  great 
truth  that  was  announced  in  the  beginning,  that  was  written  in  the  gos¬ 
pels,  that  we  are  all  kings  and  priests  and  sons  of  God,  and  that  all  of  us 
are  able  in  our  political  constitution  to  write  down  the  laws  of  our  eternal 
life. 

And  I  am  tempted  in  passing  to  speak  of  that  old-fashioned  sneer  about 
the  “almighty  dollar” — how  every  book  of  travel  used  to  say  that  we  had 
no  idealism  in  America,  that  we  were  all  given  so  to  making  money,  to 
mines  and  timber  and  crops,  that  we  would  never  know  what  ideas  were, 
and  that  for  spiritual  truths  we  must  go  back  to  Germany  and  England. 
“Nobody  ever  reads  American  books,”  they  said;  “nobody  ever  looks  at  an 
American  statue,”  and  thus  they  really  thought  that  the  writing  of  a  great 
book  was  the  greatest  of  things,  or  the  carving  of  a  great  statue  was  the 
greatest  of  triumphs;  not  seeing  that  to  create  a  nation  of  happy  homes  is 
greater  than  any  such  triumph,  not  seeing  that  to  make  good  men  and  good 
women,  whose  history  may  be  worth  recording  by  the  pen  or  by  the  chisel, 
is  an  achievement  vastly  beyond  what  any  artist  ever  wrought  with  a 
chisel  or  any  man  of  letters  ever  wrote  with  his  pen.  It  is  in  the  midst  of 
such  sneers  about  our  lack  of  idealism  that  one  observes  with  a  certain 
interest  the  American  origin  of  the  man  whom  everybody  would  admit  was 
the  first  great  idealist  of  the  English-speaking  tongue  to-day. 

The  man  who  speaks  the  word  which  some  miner  in  his  humble  cabin 
read  last  night  when  he  took  down  from  his  book-shelf  Emerson’s  Essays; 
the  man  who  wrote  the  poem  which  some  poor  artist  read  in  Paris  last  night 
to  his  comfort;  the  man  whose  works  were  read  last  Sunday  as  the  script¬ 
ures  are  read  in  some  rude  log  house  in  the  mountain,  is  Ralph  Waldo 
Emerson — he  of  the  country  which  is  said  to  know  nothing  of  ideals.  His 
philosophy  was  not  German  in  its  origin.  He  did  not  study  the  English 
masters  in  style.  He  is  not  troubled  by  the  traditions  of  the  classics  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans.  Our  friends  in  Oxford,  as  they  put  back  the  Plato 
which  they  have  been  reading  for  a  little  refreshment  in  their  idealism, 
resort  to  the  Yankee  Plato  of  this  clime,  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson. 

I  have  chosen  in  the  few  minutes  in  which  I  have  this  greatest  privilege 
in  my  life,  to  speak  thus  briefly  of  what  has  passed  since  the  year  1800  rather 
than  to  attempt  a  great  speech  on  the  great  subject  assigned  to  me  by  your 
committee,  “The  Spiritual  Forces  of  the  World.”  That,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
the  greatest  subject  possible.  I  thought  I  would  not  like  to  have  you  think 
me  wholly  a  fool,  so  I  selected  one  or  two  of  these  little  illustrations  instead 
of  attempting  a  subject  of  such  great  magnitude.  The  lessons  which 
America  has  learned,  if  she  will  only  learn  them  well  and  remember  them, 
are  lessons  which  may  well  carry  her  through  this  20th  century  which  is 
before  us.  We  have  built  up  all  our  strength,  all  our  success,  on  the  tri¬ 
umph  of  ideas,  and  those  ideas  for  the  20th  century  are  very  simple. 

God  is  nearer  to  man  than  he  ever  was  before,  and  man  knows  that  and 
knows  that  because  men  are  God’s  children  they  are  nearer  to  each  other 
than  they  ever  were  before.  And  so  life  is  on  a  higher  plane  than  it  was. 
Men  do  not  bother  so  much  about  the  smoke  and  dust  of  earth.  They  live 
in  higher  altitudes  because  they  are  children  of  God,  living  for  their 
brothers  and  sisters  in  the  world,  a  life  with  God  for  man  in  heaven.  That 
is  the  whole  of  it.  At  the  end  of  the  19th  century  we  can  state  all  our 
creeds  as  briefly  as  this.  It  is  the  statement  of  the  pope’s  encyclical,  as  he 
writes  another  of  his  noble  letters.  It  is  the  statement  on  which  is  based 
the  action  of  some  poor  come-outer,  who  is  so  afraid  of  images  that  he  wont 
use  words  in  his  prayers. 


ORTHODOX  OR  HISTORICAL  JUDAISM. 


211 


Life  with  God  for  man  in  heaven  —  that  is  the  religion  on  which  the 
light  of  the  20th  century  is  to  be  formed.  The  20th  century,  for  instance, 
is  going  to  establish  peace  among  all  the  nations  of  the  world.  Instead  of 
these  permanent  arbitration  boards  such  as  we  have  now  occasionally,  we 
are  going  to  have  a  permanent  tribunal,  always  in  session,  to  discuss  and 
settle  the  grievances  of  the  nations  of  the  world.  The  establishment  of 
this  permanent  tribunal  is  one  of  the  illustrations  of  life  with  God,  with 
men  in  a  present  heaven.  Education  is  to  be  universal.  That  does  not 
mean  that  every  boy  and  girl  in  the  United  States  is  to  be  taught  how  to 
read  very  badly  and  how  to  write  very  badly.  We  are  not  going  to  be  sat¬ 
isfied  with  any  such  thing  as  that.  It  means  that  every  man  and  woman 
in  the  United  States  shall  be  able  to  study  wisely  and  well  all  the  works  of 
God,  and  shall  work  side  by  side  with  those  who  go  the  farthest  and  study 
the  deepest.  Universal  education  will  be  best  for  everyone — ^that  is  what 
is  coming.  That  is  life  with  God  for  man  in  heaven. 

And  the  20th  century  is  going  to  care  for  everybody’s  health;  going 
to  see  that  the  conditions  of  health  are  such  that  the  ^child  born  in 
the  midst  of  the  most  crowded  parts  of  the  most  crowded  cities  has  the 
same  exquisite  delicacy  of  care  as  the  babe  born  to  some  President  of  the 
United  States  in  the  White  House.  We  shall  take  that  care  of  the  health 
of  every  man,  as  our  religion  is  founded  on  life  with  God  for  man  in 
heaven. 

As  for  social  rights,  the  statement  is  very  simple.  It  has  been  made 
already.  The  20th  century  will  give  to  every  man  according  to  his  neces¬ 
sities.  It  will  receive  from  every  man  according  to  his  opportunity. 
And  that  will  come  from  the  religious  life  of  that  century,  a  life  with  God 
for  man  in  heaven.  As  for  purity,  the  20th  century  will  keep  the  body 
pure — men  as  chaste  as  women.  Nobody  drunk,  nobody  stifled  with  this  or 
that  poison,  given  with  this  or  that  pretense,  with  everybody  free  to  be  the 
engine  of  the  almighty  soul. 

All  this  is  to  say  that  the  20th  century  is  to  build  up  its  civiliza¬ 
tion  on  ideas,  not  on  things  that  perish;  build  them  on  spiritual  truths 
which  endure  and  are  the  same  forever;  build  them  on  faith,  on  hope,  on 
love,  which  are  the  only  elements  of  eternal  life.  The  20th  century  is 
to  build  a  civilization  which  is  to  last  forever,  because  it  is  a  civilization 
of  an  idea. 


ORTHODOX  OR  HISTORICAL  JUDAISM. 

BABBI  H.  PEIRIRA  MENDES,  OF  THE  SPANISH  AND  PORTUGUESE 

SYNAGOGUE,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Our  history  may  be  divided  into  three  eras  —  the  biblical;  the  era  from 
the  close  of  the  Bible  record  to  the  present  day;  the  future.  The  first  is 
the  era  of  the  announcement  of  those  ideals  which  are  essential  for  man¬ 
kind’s  happiness  and  progress.  The  Bible  contains  for  us  and  for  humanity 
all  ideals  worthy  of  human  effort  to  attain.  I  make  no  exception.  The 
attitude  of  historical  Judaism  is  to  hold  up  these  ideals  for  mankind’s 
inspiration  and  for  all  men  to  pattern  life  accordingly. 

The  first  divine  message  to  Abraham  contains  the  ideal  of  righteous 
altruism  —  “Be  a  source  of  blessing.”  And  in  the  message  announcing  the 
covenant  is  the  ideal  of  righteous  egotism.  “Walk  before  Me  and  be  per¬ 
fect.”  “Recognize  me,  God,  be  a  blessing  to  thy  fellowman,  be  perfect 
thyself.”  Could  religion  ever  be  more  strikingly  summed  up? 

The  life  of  Abraham,  as  we  have  it  recorded,  is  a  logical  response,  despite 
any  human  feeling.  Thus  he  refused  booty  he  had  captured.  It  was  an 


212 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


ideal  of  warfare  not  yet  realized  —  that  to  the  victor  the  spoils  did  not 
necessarily  belong.  Childless  and  old,  he  believed  God's  promise  that  his 
descendants  should  be  numerous  as  the  stars.  It  was  an  ideal  faith;  that, 
also,  and  more,  was  his  readiness  to  sacrifice  Isaac  —  a  sacrifice  ordered,  to 
make  more  public  his  God's  condemnation  of  Canaanite  child-sacrifice.  It 
revealed  an  ideal  God,  who  would  not  allow  religion  to  cloak  outrage  upon 
holy  sentiments  of  humanity. 

To  Moses  next  were  high  ideals  imparted  for  mankind  to  aim  at.  On 
the  very  threshold  of  his  mission  the  ideal  of  “the  P'’atherhood  of  God”  was 
announced — ^‘Tsrael  is  my  son,  my  first-born,”  implying  that  other  nations 
are  also  his  children.  Then  at  Sinai  were  given  him  those  ten  ideals  of 
human  conduct,  which,  called  the  “ten  commandments,”  receive  the  alle¬ 
giance  of  the  great  nations  of  to-day.  Magnificent  ideals!  Yes,  but  not  as 
magnificent  as  the  three  ideals  of  God  revealed  to  him — God  is  mercy,  God 
is  love,  God  is  holiness. 

“  The  Lord  thy  God  loveth  thee.”  The  echoes  of  this  are  the  commands 
to  the  Hebrews  and  to  the  world,  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart,  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might.”  “Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself.”  “Thou  shalt  not  hate  thy  brother  in  thy  heart; 
ye  shall  love  the  stranger.”  God  is  holiness!  “Be  holy!  for  I  am  holy;” 
“it  is  God  calling  to  man  to  participate  in  His  divine  nature.” 

To  the  essayist  on  Moses  belongs  the  setting  forth  of  other  ideals  asso¬ 
ciated  with  him.  The  historian  may  dwell  upon  his  “proclaim  freedom 
throughout  the  land  to  its  inhabitants.”  It  is  written  on  Boston’s  Liberty 
Bell,  which  announced  “Free  America.”  The  politician  may  ponder  upon 
his  land  tenure  system;  his  declaration  that  the  poor  have  rights;  his  limi¬ 
tation  of  priestly  wealth;  his  separation  of  church  and  state.  The  preacher 
may  dilate  upon  that  Mosaic  ideal  so  bright  with  hope  and  faith — wings 
of  the  human  soul  as  it  flies  forth  to  find  God — that  God  is  the  God  of  the 
spirits  of  all  flesh;  it  is  a  flashlight  of  immortality  upon  the  storm-tossed 
w^aters  of  human  life.  The  physician  may  elaborate  his  dietary  and  health 
laws,  designed  to  prolong  life  and  render  man  more  able  to  do  his  duty  to 
society. 

The  moralist  may  point  to  the  ideal  of  personal  responsibility;  not  even 
aMoses  can  offer  himself  to  die  to  save  sinners.  The  exponent  of  natural 
law  in  the  spiritual  w'orld  is  anticipated  by  his  “  Not  by  bread  alone  does 
man  live,  but  by  obedience  to  divine  law.”  The  lecturer  on  ethics  may 
enlarge  upon  moral  impulses,  their  co-relation,  free  will,  and  such  like  ideas, 
it  is  Moses  w’ho  teaches  the  quickening  cause  of  all  is  God’s  revelation ; 
“  Our  wisdom  and  our  understanding,”  and  who  sets  before  us  “  Life  and 
death,  blessing  and  blighting,”  to'choose  either,  though  he  advises  “  choose 
the  life.”  Tenderness  to  brute  creation,  equality  of  aliens,  kindness  to  serv¬ 
ants,,  justice  to  the  employed;  w^hat  code  of  ethics  has  brighter  gems  of 
the  ideal  than  those  which  make  glorious  the  law’  of  Moses? 

As  for  our  other  prophets,  w’e  can  only  glance  at  their  ideals  of  purity  in 
social  life,  in  business  life,  in  personal  life,  in  political  life,  and  in  religious 
life.  We  need  no  Bryce  to  tell  us  how  much  or  how  little  they  obtain  in  our 
commonwealth  to-day.  So,  also,  if  w’e  only  mention  the  ideal  relation  w’hich 
they  hold  up  for  ruler  and  the  people,  and  the  former  “  should  be  servants 
to  the  latter,”  it  is  only  in  view  of  the  tremendous  results  in  history. 

For  these  very  w’ords  license  the  English  Revolution.  From  that  very 
chapter  of  the  Bible  the  cry,  “To  your  tents,  O  Israel,”  was  taken  by  the 
Puritans,  w’ho  fought  with  the  Bible  in  one  hand.  Child  of  that  English 
revolt,  which  soon  consummated  English  history,  America  w’as  born — her¬ 
self  the  parent  of  the  French  Revolution,  w’hich  has  made  so  many  kings 
the  servants  of  their  peoples.  English  liberty,  America’s  birth,  French 
Revolution!  Three  tremendous  results  truly!  Let  us,  how’ever,  set  these 
aside,  great  as  they  are,  and  mark  those  grand  ideals  W’hich  our  prophets 
were  the  first  to  preach. 


ORTHODOX  OR  HISTORICAL  JUDAISM. 


213 


1.  CJniversal  peace,  or  settlement  of  national  disputes  by  arbitration. 
When  Micah  and  Isaiah  announced  this  ideal  of  universal  peace  it  was  the 
age  of  war,  of  despotism.  They  may  have  been  regarded  as  lunatics.  Now 
all  true  men  desire  it,  all  good  men  pray  for  it,  and  bright  among  the  jew¬ 
els  of  Chicago’s  coronet  this  year  is  her  universal  peace  convention. 

2.  Universal  brotherhood.  If  Israel  is  God’s  first-born  and  other 
nations  are  therefore  his  children,  Malachi’s  “  Have  we  not  all  one  Father?  ” 
does  not  surprise  us.  The  ideal  is  recognized  to-day.  It  is  prayed  for  by 
the  Catholics,  by  the  Protestants,  by  Hebrews,  by  all  men. 

3.  The  universal  happiness.  This  is  the  greatest.  For  the  ideal  of  uni¬ 

versal  happiness  includes  both  universal  peace  and  universal  brotherhood. 
It  adds  being  at  peace  with  God,  for  without  that  happiness  is  impossible. 
Hence  the  prophet’s  bright  ideal  that  one  day  “All  shall  know  the  Lord, 
from  the  greatest  to  the  least.  ”  “  Earth  shall  be  full  of  the  knowledge  of 

the  Lord  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea,  ”  and  “  All  nations  shall  come  and  bow 
down  before  God  and  honor  His  name.  ” 

Add  to  those  prophet  ideals,  those  orourKetubim.  The  “seek  wisdom” 
of  Solomon,  of  which  the  “Know  thyself  ”  of  Socrates  is  but  a  partial  echo; 
Job’s  “  Let  not  the  finite  creature  attempt  to  fathom  the  infinite  Creator 
David’s  reaching  after  God!  And  then  let  it  be  clearly  understood  that 
these  and  all  ideals  of  the  Bible  era  are  but  a  prelude  and  overture.  How 
grand  then  must  be  the  music  of  the  next  era  which  now  claims  our  atten¬ 
tion! 

The  era  from  Bible  days  to  these  is  the  era  of  the  formation  of  religions 
and  philosophic  systems  throughout  the  Orient  and  the  classic  world.  What 
grand  harmonies,  but  what  crashing  discords  sound  through  these  ages! 
Melting  and  swelling  in  mighty  diapason,  they  come  to  us  to-day  as  the 
music  which  once  swayed  men’s  souls,  now  lifting  them  with  holy  emotion, 
now  mocking,  now  soothing,  now  exciting.  For  those  religions,  those  phil¬ 
osophies,  were  mighty  plectra  in  their  day  to  wake  the  human  heart¬ 
strings.  Above  them  all  rang  the  voice  of  historical  Judaism,  clear  and 
lasting,  while  other  sounds  blended  or  were  lost.  Sometimes  the  voice  was 
in  harmony;  most  often  it  was  discordant  as  it  clashed  with  the  dominant 
note  of  the  day.  For  it  sometimes  met  sweet  and  elevating  strains  of  mor¬ 
ality,  of  beauty;  but  more  often  it  met  the  debasing  sounds  of  immorality 
and  error. 

Thus  Kuenan  speaks  of  “the  affinity  of  Judaism  and  Zoroastrianism  in 
Persia  to  the  affinity  of  a  common  atmosphere  of  lofty  truth,  of  a  simul¬ 
taneous  sympathy  in  their  view  of  earthly  and  heavenly  things.”  If  Max 
Muller  declares  Zoroastrianism  originally  was  monotheistic,  so  far  historic 
Judaism  could  harmonize.  But  it  would  raise  a  voice  of  protest  when 
Zoroastrianism  became  a  dualism  of  Ormuzd,  light  or  good,  and  Ahriman, 
darkness  or  evil.  Hence  the  anticipatory  protest  proclaimed  by  Isaiah,  in 
God’s  very  message  to  Cyrus,  King  of  Persia,  “  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is 
none  else.”  “  I  formed  the  light  and  create  darkness.”  “  I  make  peace  and 
create  evil  ”  “I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  else;  that  is,  I  do  these 
things,  not  Ormuzd  or  Ahriman.” 

Interesting  as  would  be  a  consideration  of  the  mutual  debt  between 
Judaism  and  Zoroastrianism,  with  the  borrowed  angeology  and  demono¬ 
logy  of  the  former  compared  with  the  “  ahmiyat  ahmi  Mazdan  anma  ”  of  the 
latter  manifestly  borrowed  from  the  “  I  am  that  man  ”  of  the  former,  we 
can  not  pause  here  for  a  moment. 

Similarly,  historical  Judaism  would  harmonize  with  Confucius’  instance 
of  belief  in  a  Supreme  Being,  filial  duty,  his  famous,  “  What  you  do  not 
like  when  done  to  you,  do  not  unto  others,”  and  of  the  Buddhistic 
teachings  of  universal  peace.  But  against  what  is  contrary  to  Bible  ideal 
it  would  protest,  and  from  it  would  hola  separate. 

In  521  B.  C.  Zoroastrianism  was  revived.  Confucius  was  then  actually 


214 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


living.  Gautama  Buddha  died  in  534.  Is  the  closeness  of  the  dates  mere 
chance?  The  Jews  had  long  been  in  Babylon.  As  Gesenius,  and  Movers 
observe,  there  was  traffic  of  merchants  between  China  and  India  via  Baby¬ 
lonia  with  Phoenicia,  and  not  unworthy  of  mark  is  Ernest  Renan’s  observa¬ 
tion  that  Babylon  had  long  been  a  focus  of  Buddhism  and  that  Boudasy 
was  a  Chaldean  sage.  If  future  research  should  ever  reveal  an  influence  of 
Jewish  thought  on  these  three  great  Oriental  faiths,  all  originally  holding 
beautiful  thoughts,  however  later  ages  might  have  obscured  them,  would  it 
not  be  partial  fulfillment  of  the  prophecy,  so  far  as  concerns  the  Orient,  “  that 
Israel  shall  blossom  into  bud  and  fill  the  face  of  the  earth  with  fruit?  ” 

In  the  West  as  in  the  East,  historical  Judaism  was  in  harmony  with  any 
ideals  of  classic  philosophy  which  echoed  those  of  the  Bible.  It  protested 
where  they  failed  to  do  so,  and  because  it  failed  most  often  historical  Juda¬ 
ism  remained  separate. 

Thus,  as  Dr.  Drummond  remarks,  Socrates  was  “  in  a  certain  sense 
monotheistic,  and  in  distinction  from  the  other  gods  mentions  Him  who 
orders  and  holds  together  the  entire  Cosmos,”  “  in  whom  are  all  things 
beautiful  and  good,”  “who  from  the  beginning  makes  men  ” — historical 
Judaism  commends. 

Again,  Plato,  his  disciple,  taught  that  God  was  good,  or  that  the  planets 
rose  from  the  reason  and  understanding  of  God.  Historical  Judaism  is  in 
accord  with  its  ideal  “  God  is  good,”  so  oft  repeated,  and  its  thought 
hymned  in  the  almost  identical  words,  “  Good  are  the  luminaries  which  our 
God  created;  He  formed  them  with  knowledge,  understanding,  and  skill.” 
But  when  Plato  condemns  studies  except  as  mental  training,  and  desires 
no  practical  results;  when  he  even  rebukes  Arytas  for  inventing  machines 
on  mathematical  principles,  declaring  it  was  worthy  only  of  carpenters  and 
wheelwrights;  and  when  his  master,  Socrates,  says  to  Glaucon,  “  It  amuses 
me  to  see  how  afraid  you  are  lest  the  common  herd  accuse  you  of  recom¬ 
mending  useless  studies  ” — the  useless  study  in  question  being  astronomy — 
historical  Judaism  is  opposed,  and  protests.  For  it  holds  that  even  Beza- 
leal  and  Aholiab  is  filled  with  the  spirit  of  God.  It  bids  us  study 
astronomy  to  learn  of  God  thereby.  “Lift  up  your  eyes  on  high  and  see 
who  hath  created  these  things,  who  bringeth  out  their  host  by  number. 
He  calleth  them  all  by  name,  by  the  greatness  of  His  might,  for  He  is  strong 
in  power;  not  one  faileth.”  Even  as  later  sages  practically  teach  the  dig¬ 
nity  of  labor  by  themselves  engaging  in  it.  And  when  Macaulay  remarks 
“  from  the  testimony  of  friends  as  well  as  of  foes,  from  the  confessions  of 
Epictetus  and  Seneca,  as  well  as  from  the  sneers  of  Lucian  and  the  invec¬ 
tives  of  Juvenal,  it  is  plain  that  these  teachers  of  virtue  had  all  the  vices  of 
their  neighbors,  with  the  additional  one  of  hypocrisy.”  It  is  easy  to  under¬ 
stand  the  relation  of  historical  Judaism  to  these  with  its  ideal,  “  Be  perfect.” 

Similarly  the  sophist  school  declared  “  there  is  no  truth,  no  virtue,  no 
justice,  no  blasphemy,  for  there  are  no  gods;  right  and  wrong  are  conven¬ 
tional  terms.”  The  skeptic  school  proclaimed  “  we  have  no  criterion  of 
action  or  judgment;  we  can  not  know  the  truth  of  anything;  we  assert  no¬ 
thing.  not  even  the  Epicurean  school  taught  pleasure’s  pursuit.  But  histori¬ 
cal  Judaism  solemnly  protested.  What  are  those  teachings  of  our  Pirke  Avoth 
but  protest,  formerly  formulated  by  our  religious  heads?  Said  they,  “  The 
Torah  is  the  criterion  of  conduct.  Worship  instead  of  doubting.  Do  phil¬ 
anthropic  acts  instead  of  seeking  only  pleasure.  Society’s  safeguards  are 
law,  worship,  and  philanthropy.”  So  preached  Simon  Hatzadik.  “  Love 
labor,”  preached  Shemangia  to  the  votary  of  Epicurean  ease.  “  Procure 
thyself  an  instructor,”  was  Gamaliel’s  advice  to  anyone  in.  doubt.  “  The 
practical  application,  not  theory,  is  the  essential,”  was  the  cry  of  Simon  to 
Platonist  or  Pyrrhic.  “Deed  first,  then  creed.”  “  Yes,”  added  Abtalion, 
“  Deed  first,  then  creed,  never  greed.”  “  Be  not  like  the  servants  who  serve 
their  master  for  price;  be  like  the  servants  who  serve  without  thought  of 


ORTHODOX  OR  HISTORICAL  JUDAISM. 


215 


price — and  let  the  fear  of  God  be  upon  you.”  “  Separation  and  protest  ”  was 
thus  the  cry  against  these  thought-vagaries. 

Brilliant  instance  of  the  policy  and  separation  and  protest  was  the 
glorious  Maccabean  effort  to  combat  Helenist  philosophy. 

If  but  for  Charles  Martel  and  Poictiers,  Europe  would  long  have  been 
Mohammedan,  then  but  for  J udas  Maccabeus  and  Bethoron,  or  Emmaus, 
Judaism  would  have  been  strangled.  But  no  Judaism,  no  Christianity. 
Take  either  faith  out  of  the  world  and  what  would  our  civilization  be? 
Christianity  was  born  — originally  and  as  designed  and  declared  by  its 
Pounder,  not  to  change  or  alter  one  tittle  of  the  law  of  Moses, 

If  the  Nazarene  teacher  claimed  tacitly  or  not  the  title  “Son  of  God” 
in  any  sense  save  that  which  Moses  meant  when  he  said:  “Ye  are  children 
of  your  God,”  can  we  wonder  there  was  a  Hebrew  protest? 

Historical  Judaism  soon  found  cause  to  be  separate  and  to  protest.  For 
sect  upon  sect  arose  —  Ebionites,  Gentile  Christians,  Jewish  Christians, 
Nazarenes,  Gnostic  Christians,  Masboteans,  Valentinians,  Carpocratians, 
Marcionites,  Balaamites,  Nicolaites,  Emkratites,  Cainites,  Ophites  or  Nahas- 
ites;  evangels  of  these  and  others  were  multiplied;  new  prophets  were 
named,  such  as  Pachor,  Barkor,  Barkoph,  Armagil,  Abraxos,  etc.  At  last 
the  Christianity  of  Paul  arose  supreme,  but  doctrines  were  found  to  be 
engrafted  which  not  only  caused  the  famous  Christian  heresies  of  Pelagius, 
Nestorius,  Eutyches,  etc.,  but  obliged  historical  Judaism  to  maintain  its 
attitude  of  separation  and  protest;  for  its  Bible  ideas  were  invaded.  It 
could  not  join  all  the  sects  and  all  the  heresies;  so  it  joined  none. 

Presently  the  Crescent  of  Islam  rose.  From  Bagdad  to  Granada 
Hebrews  prexjared  protests  which  the  Christians  carried  to  ferment  in  their 
distant  homes.  For  through  the  Arabs  and  the  Jews  the  old  classics  were 
revived  and  experimental  science  was  fostered.  The  misuse  of  the  former 
made  the  methods  of  the  iVcadeniicians  the  methods  of  the  Scholastic  Fathers. 
But  it  made  Aristotleian  jjhilosophy  dominant.  Experiment  widened  men’s 
views.  The  sentiment  of  protest  was  imbibed — sentiment  against  schol¬ 
astic  argument,  against  bidding  research  for  practical  ends,  against  the 
supjjosition  “  that  syllogistic  reasoning  could  ever  conduct  men  to  the  dis¬ 
covery  of  any  new  princii^le,”  or  that  such  discoveries  could  be  made  except 
by  induction,  as  Aristotle  held;  against  the  official  denial  of  ascertained 
truth,  as,  for  example,  earth’s  rotundity.  This  protest  sentiment  in  time 
produced  the  Reformation.  Later  it  gave  wonderful  impulse  to  thought 
and  effort,  which  has  substituted  modern  civilization,  with  its  glorious 
conquests,  for  medieval  semi-darkness. 

Here  the  era  of  the  past  is  becoming  the  era  of  the  present.  Still  his¬ 
torical  Judaism  maintained  its  attitude. 

As  the  new  philosophies  were  born,  it  is  said,  with  Bacon,  “  let  us  have 
fruits,  practical  results,  not  foliage  or  mere  words.”  But  it  opposed  a  Vol¬ 
taire  and  a  Paine  when  they  made  their  ribald  attacks.  It  could  but  praise 
the  success  of  a  Newton  as  he  “  crowned  the  long  labors  of  the  astronomers 
and  physicists  by  co-ordaining  the  jihenomena  of  solar  motion  throughout 
the  visible  universe  into  one  vast  system.”  So  it  could  only  cry  “Amen”  to 
a  Kepler  and  a,  Galileo.  For  did  they  not  all  prove  the  long  unsuspected 
magnificence  of  the  Hebrews’  God,  who  made  and  who  ruled  the  heavens 
and  heaven  of  heavens,  and  who  presides  over  the  circuit  of  the  earth, 
as  Isaiah  tells  us?  So  it  cried  “Amen”  to  a  Dalton,  to  a  Linneus;  for  the 
“atomic  notation  of  the  former  was  as  serviceable  to  chemistry  as  the 
binominal  nomenclature  and  the  classificatory  shemitism  of  the  latter  were 
to  zoology  and  botany.”  What  else  could  historic  Judaism  cry  when  the 
first  message  to  man  was  to  subdue  earth,  capture  its  powers,  harness  them, 
work?  True  historical  Judaism  means  X)rogress. 

A  word  more  as  to  the  attitude  of  historic  Judaism  to  modern  thought. 
If  Hegel’s  last  work  was  a  course  of  lectures  on  the  proofs  of  the  existence 


216 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


of  God;  if  in  his  lectures  on  religion  he  turned  his  weapon  against  the 
rationcdistic  schools  which  reduced  religion  to  the  modicum  compatible 
with  an  ordinary,  worldly  mind,  and  criticise  the  school  of  Schleirmacher, 
who  elevated  feeling  to  a  place  in  religion  above  systematic  theology,  we 
agree  with  him.  But  when  he  gives  successive  phases  of  religion  and 
concludes  with  Christianity,  the  highest,  because  reconciliation  is  there  in 
open  doctrine,  we  cry,  do  justice  also  to  the  Hebrew.  Is  not  the  Hebrew’s 
ideal  God  a  God  of  mercy,  a  God  of  reconciliation?  It  is  said,  “Not 
forever  will  He  contend,  neither  doth  He  retain  His  anger  forever.”  That 
is — He  will  be  reconciled. 

We  agree  with  much  of  Compte,  and  with  him  elevate  womanhood,  but 
we  do  not,  can  not,  exclude  woman,  as  he  does,  from  public  action;  for 
besides  the  teachings  of  reverence  and  honor  for  motherhood,  besides  the 
Bible  tribute  to  wifehood  “that  a  good  wife  is  a  gift  of  God,”  besides  the 
grand  tribute  to  womanhood  offered  in  the  last  chapter  of  Proverbs,  we 
produce  a  Deborah  or  a  woman-president,  a  Huldah  as  worthy  to  give  a 
divine  message. 

If  Darwin  and  the  disciples  of  evolution  proclaim  their  theory,  the 
Hebrew  points  to  Genesis  ii.,  3,  where  it  speaks  of  what  God  has  created 
“to  make” — infinite  mood,  “not  made,”  as  erroneously  translated.  But 
historic  Judaism  protests  when  any  source  of  life  is  indicated,  save  in  the 
breath  of  God  alone. 

We  march  in  the  van  of  progress,  but  our  hand  is  always  raised,  pointing 
to  God.  This  is  the  attitude  of  historical  Judaism.  And  now  to  sum  up. 
For  the  future  opens  before  us. 

1.  The  “  Separatist  ”  thought.  Genesis  tell  us  how  Abraham  obeyed  it. 
Exodus  illustrates  it:  We  are  “separated  from  all  the  people  upon  the  face 
of  the  earth.”  Leviticus  proclaims  it:  “I  have  separated  you  from  the 
peoples.”  “  I  have  severed  you  from  the  peoples.”  Numbers  illustrates  it: 
“  Behold,  the  peojjle  shall  dwell  alone.”  And  Deuteronomy  declares  it:  “  He 
hath  avouched  thee  to  be  His  special  people.” 

The  thought  began  as  our  nation;  it  grew  as  it  grew.  To  test  its  wisdom, 
let  us  ask  who  have  survived?  The  7,000  Separatists  who  did  not  bend  to 
Baal  as  those  who  did?  Those  who  thronged  Babylonian  schools  at  Pum- 
bedithr  or  Nahardea,  or  those  who  succumbed  to  Magin  infiuence?  The 
Maccabees,  who  fought  to  separate,  or  the  Helenists,  who  aped  Greek  or  the 
Sectarians  of  their  day?  The  Bnai  Yisrael  remnant,  recently  discovered  in 
India,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Anglo-Jewish  Association,  the  discovery  of 
Theaou-Kin-Keaou,  or  “  people-who-cut-out-the-sinew,”  in  China,  point  in 
this  direction  of  separation  as  a  necessity  for  existence. 

And  who.  are  the  Hebrews  of  to-day  here  and  in  Europe,  the  descend¬ 
ants  of  those  who  preferred  to  keep  separate,  and  therefore  chose  exile  or 
death,  or  those  who  yielded  and  were  baptized?  The  course  for  historic 
Judaism  is  clear.  It  is  to  keep  separate. 

2.  The  protest  thought.  We  must  continue  to  protest  against  social, 
religious,  or  political  error  with  the  eloquence  of  reason.  Never  by  the 
force  of  violence.  No  error  is  too  insignificant,  none  can  be  too  stupendous 
for  us  to  notice.  The  cruelty  which  shoots  the  innocent  doves  for  sport — 
the  crime  of  duelists  who  risk  life  which  is  not  theirs  to  risk — for  it  belongs 
to  country,  wife  or  mother,  to  child  or  to  society;  the  militarianism  of 
modern  nations,  the  transformation  of  patriotism,  politics,  or  service  of 
one’s  country  into  a  business  tor  personal  profit,  until  these  and  all  wrongs 
be  rectified,  we  Hebrews  must  keep  separate,  and  we  must  protest 

And  keep  separate  and  protest  we  will,  until  all  error  shall  be  cast  to 
the  moles  and  bats.  We  are  told  that  Europe’s  armies  amount  to  22,000,000 
of  men.  Imagine  it!  Are  we  not  right  to  jjrotest  that  arbitration  and  not 
the  rule  of  might  should  decide?  Yet,  let  me  not  cite  instances  which 
render  protest  necessary.  “Time  would  fail,  and  the  tale  would  not  be 
told,”  to  quote  a  rabbi. 


ORTHODOX  OR  HISTORICAL  JUDAISM. 


217 


How  far  separation  and  protest  constitute  our  historical  Jewish  policy 
is  evident  from  what  I  have  said.  Apart  from  this,  socially,  we  unite  whole 
heartedly  and  without  reservation  with  our  non-Jewish  fellow-citizens;  we 
recognize  no  difference  between  Hebrew  and  non-Hebrew. 

We  declare  that  the  attitude  of  historical  Judaism,  and,  for  that  matter, 
of  the  Reform  School  also,  is  to  serve  our  country  as  good  citizens,  to  be 
on  the  side  of  law  and  order  and  fight  anarchy.  We  are  bound  to  forward 
every  humanitarian  movement;  where  want  or  pain  calls  there  must  we 
answer;  and  condemned  by  all  true  men  be  the  Jew  who  refuses  aid  because 
he  who  needs  it  is  not  a  Jew.  In  the  intricacies  of  science,  in  the  pursuit 
of  all  that  widens  human  knowledge,  in  the  path  of  all  that  benefits  human¬ 
ity  the  Jew  must  walk  abreast  with  non-Jew,  except  he  pass  him  in  gen¬ 
erous  rivalry.  With  the  non-Jew  we  must  press  onward,  but  for  all  men 
and  for  ourselves  we  must  ever  point  upward  to  the  common  Father  of  all. 
Marching  forward,  as  I  have  said,  but  pointing  upward,  this  is  the  attitude 
of  historical  Judaism. 

Religiously  the  attitude  of  'historical  Judaism  is  expressed  in  the  creeds 
formulated  by  Maimonides,  as  follows: 

We  believe  in  God,  the  Creator  of  all,  a  unity,  a  spirit,  who  never  assumed 
corporeal  form.  Eternal,  and  He  alone  ought  to  be  worshiped. 

We  unite  with  Christians  in  the  belief  that  Revelation  is  inspired.  We  unite 
with  the  founder  of  Christianity  that  not  one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  law  should  be 
changed.  Hence  we  do  not  accept  a  First  Day  Sabbath,  etc. 

w e  unite  in  believing  that  God  is  omniscient,  and  just,  good,  loving,  and  merci¬ 
ful. 

We  unite  in  the  belief  in  a  coming  Messiah. 

We  unite  in  our  belief  in  immortality.  In  these  Judaism  and  Christianity 
agree. 

As  for  the  development  of  Judaism,  we  believe  in  change  in  religious 
custom  or  idea  only  when  effected  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  God’s 
law  and  the  highest  authority  attainable.  But  no  change  without.  Hence 
we  can  not,  and  may  not,  recognize  the  authority  of  any  conference  of  Jew¬ 
ish  rabbis  or  ministers,  unless  those  attending  are  formally  empowered  by 
their  communities  or  congregations  to  represent  them.  Needless  to  add, 
they  must  be  sufficiently  versed  in  Hebrew  law  and  lore;  they  must  live 
lives  consistent  with  Bible  teachings,  and  they  must  be  sufficiently 
advanced  in  age  so  as  not  to  be  immature  in  thought. 

And  we  believe,  heart,  soul,  and  might,  in  the  restoration  to  Palestine,  a 
Hebrew  state,  from  the  Nile  to  the  Euphrates — even  though  as  Isaiah  inti¬ 
mates  in  his  very  song  of  restoration,  some  Hebrews  remain  among  the 
Gentiles. 

We  believe  in  the  future  estaolishment  of  a  court  of  arbitration,  above 
suspicion,  for  a  settlement  of  nations’  disputes,  such  as  could  well  be  in  the 
shadow  of  that  temple  which  we  believe  shall  one  day  arise  to  be  a  “  house 
of  prayer  for  all  peoples,”  united  at  last  in  the  service  of  one  Father.  How 
far  the  restoration  will  solve  present  pressing  Jewish  problems,  how  far 
such  spiritual  organization  will  guarantee  man  against  falling  into  error, 
we  can  not  here  discuss.  What  if  doctrines,  customs,  and  aims  separate  us 
now  ? 

There  is  a  legend  that,  when  Adam  and. Eve  were  turned  out  of  Eden 
or  earthly  paradise,  an  angel  smashed  the  gates,  and  the  fragments  flying 
all  over  the  earth  are  the  precious  stones.  We  can  carry  the  legend  further. 

The  precious  stones  were  picked  up  by  the  various  religions  and  philos¬ 
ophers  of  the  world.  Each  claimed  and  claims  that  its  own  fragment  alone 
reflects  the  light  of  heaven,  forgetting  the  settings  and  incrustations  which 
time  has  added.  Patience,  my  brothers.  In  God’s  own  time  we  shall,  all  of 
us,  fit  our  fragments  together  and  reconstruct  the  gates  of  paradise.  There 
will  be  an  era  of  reconciliation  of  all  living  faiths  and  systems,  the  era  of 
all  being  in  at-one-ment,  or  atonement,  with  God.  Through  the  gates  shall 


218 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


all  people  pass  to  the  foot  of  God’s  throne.  The  throne  is  called  by  us  the 
mercy-seat.  Name  of  happy  augury,  for  God’s  mercy  shall  wipe  out  the 
record  of  mankind’s  errors  and  strayings,  the  sad  story  of  our  unbrotherly 
actions.  Then  shall  we  better  know  God’s  ways  and  behold  His  glory  more 
clearly,  as  it  is  written,  “  They  shall  all  know  me,  from  the  least  of  them 
unto  the  greatest  of  them,  saith  the  Lord,  for  I  will  forgive  their  iniquity 
and  I  will  remember  their  sins  no  more.”  (Jer.  xxxi,  34.) 

What  if  the  deathless  Jews  be  present  then  among  the  earth’s  peoples? 
Would  ye  begrudge  his  presence?  His  work  in  the  world,  the  Bible  he  gave 
it,  shall  plead  for  him.  And  Israel,  God’s  first  born,  who,  as  his  prophets 
foretold,  was  for  centuries  despised  and  rejected  of  men,  knowing  sorrows, 
acquainted  with  grief,  and  esteemed  stricken  by  God  for  his  own  backslid- 
ings,  wounded  besides  through  others’  transgressions,  bruised  through 
others’  injuries,  shall  be  but  fulfilling  his  destiny  to  lead  back  his  brothers 
to  his  Father.  For  that  we  were  chosen;  for  that  we  are  God’s  servants  or 
ministers.  Yes,  the  attitude  of  historical  Judaism  to  the  world  will  be 
in  the  future,  as  in  the  past — helping  mankind  with  his  Bible — until  the 
gates  of  earthly  paradise  shall  be  reconstructed  by  mankind’s  joint  efforts, 
and  all  nations  whom  Thou,  God,  hast  made  shall  go  through  the  worship 
before  Thee,  O  Lord,  and  shall  glorify  Thy  name! 


CERTAINTIES  OF  RELIGION. 

REV.  JOSEPH  COOK  OF  BOSTON. 

Dr.  Barrows  made  a  pleasant  allusion  to  the  undoubted 
quality  of  that  distinguished  gentleman’s  orthodoxy,  and  added 
that,  while  some  of  the  orthodox  brethren  in  the  East  had 
looked  with  disfavor  on  the  scheme  of  a  Parliament  of  Religions, 
he  was  not  of  the  number;  but,  from  the  first,  had  been  a 

stanch  friend  of  the  enterprise. 

It  is  no  more  wonderful  that  we  should  live  again  than  that  we  should 
live  at  all.  It  is  less  wonderful  that  we  should  continue  to  live  than  that 
we  have  begun  to  live.  And  even  the  most  determined  and  superficial 
skeptic  knows  that  we  have  begun.  On  the  faces  of  this  polyglot  inter¬ 
national  audience  I  seem  to  see  written,  as  I  once  saw  chiseled  on  the 
marble  above  the  tomb  of  the  great  Emperor  Akkabar  in  the  land  of  the 
Ganges,  the  hundred  names  of  God. 

Let  us  beware  how  we  lightly  assert  that  we  are  glad  that  those  names 
are  one.  How  many  of  us  are  ready  for  immediate,  total,  irreversible  self¬ 
surrender  to  God  as  both  Savior  and  Lord?  Only  such  of  us  as  are  thus 
ready  can  call  ourselves  in  any  deep  sense  religious.  I  care  not  what  name 
you  give  to  God  if  you  mean  by  Him  a  spirit  omnipresent,  eternal,  omnipo¬ 
tent,  infinite  in  holiness  and  every  other  operation.  Who  is  ready  for  co-op¬ 
eration  with  such  a  God  in  life  and  death  and  beyond  death?  Only  he  who 
is  thus  ready  is  religious.  William  Shakespeare  is  supposed  to  have  known 
something  of  human  nature,  and  certainly  was  not  a  theological  partisan. 
Now,  Shakespeare,  as  you  will  remember,  in  “  The  Tempest  ”  tells  you  of 
two  characters  who  conceived  for  each  other  supreme  affection  as  soon  as 
they  met.  “  At  the  first  glance  they  changed  eyes,”  he  says.  The  truly 
religious  man  is  one  who  has  “  changed  eyes  ”  with  God  under  some  one  or 
another  of  His  hundred  names.  It  follows  from  this  definition  of  religion. 


CERTAINTIES  OF  RELIGION. 


219 


and  as  a  certainty  dependent  on  the  unalterable  nature  of  things,  that  only 
he  who  has  changed  eyes  with  God  can  look  into  His  face  in  peace.  A 
religion  of  delight  in  God,  not  merely  as  Savior,  but  as  Lord  also,  is  scien¬ 
tifically  known  to  be  a  necessity  to  the  peace  of  the  soul,  whether  we  call 
God  by  this  name  or  the  other,  whether  we  speak  of  Him  in  the  dialect  of 
this  or  that  of  the  four  continents,  or  this  or  that  of  the  ten  thousand  isles 
of  the  sea. 

What  is  the  distinction  between  morality  and  religion,  and  how  can  the 
latter  be  shown  by  the  scientific  method  to  be  a  necessity  to  the  peace  of 
the  soul?  And  now,  though  I  do  not  undervalue  morality  and  the  philan¬ 
thropies,  I  purpose  to  speak  of  the  strategic  certainties  of  religion  from 
the  point  of  view  of  comparative  religion.  First,  from  the  very  center  of 
the  human  heart  and  in  the  presence  of  all  the  hundred  names  of  God, 
conscience  demands  that  what  ought  to  be  should  be  chosen  by  the  will, 
and  it  demands  this  universally.  Conscience  is  that  faculty  within  us  which 
tastes  intentions.  A  man  does  unquestionably  know  whether  he  means  to 
be  mean,  and  he  inevitably  feels  mean  when  he  knows  that  he  means  to  be 
mean.  If  we  say  to  that  still,  small  voice  we  call  conscience  that  proclaims 
“  thou  oughtest,”  “  I  will  not,”  there  is  lack  of  peace  in  us,  and  until 
only  we  say,  “  I  will,”  and  do  like  to  say  it,  there  is  no  harmony  within  our 
souls.  The  delight  in  saying  “  I  will  ”  to  the  still,  small  voice,  “  thou 
oughtest,”  is  religion.  Merely  calculating,  selfish  obedience  to  that  still, 
small  voice  saves  no  man. 

This  is  the  first  commandment  of  absolute  science:  “Thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  mind  and  might  and  heart  and  strength.” 
When  Shakespeare’s  two  characters  met,  curiosity  as  to  each  other’s  quali¬ 
ties  did  not  constitute  the  changing  of  eyes.  That  mighty  capacity  which 
exists  in  human  nature  to  give  forth  a  supreme  affection  was  not  the 
changing  of  eyes.  Let  us  not  mistake  a  capacity  of  religion  which  every 
man  has  for  religion  itself.  We  must  not  only  have  a  capacity  to  love  God, 
we  must  have  adoration  of  God,  and  half  the  loose,  limp,  unscientific  liber¬ 
alisms  of  the  world  mistake  mere  admiration  for  adoration.  It  is  narrow¬ 
ness  to  refuse  mental  hospitality  for  any  single  truth,  but  we  assembled  in 
the  name  of  science,  in  the  name  of  every  grave  purpose,  have  an  interna¬ 
tional  breadth  and  what  we  purpose  to  promote  is  such  a  self-surrender  to 
God  as  shall  amount  to  delight  in  all  known  duty  and  make  us  affection¬ 
ately  and  irreversibly  choose  God  under  some  one  of  his  names — I  care  not 
what  the  name  is  if  you  mean  by  it  all  the  Bible  means  by  the  word  “God” 
—choose  him  not  as  Savior  only  but  as  God  also,  not  as  Lord  only  but  as 
Savior  also. 

But  choice  in  relation  to  persons  means  love.  What  we  choose  we  love, 
but  conscience  reveals  a  holy  person,  the  author  of  the  moral  law,  and  con¬ 
science  demands  that  this  law  should  not  only  be  obeyed  but  loved,  and 
that  the  holy  person  should  be  not  only  obeyed  but  loved.  This  is  the 
unalterable  demand  of  an  unalterable  portion  of  our  nature.  As  personali¬ 
ties,  therefore,  must  keep  company  with  this  part  of  our  nature  and  with 
its  demands  while  we  exist  in  this  world  and  in  the  next,  the  love  of  God 
by  man  is  inflexibly  required  by  the  very  nature  of  things.  Conscience 
draws  an  unalterable  distinction  between  loyalty  and  disloyalty  to  the 
ineffable,  holy  person  whom  the  moral  law  reveals,  and  between  the  obe¬ 
dience  of  slavishness  and  that  of  delight.  Only  the  latter  is  obedience  to 
conscience. 

Religion  is  the  obedience  of  affectionate  gladness.  Morality  is  the  obe¬ 
dience  of  selfish  slavishness.  Only  religion,  therefore,  and  not  mere  moral¬ 
ity,  can  harmonize  the  soul  with  the  nature  of  things.  A  delight  in  obe¬ 
dience  is  not  only  a  part  of  religion  but  is  necessary  to  peace  in  God’s  pres¬ 
ence.  A  religion  consisting  in  the  obedience  of  gladness  is,  therefore, 
scientifically  known  to  be  according  to  the  nature  of  things.  It  will  not  be 


220 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


to-morrow  or  the  day  after  that  these  propositions  will  cease  to  be  scientific¬ 
ally  certain.  Out  of  them  multitudinous  inferences  flow  as  Niagaras  from 
the  brink  of  God’s  palm.  Demosthenes  once  made  the  remark  that  every 
address  should  begin  with  an  uncontrovertible  proposition.  Now  it  is  a 
certainty,  and  my  topic  makes  my  keynote  a  word  of  certainty,  that  a  little 
while  ago  we  were  not  in  the  world  and  a  little  while  hence  we  shall  be  here 
no  longer.  Lincoln,  Garfield,  Seward,  Grant,  Beecher,  Gough,  Emerson, 
Longfellow,  Tennyson,  Lord  Beaconsfield,  George  Eliot,  Carlyle — I  know 
not  how  many  Mahomets — are  gone,  and  we  are  going.  These  are  certainties 
that  will  endure  in  the  four  continents  and  on  the  isles  of  the  sea. 

Till  the  heavens  are  old,  and  the  stars  are  cold. 

And  the  leaves  of  the  judgment  book  unfold. 

The  world  expects  to  hear  from  us  this  afternoon  no  drivel,  but  some¬ 
thing  fit  to  be  professed  face  to  face  with  the  crackling  artillery  of  the 
science  of  our  time.  I  know  I  am  going  hence,  and  I  know  I  wish  to  go  in 
peace.  Now,  I  hold  that  it  is  a  certainty,  and  a  certainty  founded  on 
truth  absolutely  self-evident,  that  there  are  three  things  from  which  I  can 
never  escape  —  my  conscience,  my  God,  and  my  record  of  sin  in  an  irrevers- 
'  ible  past.  How  am  I  to  be  harmonized  with  that  unescapable  environment? 
Here  is  Lady  Macbeth.  See  how  she  rubs  her  hands: 

Out,  damned  spot!  Will  these  hands  ne’er  be  clean? 

All  the  perfumes  of  Arabia  could  not  sweeten  this  little  hand. 

And  her  husband,  in  a  similar  mood,  says: 

This  red  right  hand,  it  would  the  multitudinous  seas  incarnadine,  making  the 
green  one  red. 

What  religion  can  wash  Lady  Macbeth’s  red  right  hand?  That  is  a 
question  I  propose  to  the  four  continents  and  all  the  isles  of  the  sea.  Unless 
you  can  answer  that  you  have  not  come  here  with  a  serious  purpose,  to  a 
Parliament  of  Religions. 

I  beg  you  not  to  applaud,  because  if  there  is  a  topic  of  more  supreme 
importance  than  any  other  it  is  the  topic  I  am  now  introducing.  I  speak 
now  to  the  branch  of  those  skeptics  which  are  not  represented  here,  and  I 
ask  who  can  wash  Lady  Macbeth’s  red  right  hand,  and  their  silence  or 
their  responses  are  as  inefficient  as  a  fishing-rod  would  be  to  span  this  vast 
lake,  or  the  Atlantic. 

I  turn  to  Mohammedanism.  Can  you  wash  our  red  right  hands?  I  turn 
to  Confucianism  and  Buddhism.  Can  you  wash  our  red  right  hands?  So 
help  me  God,  I  mean  to  ask  a  question  this  afternoon  that  shall  go  in  some 
hearts  across  the  seas  and  to  the  antipodes,  and  I  ask  it  in  the  name  of 
what  I  hold  to  be  absolutely  self-evident  truths,  that  unless  a  man  is 
washed  from  the  old  sin  and  the  guilt  of  mankind  he  can  not  be  at  peace  in 
the  presence  of  infinite  holiness. 

Old  and  blind  Michael  Angelo  in  the  Vatican  used  to  go  to  the  Torso, 
so-called — a  fragment  of  the  art  of  antiquity — and  he  would  feel  along  the 
marvelous  lines  chiseled  in  bygone  ages  and  tell  his  pupils  that  thus  and 
thus  the  study  should  be  completed.  I  turn  to  every  faith  on  earth  except 
Christianity  and  I  find  every  such  faith  a  Torso.  I  beg  pardon.  The  occa¬ 
sion  is  too  grave  for  mere  courtesy  and  nothing  else.  Some  of  the  faiths  of 
the  world  are  marvelous  as  far  as  they  go,  but  if  they  were  completed  along 
the  lines  of  the  certainties  of  the  religions  themselves,  they  would  go  up 
and  up  and  up  to  an  assertion  of  the  necessity  of  the  new  purpose  to  deliver 
the  soul  from  a  life  of  sin  and  of  atonement,  made  of  God’s  grace,  to  deliver 
the  soul  from  guilt. 

Take  the  ideas  which  have  produced  the  Torsos  of  the  earthly  faiths 
and  you  will  have  a  universal  religion,  under  some  of  the  names  of  God,  and 
it  will  be  a  harmonious  outline  with  Christianity.  There  is  no  peace  any¬ 
where  in  the  universe  for  a  soul  with  bad  intentions,  and  there  ought  not 
to  be.  Ours  is  a  transitional  age,  and  we  are  told  we  are  all  sons  of  God; 


CERTAINTIES  OF  RELIGION, 


221 


and  so  we  are,  in  a  natural  sense,  but  not  in  a  moral  sense.  We  are  all 
capable  of  changing  eyes  with  God,  and  until  we  do  change  eyes  with  Him 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  face  Him  in  peace.  No  transition  in  life  or  death,  or 
beyond  death,  will  ever  deliver  us  from  the  necessity  of  good  intentions  to 
the  peace  of  the  soul  with  its  environments,  nor  from  exposure  to  penalty 
for  deliberately  bad  intentions.  I  hold  that  we  not  only  can  not  escape  from 
conscience  and  God  and  our  records  of  sins,  but  that  it  is  a  certainty,  and 
a  strategic  certainty,  that,  except  Christianity,  there  is  no  religion  under 
heaven  or  among  men  that  effectively  provides  for  the  jjeace  of  the  soul  by 
its  harmonization  with  this  environment. 

I  am  the  servant  of  no  clique  or  clan.  For  more  than  a  quarter  of  a 
century,  if  you  will  allow  me  this  personal  reference,  it  has  been  my 
fortune  to  speak  from  an  entirely  independent  platform,  and  quite  as  much 
at  liberty  to  change  my  course  as  the  wind  its  direct  on;  but  I  maintain, 
with  a  solemnity  which  I  can  not  express  too  strongly,  that  it  is  a  certainty, 
and  a  strategic  certainty,  that  the  soul  can  have  no  intelligent  peace  until 
it  is  delivered  from  the  love  of  sin.  It  is  a  certainty,  and  a  strategic  cer¬ 
tainty,  that,  except  Christianity,  there  is  no  religion  known  under  heaven, 
or  among  men,  that  effectively  provides  for  the  soul  this  joyful  deliverance 
from  the  love  of  sin  and  the  guilt  of  it.  It  is  a  certainty,  and  a  strategic 
certainty,  that  unless  a  man  be  born  of  water,  that  is,  delivered  from  the 
guilt  of  sin  and  of  the  spirit,  that  is  delivered  from  the  love  of  sin,  it  is  an 
impossibility,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  for  him  to  enter  into  the  king¬ 
dom  of  heaven. 

Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  can  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  a 
man  can  not  serve  God  and  mammon.  God  can  not  deny  Himself.  Why, 
these  cans  and  cants  are  touching  the  crags  of  certainty  underlying  the 
universe  as  well  as  the  scriptures,  and  it  is  these  crags  of  absolute  self- 
evident  truth  upon  which  I  would  plant  the  basis  of  a  universal  religion, 
ascertaining  the  necessity  of  the  new  birth  for  our  deliverance  from  the 
sin  and  of  an  atonement  for  our  deliverance  from  the  guilt  of  it.  I  am  not 
touching  the  sufficiency  of  natural  religion,  but  only  its  efficiency. 

I  hold  that  by  mere  reason  we  can  ascertain  the  necessity  of  our 
deliverance  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  but  by  mere  reason  it  is  difficult  to  know 
how  we  are  to  be  delivered.  “Plato,”  said  Aristotle,  once  a  student  under 
a  great  master,  “  I  see  how  God  may  forgive  some  sins  of  carelessness,  but 
how  he  can  forgive  sins  of  deliberately  bad  intention  I  can  not  see,  for  I  do 
not  see  how  he  ought  to.” 

The  murderer,  the  ravager,  the  thief  have  bad  intentions,  but  perhaps, 
according  to  their  light,  these  ancients  have  no  more  moral  turpitude  than 
some  bad  intentions  you  and  I  have  cherished.  But  we  must  keep  peace 
with  our  faculties,  with  this  record,  and  with  the  God  who  can  not  deny 
Himself.  I  am  afraid  of  my  own  faculties.  God  is  in  them  and  behind 
them.  He  originated  the  plan  of  them.  You  must  stay  with  yourselves 
while  you  continue  to  exist. 

I  believe  there  is  good  scientific  proof  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  if 
only  you  bring  revelation  into  the  argument,  but  without  revelation  and 
with  the  Bible  shut  I  hold  there  is  good  reason  for  believing  that  death 
does  end  all.  I  hold  we  were  woven  by  some  power  not  in  matter,  that  you 
may  tear  up  the  web  and  not  injure  the  matter.  I  make  a  distinction 
between  the  two  questions:  “Does  death  end  all?”  and,  “Is  the  soul 
immortal?”  i  want  every  faculty  at  its  best.  Shakespeare  said  :  “Con¬ 
science  is  a  thousand  swords.”  John  Wesley  said:  “God  is  a  thousand 
swords.”  How  am  I  to  keep  the  peace  with  myself,  my  God,  my  record, 
except  by  looking  on  the  cross  until  it  is  no  cross  to  bear  the  cross;  except 
by  beholding  God  not  merely  as  my  Creator  but  also  as  my  Savior,  and, 
being  melted  into  the  vision  and  made  glad  to  take  Him  as  Lord  also. 

I  bought  a  book  full  of  the  songs  of  aggressive  Evangelical  religion,  and 


222 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


I  found  in  this  little  book  words  which  may  be  bitter  indeed,  when  eaten, 
but  which,  when  fully  assimilated,  will  be  sweet  as  honey.  I  summarized 
my  whole  scheme  of  religion  in  these  words,  which  you  may  put  on  my 
tombstone; 

Choose  I  must,  and  soon  must  choose 
Holiness  or  heaven  lose. 

If  what  heaven  loves  I  hate, 

Shut  from  me  is  heaven’s  gate. 

Endless  sin  means  endless  woo, 

Into  endless  sin  I  go. 

If  my  soul  from  reason  rent. 

Taken  from  sin  its  final  bent. 

As  the  stream  its  channel  grooves, 

And  within  that  channel  moves. 

So  does  habit's  deepest  tide 
Groove  its  bed  and  there  abide. 

Light  obeyed  increaseth  light, 

Light  resisted  bringeth  night. 

Who  shall  give  me  will  to  choose, 

If  the  lo\  e  of  light  I  lose. 

Speed  my  soul  this  instant  yield. 

Let  the  light  its  scepter  wield. 

While  thy  God  prolongs  grace. 

Haste  thee  to  His  holy  face. 


HISTORY  OF  BUDDHISM  AND  ITS  SECTS  IN 

JAPAN. 

HORIN  TOKI,  A  BUDDHIST  PRIEST. 

Bhagavat  Sakyamuni.  to  whom  500,000,000  human  beings  on  earth  at  the 
present  age  pay  respect,  was  born  2,020  years  ago,  according  to  the  chron¬ 
ology  handed  down  to  us,  in  the  royal  family  of  Kapitarastu  in  India.  It  is 
said  that  at  his  birth  he  manifested  extraordinary  signs  of  greatness,  saying: 
“  I  am  the  only  one  respectable  in  heaven  and  earth.”  At  the  age  of  nineteen 
he  left  the  palace  and  went  into  the  mountain,  and  attained  his  enlighten¬ 
ment  at  the  age  of  thirty  in  Buddhagaya.  During  the  fifty  years  after  that 
time  hedeveloped  innumerable  disciples  and  converted  all  followers  of 
Brahmanism,  elucidating  and  giving  the  light  with  the  truth  of  Buddhism 
to  the  whole  world.  He  died  on  the  bank  of  a  river  in  the  city  of  Kushi 
at  the  age  of  seventy-nine. 

The  doctrines  of  Buddha,  taught  during  his  life-time,  are  divided  into 
two — Mahayana  and  Hinayana.  He  intended  to  make  this  distinction  from 
his  great  humanity  to  develop  his  disciples  according  to  their  plane  of 
intellect,  and  the  method  of  enlightenment  eventually  reverts  back  to  the 
truth  taught  in  Mahayana;  therefore,  into  whatever  number  the  sects  are 
divided,  there  is  no  distinction  in  their  truth. 

Those  countries  where  the  Hinayana  doctrine  prevails  are  the  southern 
and  central  parts  of  Asia,  as  Siam,  Anam,  Burmah,  Ceylon,  Chittagong. 
Aracan,  etc.,  and  the  teaching  is  called  Southern  Buddhism.  And  those 
countries  where  the  Mahayana  doctrine  prevails  are  Japan,  China,  Corea, 
Mannchuria,  and  Thibet.  But  that  Buddhism  is  met  in  the  last  two 
countries  is  called  Lamaism,  and  differs  greatly  in  its  origin  from  the  Maha- 
yana  doctrine  in  Japan,  and  though  it  is  comprised  in  the  list  of  Northern 
Mahayana,  in  comparison  to  the  Southern  Hinayana,  really  it  is  not  the 
same  as  the  Mahayana. 

Japan  has  handed  down  Mahayana  together  with  Hinayana  doctrine,  but 
the  latter  is  only  studied  as  the  side  study  of  the  former,  and  there  was 


HISTORY  OF  BUDDHISM  IN  JAPAN. 


223 


never  a  disseminator  who  devoted  himself  to  promulgate  the  latter  as  an 
especial  feature. 

The  first  introduction  of  Buddhism  into  Japan  was  552  A.  D.  The  King 
of  Corea  sent  his  ambassador,  together  with  the  priest  of  Doshin  and  seven 
others,  and  offered  for  the  first  time  the  copper  image  of  Buddha  and  all 
the  scriptures  of  Buddhism  to  the  Japanese  imperial  court.  A  court  official 
called  Iname  changed  his  villa  in  Nurkawara  Yamato  into  a  temple  and  the 
image  was  put  in  it.  This  is  the  first  Buddhist  temple  and  was  named 
after  the  place.  But  there  was  yet  no  distinction  of  sect. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  describe  the  distinction  of  sects  according  to  the 
age  of  their  foundation,  for  the  sake  of  convenience  dividing  them  into  two 
ages,  the  aheient  and  modern. 

Seventy-three  years  after  the  offer  of  the  image  and  scriptures  from  the 
Corean  king,  a  Corean  priest,  called  Eawan,  came  to  Japan,  and,  staying  in 
the  temple  called  Gwangoji,  in  Aska,  Yamato,  founded  a  sect  called  San- 
von.  This  is  the  first  time  that  Japanese  Buddhism  was  called  with  the 
name  of  the  sect.  He  taught  at  the  same  time  Jojokn  doctrine.  At  present 
there  are  Buddhist  students  of  other  sects  who  study,  as  the  side  study,  the 
above  two  sects,  but  there  is  no  especial  believer  in  Japan. 

Twenty-four  years  after  the  foundation  of  the  above  sect,  in  653  A.  D,, 
a  priest  called  Dosho  went  to  China  and  learned  under  the  famous  Genjo 
Sanzo.  After  the  return  of  Dosho  to  Japan,  he  dwelt  in  Gwangoji,  pre¬ 
viously  mentioned,  and  founded  the  Hosso  sect.  After  over  sixty  years 
another  priest,  called  Gembo,  went  to  China  and  learned  under  Chishu. 
After  his  return  he  dwelt  in  Kobukji,  a  large  temple  in  Nara,  Yamato,  and 
taught  also  in  the  Hosso  sect.  Thus  there  were  two  priests  v  ho  taught  the 
same  doctrine,  one  following  the  other.  The  former  was  called  the  South¬ 
ern  order  and  the  latter  the  Northern,  the  appellations  being  afterward 
applied.  They  are  not  different  in  truth  of  the  doctrine  from  Yuishiki 
Mahayan  ;  the  difference  is  only  in  the  genealogy  of  transmission.  Though 
they  seem  as  if  two  different  sects,  they  are  but  one  in  reality. 

Dosho  transmitted  the  doctrine  of  the  Kusha  sect  to  his  followers.  At 
present  the  doctrine  of  the  Hosso  and  Kusha  are  widely  understood  by  the 
Buddhists  of  the  other  sects,  and  the  only  temples  which  belong  to  this 
sect  are  forty-eight  branch  temples,  having  fourteen  priests  under  the 
Temple  of  Kobukji,  of  the  Northern  order.  But  the  first  introduction  of 
Buddhism  from  China  was  this  Hosso  sect 

Eighteen  years  before  the  foundation  of  the  Hosso  sect  by  Gambo,  in 
GOO  A.  D.,  the  priest  En  No  Shokak  founded  theShugen  sect  in  the  Mount¬ 
ain  Kazaraki,  in  Kawachi.  The  origin  of  this  sect  is  very  peculiar.  When 
the  founder  was  yet  disciplining  himself  he  dreamed  that,  while  bathing  in 
the  waterfall  of  Nina  Mountain,  in  Seku,  he  obtained  the  audience  of 
Buddhistava  Rinju,  and  received  from  him  the  hermetic  truth,  and  he 
founded  this  sect.  Therefore  it  is  not  a  religion  of  historical  transmission; 
yet  the  conduct  of  the  founder,  especially,  and  that  of  the  followers — clear¬ 
ing  the  high  mountains,  opening  the  deep  valleys,  bridging  the  impassable 
rivers,  and  all  the  other  grand  beneficial  works — are  very  much  like  that  of 
the  Shingon  sect.  After  the  death  of  the  founder  the  number  of  disciples 
was  very  much  diminished  and  the  doctrine  itself  was  almost  extinguished. 
However,  160  years  after  his  death,  in  about  360  A.  D.,  Shobo,  the  high- 
priest  of  the  Shingon  sect,  reanimated  this  sect.  At  present  it  is  a  part  of 
the  Shingon  and  Tendai  sects  and  is  not  independent. 

In  813  a  priest  called  Ryoben  founded  the  Kegon  sect  in  Todaiji,  a  large 
temple  in  Nara.  Before  this  a  Chinese  priest  called  Doyai  brought  Kegon 
scripture  (Avatamska-Sutra)  to  Japan  and  taught  it  in  that  temple,  and 
Ryoben  was  his  first  disciple.  Also  a  priest  called  Jikum  of  Kobukji  went 
to  China  and  learned  under  Genju  and  received  the  truth  of  Kegon.  After 
his  return  he  taught  it  to  Kyoben,  who  was  thus  taught  by  the  two 


224 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIG^uisS. 


teachers  with  complete  results.  At  present  ihis  doctrine  is  mixed  widely 
with  that  of  other  sects  and  its  independent  temple  is  only  Todaiji, 
together  with  its  twenty-one  sub-temples,  the  number  of  priests  being  only 
ten,  and  it  has  but  few  believers.  This  temple  is  a  famous  one  in  Nara, 
where  is  an  immense  bronze  statue  of  Buddha. 

In  754  a  Chinese  priest,  Gan  jin,  organized  the  system  of  moral  precept 
ordination  and  founded  the  Ritsu  (ninay  or  moral  precept)  sect.  At  this 
time  the  ex-Emperor  Shomu,  the  Empress  Koken,  the  princes,  nobles,  awd 
high  officials,  over  400  in  number,  took  vows  of  discipleship  and  received  the 
moral  precepts.  This  is  the  first  time  a  Japanese  emperor  became  a  dis¬ 
ciple  and  received  the  moral  precept  of  Gautama  Buddha.  This  precept  is 
now  widely  given  to  the  Buddhist  disciples,  yet  at  present,  is  dot  an  inde¬ 
pendent  sect,  being  a  part  of  the  Kegon  and  Shingon  sects. 

In  805  a  high  priest  called  Saictio,  well  known  as  Dengyo  Daishi, 
opened  Hiyei  Mountain  in  Kiyoto,  and  built  Enryakji,  founding  the  Tendai 
sect.  Before  this  the  founder  wanted  to  establish  this  sect  according  to 
the  doctrine  contained  in  Saddhanna-pundariki-Sutra,  and  went  to  China 
twice.  On  his  second  visit  there  he  took  his  rriend  Gishin  and  learned 
under  Dosui  of  Tendai  mountain  and  received  the  deepest  truth  of  Sadd¬ 
hanna-pundariki-Sutra.  That  is  the  reason  why  he  called  this  new  doctrine 
with  the  name  of  Tendai.  His  friend  Gishin  taught  the  same  doctrine  in 
Onjojo  of  Omi.  Afterward  the  former  was  called  Tendai  of  Sammon  and 
the  latter  Tendai  of  Jimon,  but  both  are  the  same  in  doctrine.  At  present 
the  temples  of  this  sect  amount  to  over  4,800,  the  priests  are  2,800,  and  the 
believers  are  consequently  pot  few. 

In  806  a  high  priest,  Kukai,  well  known  as  Kobo  Daishi,  founded  the 
Shingon  (true  word)  sect.  Before  this  he  met  with  a  difficult  point  in 
the  Buddliistic  scriptures — Buddha,  human  beings,  and  all  other  things 
are  one.  He  could  not  find  a  teacher  who  could  explain  this  problem  to 
him.  At  last  he  went  to  China,  and  learned  under  Keiwa  of  Choan,  and 
received  the  mystic  Shingon  (mautra,  or  true  word),  and  all  his  previous 
doubts  were  cleared.  After  his  return  he  manifested  the  wonderful  mira¬ 
cles  of  the  law  in  his  imperial  court,  and  received  the  edict  from  the 
empress  which  authorized  him  to  found  the  Shingon  sect. 

After  sixteen  years  he  received  a  magnificent  building  which  belonged 
to  the  imperial  court,  and  it  was  the  state  temple  and  was  called  Gokokji. 
which  means  the  temple  protecting  the  country.  It  is  now  the  principal 
temple  of  the  sect.  There  are  many  other  head  temples  of  the  same  sect 
besides  this,  as  Kimbuji,  of  Koya  Mountain  in  Kishu,  which  was  built  by 
the  founder,  Kukai  himself.  Three  hundred  years  afterward  a  priest  called 
Kakso  came  out  from  the  mountain  and  built  Negoroji  in  Kii.  This  after¬ 
ward  became  the  head  temple  of  the  Shingon  sect  of  Shanghi  or  New 
Order.  But  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  is  the  same  in  both,  and  they  are  not 
independent  of  each  other.  The  temjjles  of  this  sect  at  present  are  over 
13,600,  and  the  number  of  priests  is  over  7,060.  The  number  of  believers 
will  cover  probably  over  half  of  the  whole  country.  Kukai  also  brought 
back  Vinaya  Ubu,  but  it  is  not  the  especial  sect. 

The  above  named  sects,  Sanron,  Jojiku,  Hosso,  Kusha,  Shugen,  Kegon, 
Riku,  Tendai,  and  Shingon,  are  the  ancient  sects  founded  during  the  160 
years  from  the  Emperor  Suiko  to  the  Emperor  Heijo.  Among  them  Jojitsu 
and  Kusha  are  Himayana  and  all  the  others  are  Mahayana.  Some  may 
argue  that  the  Kitsu  (Vinaya)  is  Hinayana;  but  it  is  not,  because  Kaizulin 
Nara  transmits  Mahayana  Vinaya,  and  that  Avhieh  is  called  Shibun  Hina¬ 
yana  is  only  the  name  applied  to  the  regulations  of  behavior  and  etiquette 
of  the  priests  of  the  temple.  On  the  contrary,  the  substance  of  Vinaya  is 
real  Mahayana.  These  ancient  sects,  exce^jt  those  of  Sanron,  Jojiku,  and 
Kusha,  are  at  present  the  independent  sects,  and  have  temples  and  believers. 
The  name  of  the  Shugen  sect  is  now  extinct,  yet  the  doctrine  is  transmitted 


HISTORY  OF  BUDDHISM  IN  JAPAN. 


•225 


without  change.  The  Shingon  sect  is  the  mystic  Yogiisen,  therefore  the 
doctrine  which  is  taught  in  this  sect  is  different  from  the  non-mystic  doc¬ 
trine.  As  this  mystic  teaching  is  the  highest  point  of  Mahayana,  it  can 
not  be  discussed  in  this  short  space,  and  as  the  historical  transmission  of 
Buddhism  to  Japan  refers  only  to  that  from  China  and  Corea,  nothing  is 
mentioned  here  regarding  the  introduction  of  Buddhism  from  India  to 
China,  for  sake  of  abbreviation.  The  Shugen  sect,  among  the  nine  sects 
enumerated  above,  is  the  manifested  religion  in  Japan  without  being  trans¬ 
mitted  from  foreign  countries. 

Three  hundred  and  eleven  years  after  the  foundation .  of  the  Shingon 
sect,  in  1118,  a  high-priest  called  Kyonin  founded  the  Yuzunbuk  sect  in  the 
temple  of  Raikoji  of  Ohara,  Yamashiro.  At  present,  Dainembukji  of 
Hirano,  SetsU,  is  the  head  temple.  The  founder  began  this  sect,  receiving 
the  doctrine  from  a  hermit.  It  is  to  interchange  the  virtue  of  self  with 
that  of  others  reciting  the  Name  of  Nuda,  or  eternal  truth.  At  present, 
though,  this  is  not  a  prosperous  sect;  the  temples  are  357  and  the  number 
of  priests  over  200. 

Forty-seven  years  after  the  foundation  of  this  sect,  in  1175,  a  high-priest 
of  Honen  founded  the  Jodo  (pure  land)  sect.  The  founder  was  originally 
a  priest  and  student  of  the  Tendai  sect.  Reread  through  the  v/hole script¬ 
ure  of  Buddha  five  times  and  agreed  with  the  theory  of  enlightenment 
attainable  by  the  contemplation  of  Buddha,  which  was  already  disseminated 
by  the  Chinese  priest  Zento.  Honen  changed  from  the  Tendai  to  the  Jodo 
theory  and  founded  this  sect.  The  head  temple  of  this  sect  is  in  Chionin 
in  Kioto  and  has  under  it  8,300  temples  and  over  5,500  priests  with  numer¬ 
ous  followers.  There  were  derived  the  two  orders  of  Seizen  and  Chinzei 
from  this  sect,  and,  as  each  of  them  has  independent  head  temples,  the 
latter  is  not  so  prosperous  as  the  former. 

Twenty-eight  years  after  the  foundation  of  the  Jodo  sect,  in  1201,  a  high- 
priest  sailed  Yeisai  founded  the  order  of  Rinzai  of  Zen  or  Dhiyana  (medita¬ 
tion)  sect,  and  its  head  temple  is  Kenumji,  in  Bioto.  The  founder  was 
originally  a  scholar  of  the  Tendai  sect,  but  was  not  satisfied  and  went  to 
China  twice.  Finally  he  met  a  Zen  priest,  Koan  of  Mannenji,  and  received 
the  truth  of  transmission  from  mind  to  mind  without  the  use  of  scripture, 
and  understood  the  methods  of  becoming  enlightened  instantaneously.  He 
had  many  prominent  disciples  who  presided  in  different  temples,  as  Keu- 
choji  and  Engakji  in  Sagami,  Nauzenji,  Tuerinji,  Tofukji,  Daitokji,  Myss- 
hinji,  Shokokji  in  Kioto,  and  Eigen ji  in  Omi.  These  are  the  head  temples, 
but  they  are  all  one  order  of  Rinzai,  with  no  difference  in  any  point  of  view. 

They  are  called  the  ten  head  temples  of  the  Rinzai  order  and  contain 
over  6,100  temples  under  them.  The  number  of  priests  is  4,250,  with  certain 
believers.  Over  forty  years  after  the  beginning  of  the  Rinzai  order,  in  about 
1245,  a  Zen  priest  called  Dogen  founded  the  Soto  order  and  the  head  temple 
is  Yeiheji  in  Echizen.  He  was  originally  a  scholar  of  the  Tendai  sect,  but 
afterward  he  went  to  China  and  learned  also  the  method  of  direct  enlight¬ 
enment  of  the  Buddhist  mind  from  Jojo.  Shokin,  the  disciple  of  the  fourth 
generation  from  Dogen,  built  Sojiji  in  Noto,  but  the  method  of  the  trans¬ 
mission  of  thought  is  exactly  the  same  as  the  former.  At  present  this  Zen 
order  contains  14,070  temples  and  11,050  priests  and  consequently  a  great 
number  of  believers. 

In  1663  a  high  priest  called  Ingen  came  from  China,  and  the  Shogun 
lyemiku  inclined  to  his  views  and  built  the  temple  of  Mampukji  in  Nji, 
near  Kioto,  and  helped  him  to  found  the  Nobak  order  of  the  Zen  sect.  The 
priest  was  originally  a  high-priest  of  the  Rinzai  order,  therefore  the  method 
of  the  transmission  of  the  truth  is  not  different  from  the  latter.  As  he 
presided  over  the  Nobak  temple  in  China,  the  name  was  applied  to  the 
temple  in  Japan.  At  present  this  order  contains  600  temples  and  over  310 
priests  with  a  certain  number  of  believers.  Though  the  above-mentioned 


226 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


three  orders  of  Rinzai,  Soto,  and  Nobak  differ  in  their  names,  the  idea  of  the 
sects  is  one,  and  they  are  called  together  the  three  Zen  sects  in  J apan. 

In  1224  Priest  Shiuran  founded  the  Shiuthu  or  true  sect.  He  was  orig¬ 
inally  a  scholar  of  the  Tendai  sect,  and  afterward  learned  Jodo  (pure  land) 
doctrine  from  Honen,  and  finally  established  his  own  teaching  that  all 
persons  can  obtain  enlightenment  by  the  external  power  of  truth  that 
promises  to  deliver  all  things.  In  sect  the  priests  may  marry  and  eat  flesh. 
The  head  temples  are  Hongwanji,  Otani  Hongwanji,  Koshoji,  Bukkiji  in 
Kioto,  Senshuji  in  Ise,  Kibeji  in  Omi,  Gosetsuji,  Seishoji,  Shoshoji,  Sens- 
hoji  in  Echizen,  and  the  temples  which  belong  to  them  are  over  19,100  in 
number  and  the  priests  over  18,700,  with  a  great  many  believers. 

In  1261  Priest  Nichiren  founded  the  Nichiren  sect.  He  was  also  a 
scholar  of  the  Tendai  sect.  Afterward  he  confessed  that  he  had  something 
that  corresponds  with  the  truth  of  Saddhannapundarika-Sutra,  and  recit¬ 
ing  the  title  of  that  scripture  taught  that  theory  everywhere.  The  head 
temple  is  in  the  Mountain  of  Minobu  in  Kai.  This  sect  has  over  3,060  tem¬ 
ples  and  2,5(X)  priests  and  numerous  believers.  There  are  independent  head 
temples  besides  this,  as  Myomanji  Honseiji,  etc.,  together  with  their  sub¬ 
temples,  priests,  and  believers. 

In  1275  a  high-priest  called  Ippan  founded  the  Jishu  sect  in  Pujisa- 
wadera,  in  Saganni.  Three  hundred  and  twenty-six  years  after  this,  a 
prince,  the  son  of  Emperor  Daigo,  became  a  priest  called  Kuyu,  and  he  began 
to  promulgate  the  same  idea  of  this  sect,  but  the  time  was  not  yet  ripe. 
This  Ippan  in  one  night  became  inspired  with  the  truth  of  Kuyu  and  trav¬ 
eled  through  the  whole  country,  teaching  the  theory  of  enlightenment  to 
the  pure  land,  the  praise  address  and  the  recitation  in  the  name  of  truth. 
Since  that  time  the  presiding  priests  of  all  the  generations  have  traveled  in 
the  same  manner.  The  temples  are  357  in  number  and  the  priests  200,  with 
a  certain  number  of  believers. 

The  above  mentioned  six  modern  sects  of  Yuzenembuku,  Jodo,  Zan 
(Rinzai),  Nobak,  Shinshu,  Nichiren,  and  Jishu,  were  founded  during  the  159 
years  from  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Toba  to  the  reign  of  the  Emperor 
Gouda.  (The  order  of  Nobak  was  begun  in  an  after  age,  but  as  it  is  an 
order  of  the  Zan  sect  it  is  not  especially  described.)  They  are  all  Maha- 
yana,  and  have  their  temples  and  believers,  each  under  its  own  banner,  and 
all  of  them  were  established  by  the  Japanese  priests  by  their  own  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  scriptures,  not  being  received  from  any  other  country,  except 
the  Zan  sect.  Though  the  Japanese  Buddhism  is  divided  as  above,  into 
nine  ancient  and  six  modern  sects,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  it  seems 
rather  strange  that  the  former  are  all  rather  similar  to  each  other  in  their 
traits,  and  the  other  six  sects  resemble  each  other  also  in  their  character. 
The  former  began  in  the  time  when  the  imperial  power  was  at  its  height, 
and  the  latter  when  the  military  power  was  supreme.  The  former  appeared 
during  the  160  years  in  succession,  while  the  latter  during  159  years  in  suc¬ 
cession;  and  during  311  years  between  the  former  and  the  latter  there  was 
no  sect  of  any  kind  established. 

From  this  it  appears  to  me  that  the  religious  establishment  and  its 
modifications  in  a  new  form  are  confined  to  a  certain  age  and  chance.  The 
present  Japanese  Buddhism  has  passed  several  hundred  years  since  the  last 
change.  The  past  experience  points  out  to  us  that  it  is  time  to  remodel  the 
Japanese  Buddhism — that  is,  the  happy  herald  is  at  our  gates  informing  us 
that  the  Buddhism  of  perfected  intellect  and  emotion,  synthesizing  the 
ancient  and  modern  sects,  is  now  coming. 

The  Japanese  Buddhists  have  many  aspirations,  and  at  the  same  time 
great  happiness,  and  we  can  not  but  feel  rejoiced  when  we  think  of  the 
probable  result  of  this  new  change  by  which  the  Buddhism  of  great  Japan 
will  rise  and  spread  its  wings  under  all  heaven  as  the  grand  Buddhism  of 
the  whole  world. 


CHAPTER  V. 


FIFTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  15th. 


SYSTEMS  OF  RELIGION. 

The  three  sessions  of  the  fifth  day  were  spent  chiefly  in  con¬ 
sidering  various  systems  of  religion  and  comparative  theology. 
An  interesting  overflow  meeting  in  hall  3  of  the  Art  Palace 
was  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the  scientific  and  historic 
aspects  of  religion. 

Dr.  Noble  presided  in  the  afternoon,  and  in  opening  the 
meeting  said: 

We  are  all  under  obligations  to  Dr.  Barrows,  which  can  not  be  meas¬ 
ured  in  words,  for  the  magnificent  service  he  has  rendered;  first  of  all,  in 
making  this  parliament  possible,  and  secondly,  in  arranging  the  programme 
and  securing  the  services  of  those  now  taking  part  in  the  exercises,  and 
keeping  at  it  night  and  day  until  the  results  you  witness  have  been  accom¬ 
plished.  I  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  open  this  meeting  until  I  had  given  this 
testimony  to  the  inestimable  value  of  the  services  of  Dr.  Barrows. 

The  paper  on  Confucianism,  by  Kung  Hsien  Ho,  was  read  by 
William  Pike.  The  reader  stated  that  Dr.  Barrows  had  adver¬ 
tised  in  Chinese  newspapers,  calling  for  learned  essays  on 
Confucianism  and  Taoism,  and  offering  a  preminm  in  gold  for 
the  best  productions  on  these  subjects.  The  essay  of  Kung 
Hsien  Ho  was  the  result  of  this  call. 

Dr.  Barrows  was  the  presiding  officer  of  the  morning,  and 
the  session  was  opened  by  silent  prayer,  followed  by  the  recital 
of  the  Lord’s  prayer.  Rev.  George  A.  Ford  leading  the  devo¬ 
tion.  Bishop  Arnett,  of  the  A.  M.  E.  Church,  was  chairman, 
of  the  evening. 


227 


228 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


WHAT  THE  DEAD  RELIGIONS  HAVE  BEQUEATHED 

TO  THE  LIVING. 

C.  S.  GOODSPEED,  PROFESSOR  OF  COMPARATIVE  RELIGION 
AT  THE  CHICAGO  UNIVERSITY. 

We  come  for  the  first  time  in  this  parliament  to  the  consideration  of  the 
dead  religions.  Naturally,  they  do  not  claim  our  interest  to  such  a  degree 
as  do  the  living.  We  come,  as  it  were,  do  the  threshold  of  the  tomb.  The 
air  is  likely  to  be  a  little  musty  and  the  passages  somewhat  dark.  There¬ 
fore,  if  this  paper  shall,  in  some  of  its  details,  seem  a  little  intricate,  I  beg 
your  consideration  as  I  read  it,  and  I  fedl  certain  that  I  shall  have  it  by  rea¬ 
son  of  the  fact  that  my  observation  during  the  few  days  of  these  meetings 
has  shown  me  how  kind  you  are  to  the  speakers. 

The  form  in  which  the  theme  assigned  to  me  is  stated  is  suggestive.  It 
implies  that  the  leligions  of  the  world  are  not  isolated  or  independent. 
They  are  i elated  to  one  another,  and  so  related  that  their  attitude  is  not 
one  of  hostility.  Even  the  dead  religii  ns  have  left  bequests  to  the  living. 
The  subject  also  implies  that  these  bequests  are  positive.  It  is  not  worth 
our  while  to  consider  the  topic  if  we  are  convinced  beforehand  that  the 
dead  religions  have  left  behind  them  only  “bones  and  a  bad  odor.”  We 
are  invited  to  recognize  the  fact  that  a  knowledge  of  them  serves  a  some¬ 
what  higher  purpose  than  “to  point  a  moral  and  adorn  a  tale;”  to  see  in 
them  stages  in  the  religious  history  of  humanity,  and  to  acknowledge  that 
a  study  of  them  is  important,  yes,  indispensible,  to  adequate  understand¬ 
ing  of  present  systems.  If  they  have  sometimes  seemed  to  show  “what 
fools  these  mortals  be”  when  they  seek  after  God,  they  also  indicate  how 
lie  has  made  man  for  Himself,  and  how  human  hea'ts  are  restless  till  they 
rest  in  Him.  Though  dead,  they  yet  speak,  and  among  their  words  are 
some  which  form  a  part  of  our  inheritance  of  truth. 

These  dead  religions  may  be  roughly  summed  up  in  seven  groups: 

1.  Prehistor’c  cults,  which  remain  only  as  they  have  been  taken  up  into  more 
developed  systems,  and  the  faiths  of  half- civilized  peoples  like  those  of  Central 
America  and  Peru. 

2.  The  dead  religions  of  Semitic  Antiauity;  that  is  those  of  Phoenicia  and 
Syria,  of  Babylonia  and  of  Assyria. 

3.  The  religion  of  Egypt. 

4.  The  religions  of  Celtic  Heathendom. 

5.  The  religions  of  Teutonic  Heathendom. 

6.  The  religion  of  Greece. 

7.  The  religion  of  Rome. 

It  would  be  manifestly  impossible  in  the  brief  limits  of  this  paper 
adequately  to  present  the  material  which  these  seven  groups  offer  toward 
the  discussion  of  this  question.  Even  with  a  selection  of  the  most  import¬ 
ant  systems  the  material  is  too  extensive.  Our  effort,  therefore,  will  be 
directed,  not  toward  a  presentation  of  the  material,  exhaustively  or  other¬ 
wise,  but  merely  toward  a  suggestion  of  the  possible  ways  in  which  the 
achievements  of  these  “  dead  ”  systems  may  contribute  to  a  knowledge  of 
the  living  religious  facts  in  general,  with  some  illustrations  from  the  im¬ 
mense  field,  which  the  above  groups  cover. 

There  are  three  general  lines  along  which  the  dead  religions  may  be 
questioned  as  to  their  contributions  to  the  living: 

1.  What  are  the  leading  religious  ideas  around  which  they  have  centered  or 
which  they  have  most  fully  illus  rated? 

2.  What  are  their  actual  material  contributions,  of  ideas  or  usages,  to  other 
Bystems? 

.3.  In  the  history  of  their  development,  decay,  and  death,  how  do  they  afford 
mstruction,  stimulus,  or  warning? 

All  religious  systems  represent  some  fundamental  truth  or  elements  of 
truth.  They  center  about  some  eternal  idea.  Otherwise  they  would  have 


WHAT  THE  DEAD  RELIGIONS  HAVE  BEQUEATHED.  229 


no  claims  upon  humanity  and  gain  no  lasting  acceptance  with  men.  The 
religions  of  antiquity  are  no  exceptions  to  this  principle.  They  have 
emphasized  certain  phases  of  the  religious  sentiment,  grasped  certain  ele¬ 
ments  of  the  divine  nature,  elucidated  certain  sides  of  the  problem  of 
existence,  before  which  man  cries  out  after  God.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
repeat  that  these  truths  and  clear  perceptions  are  often  mingled  with  false 
views  and  pressed  to  extravagant  and  harmful  lengths.  But  progress 
through  the  ages  has  been  made  in  spite  of  these  errors  by  means  of  the 
fundamental  elements  of  truth  to  which  the  very  errors  bear  witness. 
These  are  the  bequests  of  the  dead  religions  to  the  world.  They  enrich 
the  sum  total  of  right  thoughts,  noble  aspirations,  worthy  purposes.  When 
patient  and  analytic  study  of  the  facts  of  religious  history  has  borne  in 
upon  one  the  validity  of  the  princijiles  of  development  in  this  field  these 
religions  appear  as  parts  of  the  complex  whole,  and  the  truths  they  embody 
enter  into  the  sphere  of  religious  knowledge  as  elements  in  its  ever  increas¬ 
ing  store. 

And  not  merely  as  units  in  the  whole  are  these  truths  part  of  the  pos¬ 
session  of  living  faiths,  but  since  that  whole  is  a  development  in  a  real 
sense  they  enter  into  the  groundwork  of  existing  religions.  We  do  not 
deny  that  present  life  would  not  be  what  it  is  if  Egypt  and  Assyria  had  not 
played  their  part  in  history — so  correlated  is  all  history.  Can  we  then 
deny  that  present  religion  would  not  be  what  it  is  without  their  religions? 
An  idea  once  wrought  out  and  applied  in  social  life  becomes  not  only  a  part 
of  the  world’s  truth  but  also  a  basis  for  larger  insight  and  wider  applica¬ 
tion.  Thus  the  great  and  fruitful  principles  which  these  dead  faiths  embod¬ 
ied  and  enunciated  have  been  handed  down  by  them  to  be  absorbed  into 
larger  and  higher  faiths,  whose  superiority  they  themselves  have  had  a 
share  in  making  possible.  How  important  and  stimulating,  therefore,  is  an 
investigation  of  them. 

As  illustration  may  be  drawn  from  the  religions  of  two  ancient  nations, 
Egypt  and  Babylonia,  which  gave  two  highly  influential  religious  ideas  to  the 
world.  There  is  the  religion  of  Egypt,  tnat  land  of  contradiction  and 
mystery,  where  men  thought  deep  things,  yet  worshiped  bats  and  cranes; 
were  the  most  joyous  of  creatures,  and  yet  seemed  to  have  devoted  them¬ 
selves  to  building  tombs;  explored  many  fields  of  natural  science  and  prac¬ 
tical  ai’t,  yet  give  us  the  height  of  their  achievements,  a  human  mummy. 
One  central  religious  notion  of  Egypt  was  the  nearness  of  the  Divine.  It 
was  closely  connected  with  a  fundamental  social  idea  of  the  Egyptians. 

The  man  of  Egypt  never  looked  outside  of  his  own  land  without  dis¬ 
dain.  It  contained  for  him  the  fullness  of  all  that  heart  could  wish.  He 
was  a  thoroughly  contented  and  joyous  creature  and  the  favorite  picture 
which  he  formed  of  the  future  life  was  only  that  of  another  Egypt  like  the 
present.  What  caused  him  the  most  thought  was  how  to  maintain  the  con¬ 
ditions  of  the  present  in  the  passage  through  the  vale  of  death.  The  body, 
for  example,  indispensable  to  the  present,  was  equally  required  in  the  future 
and  must  be  preserved.  Thus  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Egyptian,  happiest 
and  most  contented  of  all  men  in  this  life,  has  left  behind  him  tombs,  mum¬ 
mies  and  the  Book  of  the  Dead.  Now  in  this  favored  land  the  Egyptian 
must  have  his  gods.  Deity  must  be  near  at  hand.  What  was  nearer  than 
his  presence  and  manifestation  in  the  animal  life  most  characteristic  of  each 
district? 

Thus  was  wrought  into  shape,  founded  on  the  idea  of  the  divine  near¬ 
ness,  that  bizarre  worship  of  animals,  the  wonder  and  the  contempt  of  the 
ancient  world.  This  idea,  which  underlay  that  animal  worship,  though  so 
crudely  conceived,  was  deeply  significant,  and  constituted  a  most  important 
contribution  to  the  world. 

Another  great  religion  of  ancient  times — the  Babylonian-Assyrian— con¬ 
tributed  quite  a  different  truth.  Diving  in  a  laud  open  on  every  side  to 


230 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  assaults  of  nature  and  man,  and  having  no  occasion  to  glorify  Babylonia 
as  the  Egyptian  exalted  his  native  laud,  the  Babylonian  found  his  worthiest 
conception  of  the  divine  in  an  exalted  deity  who,  from  the  heights  of  heaven 
and  the  stars,  rained  influence.  He  emphasized  the  transcendence  of  the 
divine.  Time  does  not  permit  me  to  give  the  fuller  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  this  idea  or  to  trace  its  growth.  Surrounded  by  a  crowd  of 
indifferent  or  malevolent  spirits  who  must  be  controlled  by  a  debasing 
system  of  magic,  these  men  looked  above  and  found  deliverance  in  the  favor 
of  the  divine  beings  who  gave  help  from  the  skies.  Their  literature  gives 
evidence  of  how  they  rose  by  slow  degrees  to  this  higher  plane  of  thought 
in  the  constant  apx^eal  from  the  earth  to  heaven  ;  from  the  power  of  the 
spirits  to  the  grace  of  the  gods. 

Whatever  was  its  origin,  it  is  noticeable  that  this  idea  of  the  elevation, 
separateness,  transcendence  of  Deity  is  a  fruitful  basis  of  morality.  Put  one’s 
self  under  the  jjrotection  of  a  Lord  implies  acknowledgment  of  a  standard 
of  obedience.  At  first  jjurely  ritual  or  even  jihysical  in  its  requirements, 
this  standard  becomes  gradually  suffused  with  ethical  elements.  The  proc¬ 
ess  is  traced  in  the  so-called  Babylonian  penitential  jjsalms,  which,  indeed, 
do  not  contain  very  clear  traces,  if  any,  of  imrely  ethical  ideas.  But  the  fact 
remains  that  the  Babylonian  doctrine  of  the  transcendence  of  Deity  thus 
developed  out  of  the  antagonism  of  natural  forces  is  a  starting  jjoint  for 
the  ethical  reconstruction  of  religion.  Egypt  never  could  accomplish  this 
with  her  religion.  She  has  nothing  corresponding  to  the  penitential 
psalms. 

These  two  primitive  religious  systems  gave  to  the  world  these  two  fun¬ 
damental  ideas.  These  two  earliest  empires  carried  these  ideas  with  their 
armies  to  all  their  scenes  of  conquest,  and  their  merchants  bore  them  to 
lands  whither  their  warriors  never  went.  The  significance  of  this  is  not 
always  grasijed;  nor  is  it  easy  to  trace  the  results  of  the  diffusion  of  these 
conceptions.  Standing  among  the  earliest  religious  thoughts  which  man 
systematically  developed,  they  had  a  wonderful  opportunity,  and  we  shall 
see  that  the  opportunity  was  not  neglected. 

In  considering  the  extent  and  character  of  the  influence  exercised 
by  these  religious  ruling  ideas  of  Egyjjt  and  Babylonia,  we  pass  over  to  the 
second  element  in  the  bequest  of  the  dead  religions  to  the  living,  the  direct 
contributions  made  by  the  former  to  the  latter.  The  subject  requires 
careful  discrimination.  Not  a  few  scholars  have  gone  far  astray  at  this 
point  in  their  treatment  of  religious  systems.  Formerly  it  was  customary 
to  find  little  that  was  original  in  any  religion.  All  was  borrowed.  The 
tendency  to-day  is  reactionary,  and  the  originality  of  the  great  systems  is 
exaggerated.  There  is  no  question  as  to  the  fact  of  the  dependence  of 
religions  upon  one  another.  The  danger  is,  lest  it  be  overlooked,  that  sim¬ 
ilar  conditions  in  two  religions  may  produce  independently  the  same 
result  \  It  must  be  recognized  also  that  ancient  nations  held  themselves 
more  aloof  from  one  another,  and  especially  that  religion  as  a  matter  of 
national  tradition  was  much  more  conservative  both  in  revealing  itself  to 
strangers  and  in  accepting  contributions  from  without. 

Yet  the  student  of  religion  knows  how,  in  one  sense,  every  faith  in  the 
world  has  absorbed  the  life  of  a  multitude  of  other  local  and  limited  cults. 
This  is  true  of  the  sectarian  religions  of  India.  Islam  swallowed  the 
heathen  worships  of  ancient  Arabia.  Many  a  shrine  of  Christianity  is  a 
transformation  of  a  local  altar  of  heathendom.  There  is  no  more  impor¬ 
tant  and  no  more  intricate  work  lying  in  the  sphere  of  comx)arative  religion 
than  an  analysis  of  exisiting  faiths  with  the  view  to  the  recovery  of  the 
bequests  of  preceding  systems.  While  much  has  been  done,  the  errors  and 
extravagances  of  scholars  in  many  instances  should  teach  caution. 

We  must  pass  over  a  large  portion  of  this  great  fleld.  Attention  should 
be  called  to  the  wide  range  of  materials  in  the  realm  of  Christianity  alone. 


WHAT  THE  DEAD  RELIGIONS  HAVE  BEQUEATHED.  231 


To  her  treasury  the  bequests  of  usage  and  ritual  have  come  from  all  the 
dead  past.  From  Teutonic  and  Celtic  faiths,  from  the  cultus  of  Rome  and 
the  worship  and  thought  of  Greece  contributions  can  still  be  pointed  out 
in  the  complex  structure.  Christian  scholars  have  done  splendid  work  in 
tracing  out  these  remains.  I  need  but  refer  to  the  labors  of  Dr.  Hatch 
and  Professor  Harnack  upon  the  relations  of  Christianity  to  Greece  and 
those  of  the  eminent  French  scholar,  the  late  Ernest  Renan,  in  the  inves¬ 
tigation  of  Christianity’s  debt  to  Rome,  as  instances  of  the  richness  of  the 
field  and  the  importance  of  the  results.  A  more  limited  illustration  which 
is  also  in  continuation  of  the  line  of  thought  already  followed  may  be 
shown  in  the  influence  of  the  religions  of  Egypt  and  Assyrio-Babylonia 
upon  living  faiths,  or  more  exactly  the  connection  of  their  leading  ideas 
with  the  doctrines  of  J udaism  sind  Christianity. 

The  religious  ideas  of  Egypt  seem  to  have  spread  Westward  and  to  have 
their  greatest  influence  upon  Greece.  It  has  been  the  fashion  to  deny 
utterly  the  dependence  of  Greece  upon  Egypt  in  respect  to  religion,  but  it 
can  not  be  denied  that  the  trend  of  recent  discoveries  in  archaeology 
leads  to  the  opposite  conclusion.  We  must  emphasize  the  fact  that  every 
people  contributes  far  more  to  its  own  system  of  religious  belief  than  it  bor¬ 
rows  from  without.  Yet  Greece  herself  acknowledged  her  debt  in  this  mattei 
to  the  land  of  the  Nile  and  there  is  no  real  reason  to  deny  her  own  testimony 
It  is  striking  to  observe  how  the  fundamental  Egyptian  notions  of  the 
sufficiency  of  the  presen t  life  and  the  nearness  of  the  divine  reveal  them¬ 
selves  in  Hellas.  The  Greek  conceived  these  ideas,  indeed,  in  a  far  highei 
fashion.  Harmony  and  beauty  were  the  touchstones  by  which  he  tested 
the  world  and  found  it  good.  The  grotesqueness  of  the  Egyptian  forme 
yielded  to  the  grace  of  the  Athenian  creations  of  art  and  religion,  but 
beneath  them  was  the  same  thought.  In  man  and  his  works  the  Greek 
found  the  ideal  of  the  divine  t.nd  to  him  we  owe  the  transformation  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  divine  nearness  into  that  of  God’s  immanence. 

Egypt’s  influence  in  the  East  was  cut  off  early  after  her  period  of  con^ 
quest  by  the  rise  of  the  Hittite  empire.  It  is  difficult  to  see  any  traces  of 
her  doctrine  in  the  religions  of  Western  Asia,  unless  it  be  that  of  Phoenicia. 
But  with  one  people,  at  a  later  period,  it  would  seem  probable  that  hei 
religious  ideas  would  find  lodgment.  For  a  number  of  years,  if  Israelitish 
traditions  are  to  be  trusted,  the  Hebrews  were  under  Egyptian  domination, 
and  the  formation  of  their  nation  and  their  religious  system  dates  from 
their  deliverance  from  this  bondage.  Did  they  not  borrow  from  the  well- 
organized  and  imposing  religious  system  of  their  captors?  Could  they 
avoid  doing  so?  The  evidences  of  any  such  borrowing  are  not  easy  to  dis¬ 
cover.  Either  they  have  been  carefully  removed  by  later  ages  or  another 
and  more  powerful  influence  has  obliterated  them.  It  is  also  to  be  remem¬ 
bered  that  the  feeling  excited  in  Israel  by  the  rigors  of  Egyptian  slavery 
was  one  of  repulsion  and  abhorrence  of  everything  Egyptian.  It  is  more 
probable,  therefore,  that  the  influence  of  the  religion  of  Egypt  upon  Israel 
was  a  negative  one,  and  that  the  foundations  of  her  social  and  religious 
institutions  were  laid  in  a  spirit  of  separation  from  what  was  characteristic 
of  her  oppressor. 

This  negative  influence,  beginning  thus  in  the  birth  of  the  nation  and 
continuing  through  several  centuries  in  the  relations  of  the  two  peoples, 
was,  in  its  formative  power  over  Hebrew  religion,  second  only  to  that  which 
was  positively  exercised  by  another  religious  system,  viz. :  that  of  Assyria- 
Babylonia,  to  which  we  now  turn. 

There  were  three  great  periods  in  which  the  Hebrews  came  into  close 
relations  with  their  neighbor  on  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates.  The  first  was 
that  represented  by  the  tradition  respecting  Abraham.  He  came  from  Ur 
of  the  Chaldees  with  the  doctrine  of  the  true  God.  The  circumstances 
which  moved  him  to  depart  from  that  center  of  the  world’s  civilization  are 


232 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


not  clear  to  us,  but  the  tradition  gives  no  hint  of  hostile  relations,  such  as 
occasioned  Israel’s  departure  from  Egypt.  It  was  here,  therefore,  that  he 
came  in  contact  with  those  elevated  ideas  of  the  divine  transcendence 
which  are  characeristic  alike  of  the  religion  of  Babylonia  and  in  a  higher 
and  purer  degree  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  Can  he  have  gained  his  first 
perception  of  this  truth  from  the  Babylonians?  It  is  not  improbable.  It 
is  certainly  true  that  a  mighty  impetus  was  given  to  this  doctrine  in  Israel 
by  this  earliest  contact  with  Babylonian  life. 

The  third  of  these  periods  was  the  Babylonian  captivity.  Many  schol¬ 
ars  are  inclined  to  assign  to  this  time  a  large  number  of  acquisitions  by 
Israel  in  the  field  of  Babylonian  religion,  such  as  the  early  traditions  of  the 
creation  and  the  deluge.  But  they  forget  that  the  same  feeling  which  led 
Israel  to  reject  all  the  attractions  of  Egypt  would  be  equally  aroused 
against  Babylon,  in  whose  cruel  grasp  they  found  themselves  held  fast. 

Both  views  are  inadequate  because  they  do  not  include  all  the  facts. 
What  is  needed  in  the  study  of  religion  to-day  more  than  anything  else  is  a 
study  of  the  manifold  facts  which  religions  present,  and  a  rigid  abstinence 
from  philosophical  theories  which  find  facts  to  suit  themselves. 

One  great  excellence  of  this  parliament  is  that  it  brings  us  face  to  face 
with  these  facts.  These  brief  sessions  will  do  more  for  the  study  of  religion 
than  the  philosophizing  of  a  score  of  years.  No  religion  in  the  totality  and 
complexity  of  its  phenomena  is  wholly  false  or  wholly  true.  The  death  of 
a  religion  is  not  always  an  evidence  of  its  decay  and  corruption,  its  inade¬ 
quacy  to  meet  the  wants  of  men.  There  are  certain  phases  of  living  relig¬ 
ious  life  which  every  sane  man  would  jjref er  to  see  removed  and  their  place 
supplied  by  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  some  dead  religions.  In  the 
search  for  the  laws  of  religious  life  and  the  results  of  religious  activity,  the 
dead  religions  are  particularly  valuable. 

It  is  in  the  second  period,  that  of  the  Assyrian  conquest  of  Western 
Asia,  that  Israel  came  most  fully  under  the  influence  of  the  religion  and 
the  religious  ideas  of  the  Babylonians.  Both  Israel  and  Assyria  had  devel¬ 
oped  a  religious  system,  though  Assyria  was  far  in  advance  of  Israel  in 
this  respect.  Heir  of  Babylon’s  civilization  and  religion  Assyria  had 
advanced  a  step  beyond  her  ancestral  faith.  In  the  god  Ashur  the  nation 
worked  out  a  conception  of  a  national  god,  before  whom  the  other  deities 
of  the  Pantheon  took  subordinate  positions.  Without  denying  the  divine 
transcendence,  Assyria  moved  in  the  direction  of  monotheism.  A  God  of 
majesty  he  was,  also  conceived  in  the  Assyrian  style  as  a  God  of  justice, 
whose  law,  though  but  slightly  tinged  with  ethical  ideas  as  we  hold  them, 
must  be  obeyed. 

The  Hebrew  conception  of  Jehovah  had  also  been  fashioned  in  the  strug¬ 
gle  after  nationality.  It  was  a  conception  born  out  of  the  very  heart  of  the 
nation  divinely  moved  upon  by  the  true  God.  It  did  not  owe  its  origin  to 
Egypt  or  Assyria-Babylonia.  But  we  can  not  fail  to  observe  how  the  note 
of  divine  transcendence,  the  majesty  of  Jehovah,  was  ever  kept  clear  in  the 
minds  of  the  Hebrew  nation  from  the  two  opposite  influences— the  nega¬ 
tive  force  of  Egypt’s  contrary  doctrine  and  the  positive  power  of  the 
A ssyrio-Baby Ionian  religious  system  as  conceived  %  the  Assyrian  empire. 
They  were  ever  present  and  impressive  examples  throughout  the  centuries 
of  Israelitish  history. 

Under  this  supporting  influence  Israel  took  the  one  higher  step  which 
remained  to  be  taken.  Moved  forward  by  the  irresistible  impulse  thus  out¬ 
wardly  and  inwardly  felt,  the  prophets  released  Israel’s  God  from  the 
fetters  of  nationality  and  from  the  bonds  of  a  selfish  morality  and  preached 
the  doctrine  of  a  transcendent  righteous  God  of  all  the  earth. 

Thus  these  two  elemental  truths  about  God  have  been  conveyed  from 
Egypt  and  from  Babylonia  to  the  nations  of  men.  They  have  come  to  bo 
together  the  possession  of  Christianity .  The  doctrine  of  the  divine  transcend- 


WHAT  THE  DEAD  RELIGIONS  HAVE  BEQUEATHED.  233 


ence  is  the  gift  of  Judaism  to  the  Christian  church,  and  Christian  theol¬ 
ogy  has  wrought  it  out  into  complex  and  impressive  systems  of  truth. 
The  truth  of  the  divine  immanence  early  found  its  place  in  the  hearts  and 
minds  of  believers.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  scene  of  its  sway,  if  not  of  its 
Christian  origin,  was  the  city  of  Alexandria.  The  place  where  Greek  and 
Egyptian  met  was  the  home  of  this  Grmco-Egyptian  doctrine  which  the 
Alexandrian  fathers  wrought  into  the  Christian  system,  and  which  is  to-day 
beginning  to  claim  that  share  in  the  system  which  its  complementary  truth 
has  seemed  to  usurp.  The  religions  which  flourished  and  passed  away, 
have  in  this  way  contributed  to  the  fundamentals  of  Christian  theism. 

The  preceding  discussion  has  unavoidably  encroached  upon  the  ground 
of  the  third  line  of  inquiry,  namely:  What  have  thedead  religioDS afforded 
to  the  living  in  their  history?  What  instruction  do  their  life  ana  death 
give  as  to  the  success  or  failure  of  religious  systems?  Two  a  priori  theories 
occupy  the  field  as  explanations  of  these  religions.  First,  they  are  regarded 
as  teaching  the  blindness  of  man  in  his  search  after  God,  and  the  falsity  of 
humanly  constructed  systems  apart  from  special  divine  revelation.  The 
dead  religions  perished  because  they  were  false,  the  production  either  of 
Satan  or  of  deluded  or  designing  men.  The  second  theory  holds  these  relig¬ 
ions  to  be  steps  in  the  progressive  evolution  of  the  religious  life  of  human¬ 
ity,  passing  through  well-defined  and  philosophically  arranged  stages, 
each  justifiable  in  its  own  circumstances,  each  a  preparation  for  something 
higher. 

Study  of  facts  needed  have  in  them  worked  out  to  the  end.  They  have 
formed  a  completed  structure  or  produced  a  ruin,  both  of  which  disclose 
with  equal  fidelity  and  equal  adequacy  the  working  of  invariable  and  irre¬ 
sistible  law. 

Generalization  on  these  phenomena,  if  correctly  made,  has  a  satisfying 
quality  and  a  validity  which  affords  a  basis  for  instruction  and  guidance. 
Thus  these  religions  themselves  constitute  what  may  be  after  all  their  most 
valuable  bequest,  and  as  such  they  have  a  peculiar  interest  for  the  student 
of  religion. 

The  proofs  of  this  statement  throng  in  upon  us,  and  we  can  select  but  a 
few.  Among  the  problems  of  present  religious  life,  that  of  the  relations  of 
church  and  state  receive  light  from  these  dead  religions.  In  antiquity 
these  religions  consisted  in  almost  complete  identification  of  the  two  organ¬ 
isms.  Most  frequently  the  church  existed  for  the  state,  its  servant,  its 
slave.  The  results  were  most  disastrous  to  both  parties;  but  religion  espe¬ 
cially  suffered.  Its  priesthoods  either  became  filled  with  ambitious  designs 
upon  the  state  as  in  Egypt,  or  fell  into  the  position  of  subserviency  and 
weakness  as  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  Rome  and  Greece. 

The  aims  and  ends  of  truth  were  narrowed  and  trimmed  to  fit  imper¬ 
fect  social  conditions,  and  the  fate  of  religion  was  bound  up  with  the  suc¬ 
cess  or  failure  of  a  political  policy.  The  destruction  of  the  nation  meant 
the  disappearance  of  the  religion.  Assyria  dragged  into  her  grave  the 
religion  which  she  professed.  A  similar  fate-attended  many  of  the  cults  of 
Semitic  antiquity  through  the  conquests  of  the  great  world  empires 
which  dominated  Western  Asia.  The  finished  experience  of  these  dead 
faiths,  therefore,  speaks  clearly  in  favor  of  the  separation  of  religion  from 
the  state. 

Another  problem  which  they  enlighten  is  that  of  religious  unity  and  the 
consequent  future  of  religious  systems,  the  ultimate  religion.  Where  these 
systems  survived  the  ruin  of  the  nationality,  on  which  they  depended,  they 
met  their  death  through  a  mightier  religious  force.  The  most  brilliant 
example  of  this  phenomenon  is  the  conflict  of  Christianity  with  the  relig¬ 
ions  of  the  ancient  world.  Christianity’s  victory  was  achieved  without 
force  of  arms.  Was  it  merely  that  its  foes  were  moribund,  that  the  religious 
forces  of  antiquity  had  all  but  lost  their  power?  This  is  not  by  any  means 


231 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


all  the  truth.  I  can  not  glory  in  the  victory  of  a  Christianity  over  decay-  • 
ing  religions  that  would  have  died  of  themselves  if  only  left  alone,  but  I  am 
proud  of  her  power  in  that  when  “the  fullness  of  the  times”  was  come, 
when  Egypt  and  Syria,  Judea,  Greece,  and  Rome  offered  to  the  world  their 
best,  she  was  able  to  take  all  their  truths  into  her  genial  grasp,  and,  incar¬ 
nating  them  in  Jesus  Christ,  make  them  in  Him  the  beginning  of  a  new 
age,  the  starting  point  of  a  higher  evolution. 

These  religions  were  crippled  by  their  essential  character.  They  had 
no  real  unity  of  thought.  Their  princijjle  ol  organization  was  the  inclusion 
of  local  cults,  not  the  establishment  of  a  great  idea.  There  was  broad 
toleration  in  the  ancient  religious  world  both  of  forms  arid  ideas,  but  the 
toleration  of  ideas  existed  because  of  the  want  of  a  clear-thought  basis  of 
religion,  or,  to  speak  more  precisely,  the  want  of  a  theology.  With  the 
absence  of  this  the  multiplicity  of  forms  produced  a  meaningless  confusion. 
Even  where  each  of  these  systems  reveals  to  us  the  presence  of  a  common 
idea  traceable  through  all  its  forms,  this  one  idea  is  only  a  phase  of  the 
truth. 

Assyria’s  doctrine  of  the  divine  transcendence,  and  Egypt’s  view  of  the 
divine  nearness,  and  Greece’s  tenet  of  the  divineness  of  man  or  the  human¬ 
ness  of  God  were  valid  religious  ideas,  but  each  was  partial.  These  relig¬ 
ions,  so  inclusive  of  forms,  could  not  include  or  comprehend  more  than  their 
own  favorite  idea.  But  when  Christianity  came  against  them  with  a  well- 
rounded  theology,  a  central  truth  like  that  of  the  incarnation,  a  truth  and 
a  life  which  not  merely  included  but  reconciled  all  ailments  of  the  world’s 
religious  progress,  none  of  these  ancient  systems  could  stand  before  it. 

They  seem  to  tell  us  that  the  true  test  of  a  religious  system  is  the  meas¬ 
ure  in  which  it  is  filled  with  God.  So  far  as  they  saw  Him  they  led  men  to 
find  help  and  peace  in  Him.  They  proclaimed  His  law,  they  sought  to 
assure  to  men  His  favor.  So  far  as  they  accomplished  this,  so  far  as  they 
were  filled  with  God,  both  as  a  doctrine  and  as  a  life,  they  fulfilled  their 
part  in  the  education  and  salvation  of  the  human  race.  By  that  test  they 
rose  and  fell;  by  that  measure  they  take  their  place  in  the  complex  evolu¬ 
tion  of  the  world.  And  it  was  because  they  failed  to  rise  to  the  height  of 
Christianity’s  comprehension  and  absorption  of  God  that  they  perished. 

We  are  sometimes  inclined,  amid  the  din  oi  opposing  creed,  to  long 
for  a  religion  without  theology.  These  dead  faiths  warn  us  of  the  folly  of 
any  such  dream.  In  the  presence  of  a  multitude  of  religions  such  as  are 
represented  in  this  parliament  we  are  tempted  to  believe  that  the  ultimate 
religion  will  consist  in  a  bouquet  of  the  sweetest  and  choicest  of  them  all. 
The  graves  of  the  dead  religions  declare  that  not  selection  but  incorpo¬ 
ration  makes  a  religion  strong;  not  incorporation  but  reconciliation;  not 
reconciliation  but  the  fulfillment  of  all  these  aspirations,  these  partial 
truths  in  a  higher  thought,  in  a  transcendent  life. 

The  system  of  religions  here  represented,  or  to  come,  which  will  not 
merely  select  but  incorporate,  not  merely  incorporate  but  reconcile,  not 
merely  reconcile  but  fulfill,  holds  the  religious  future  of  humanity. 

Apart  from  particular  problems  these  dead  religions  in  clear  tones  give 
two  precious  testimonies.  They  bear  witness  to  man’s  need  of  God  and 
man’s  capacity  to  know  Him.  Looking  back  to-day  upon  the  dead  past  we 
behold  men  in  the  jungle  and  on  the  mountain,  in  the  Roman  temple  and 
before  the  Celtic  altar,  lifting  up  holy  hands  of  aspiration  and  petition  to 
the  Divine.  Sounding  through  Greek  hymns  and  Babylonian  psalms  alike 
are  heard  human  voices  crying  after  the  Eternal. 

But  there  is  a  nobler  heritage  of  ours  in  these  oldest  of  religions.  The 
capacity  to  know  God  is  not  the  knowledge  of  Him.  They  tell  us  with  one 
voice  that  the  human  heart,  the  universal  human  heart  that ’needs  God 
and  can  know  Him  was  not  left  to  search  for  Him  in  blindness  and  ignor¬ 
ance.  He  gave  them  of  Himself.  They  received  the  light  which  lighteth 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM, 


235 


every  man.  That  light  has  come  down  the  ages  unto  us,  shining  as  it 
comes  with  ever  brighter  beams  of  divine  revelation. 

“  For  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners,  spake  unto  the 
fathers”— and  we  are  beginning  to  realize  to-day,  as  never  before,  how 
many  are  our  spiritual  fathers  in  the  past — “  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken 
unto  us  in  the  Son.” 


THE  POINTS  OF  CONTACT  AND  CONTRAST 
BETWEEN  CHRISTIANITY  ANB 
MOHAMMEDANISM. 

GEORGE  WASHBURN,  D.  D.,  PRESIDENT  OF  ROBERT  COLLEGE, 

CONSTANTINOPLE . 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  enter  upon  any  defence  or  criticism  of  Moham¬ 
medanism,  but  simply  to  state,  as  impartially  as  possible,  its  points  of  con¬ 
tact  and  contrast  with  Christianity. 

The  chief  difficulty  in  such  a  statement  arises  from  the  fact  that  there 
are  as  many  different  opinions  on  theological  questions  among  Moslems  as 
among  Christians,  and  that  it  is  impossible  to  present  any  summary  of 
Mohammedan  doctrine  which  will  be  accepted  by  all. 

The  faith  of  Islam  is  based  primarily  upon  the  Koran,  which  is  believed 
to  have  been  delivered  to  the  prophet  at  sundry  times  by  the  angel  Gabriel, 
and  upon  the  traditions  reporting  the  life  and  words  of  the  prophet;  and 
secondarily,  upon  the  opinions  of  certain  distinguished  theologians  of  the 
2d  century  of  the  hegira,  especially,  for  the  Sunnis,  of  the  four  Imams, 
Hanife,  Shafi,  Malik,  and  Hannbel. 

The  Shiites,  or  followers  of  Aali,  reject  these  last  with  many  of  the 
received  traditions,  and  hold  opinions  which  the  great  body  of  Moslems 
regard  as  heretical.  In  addition  to  the  twofold  divisions  of  Sunnis  and 
Shiites,  and  of  the  sects  of  the  four  Imams,  there  are  said  to  be  several 
hundred  minor  sects. 

It  is  in  fact,  very  difficult  for  an  honest  inquirer  to  determine  what  is 
really  essential  to  the  faith.  A  distinguished  Moslem  statesman  and 
scholar  once  assured  me  that  nothing  was  essential  beyond  a  belief  in  the 
existence  and  unity  of  God.  And  several  years  ago  the  Sheik-ul-Islam,  the 
highest  authority  in  Constantinople,  in  a  letter  to  a  German  inquirer,  stated 
that  whoever  confesses  that  there  is  but  one  God,  and  that  Mohammed  is 
His  prophet,  is  a  true  Moslem,  although  to  be  a  good  one  it  is  necessary  to 
observe  the  five  points  of  confession — prayer,  fasting,  almsgiving  and  pil¬ 
grimage;  but  the  difficulty  about  this  apparently  simple  definition  in  that 
belief  in  Mohammed  as  the  Prophet  of  God  involves  a  belief  in  all  his  teach¬ 
ing,  and  we  come  back  at  once  to  the  question  what  that  teaching  was. 

The  great  majority  of  Mohammedans  believe  in  the  Koran,  the  traditions 
and  the  teaching  of  the  school  of  Hanife,  and  we  can  not  do  better  than  to 
take  these  doctrines  and  compare  them  with  what  are  generally  regarded 
as  the  essential  principles  of  Christianity. 

With  this  explanation  we  may  discuss  the  relations  of  Christianity  and 
Mohammedanism  as  historical,  dogmatic,  and  practical. 

It  would  hardly  be  necessary  to  speak  in  this  connection  of  the  historical 
relations  of  Christianity  and  Islam,  if  they  had  not  seemed,  to  some 
distinguished  writers,  so  important  as  to  justify  the  statement  that 
Mohammedanism  is  a  form  and  outgrowth  of  Christianity— in  fact,  essen¬ 
tially  a  Christian  sect. 

Carlyle,  for  example,  says:  “  Islam  is  definable  as  a  confused  form  of 
Christianity.”  And  Draper  calls  it  “  The  Southern  Reformation,  akin  to 


236 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


that  in  the  North  under  Luther.”  Dean  Stanley  and  Dr.  Doellinger  make 
similar  statements. 

While  there  is  a  certain  semblance  of  truth  in  their  view,  it  seems  to  me 
not  only  misleading  but  essentially  false. 

Neither  Mohammed  nor  any  of  his  earlier  followers  had  ever  been 
Christians  and  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  up  to  the  time  of  hie 
announcing  his  prophetic  mission  he  had  interested  himself  at  all  in 
Christianity.  No  such  theory  is  necessary  to  account  for  his  monotheism. 
The  citizens  of  Mecca  were  mostly  idolaters,  but  a  few,  known  as  Hanifs 
were  pure  deists,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  was  not  unknown 
theoretically  even  by  those  who,  in  their  idolatry,  had  practically  aban¬ 
doned  it.  The  temple  at  Mecca  was  known  as  Beit  ullah,  the  house  of  God. 
The  name  of  the  Prophet’s  father  was  Abdallah,  the  servant  of  God;  and 
“  by  Allah  ”  was  a  common  oath  among  the  people. 

The  one  God  was  nominally  recognized,  but  in  fact  forgotten  in  the 
worship  of  the  stars  of  Lat  and  Ozza  and  Manah,  and  of  the  360  idols  in 
the  temple  of  Mecca.  It  was  against  this  prevalent  idolatry  that  Moham¬ 
med  revolted,  and  he  claimed  that  in  so  doing  he  had  returned  to  the  pure 
religion  of  Abraham.  Still,  Mohammedanism  is  no  more  a  reformed 
Judaism  than  it  is  a  form  of  Christianity.  It  was  essentially  a  new 
religion. 

The  Koran  claimed  to  be  a  new  and  perfect  revelation  of  the  will  of 
God,  and  from  the  time  of  the  Prophet’s  death  to  this  day  no  Moslem  has 
appealed  to  the  ancient  traditions  of  Arabia  or  to  the  Jewish  or  Christian 
Scriptures  as  the  ground  of  his  faith.  The  Koran  and  the  traditions  are 
sufficient  and  finial.  I  believe  that  every  orthodox  Moslem  regards  Islam 
as  a  separate,  distinct,  and  absolutely  exclusive  religion;  and  there  is 
nothing  to  be  gained  by  calling  it  a  form  of  Christianity.  But  after  having 
set  aside  this  unfounded  statement,  and  fully  acknowledged  the  inde¬ 
pendent  origin  of  Islam,  there  is  still  a  historical  relationship  between  it 
and  Christianity  which  demands  our  attention. 

The  Prophet  recognized  the  Christian  and  Jewish  Scriptures  as  the 
word  of  God,  although  it  can  not  be  proved  that  he  had  ever  read  them. 
They  are  mentioned  131  times  in  the  Koran,  but  there  is  only  one  quotation 
from  the  Old  Testament,  and  one  from  the  New.  The  historical  parts  of 
the  Koran  correspond  with  the  Talmud,  and  the  writings  current  among  the 
heretical  Christian  sects,  such  as  the  Protevangelium  of  James,  the  pseudo 
Matthew,  and  the  Gospel  of  the  nativity  of  Mary,  rather  than  with  the 
Bible.  His  information  was  probably  obtained  verbally  from  his  Jewish 
and  Christian  friends,  who  seem,  in  some  cases,  to  have  deceived  him  inten¬ 
tionally.  He  seems  to  have  believed  their  statements,  that  his  coming  was 
foretold  in  the  Scriptures,  and  to  have  hoped  for  some  years  that  they 
would  accept  him  as  their  promised  leader. 

His  confidence  in  the  Christians  was  proved  by  his  sending  his  perse¬ 
cuted  followers  to  take  refuge  with  the  Christian  King  of  Abyssinia.  He 
had  visited  Christian  Syria,  and,  if  tradition  can  be  trusted,  he  had  some 
intimate  Christian  friends.  With  the  Jews  he  was  on  still  more  intimate 
terms  during  the  last  years  at  Mecca  and  the  first  at  Medina. 

But  in  the  end  he  attacked  and  destroyed  the  Jews  and  declared  war 
against  the  Christians,  making  a  distinction,  however,  in  his  treatment  of 
idolaters  and  “  the  people  of  the  Book,”  allowing  the  latter,  if  they  quietly 
submitted  to  his  authority,  to  retain  their  religion  on  the  condition  of  an 
annual  payment  of  a  tribute  or  ransom  for  their  lives.  If,  however,  they 
resisted,  the  men  were  to  be  killed  and  the  women  and  children  sold  as 
slaves  (Koran,  sura  ix).  In  the  next  world  Jews,  Christians,  and  idolaters 
are  alike  consigned  to  eternal  punishment  in  hell. 

Some  have  supposed  that  a  verse  in  the  second  sura  of  the  Koran  was 
intended  to  teach  a  more  charitable  doctrine.  It  reads:  “Surely  those  who 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM, 


237 


believe,  whether  Jews,  Christians,  or  Sabians,  whoever  believeth  in  God  and 
the  last  day,  and  doeth  that  which  is  right,  they  shall  have  their  reward  with 
the  Lord.  No  fear  shall  come  upon  them,  neither  shall  they  be  grieved.” 
But  Moslem  commentators  rightly  understand  this  as  only  teaching  that  if 
Jews,  Christians,  or  Sabians  b^ecome  Moslems  they  will  be  saved,  the  phrase 
used  being  the  common  one  to  express  faith  in  Islam. 

In  the  third  sura  it  is  stated  in  so  many  words:  “  Whoever  followeth 
any  other  religion  than  Islam  it  shall  not  be  accepted  of  him,  and  at  the 
last  day  he  shall  be  of  those  that  perish.” 

This  is  the  orthodox  doctrine;  but  it  should  be  said  that  one  meets  with 
Moslems  who  take  a  more  hopeful  view  of  the  ultimate  fate  of  those  who 
are  sincere  and  honest  followers  of  Christ. 

The  question  whether  Mohammedanism  has  been  in  any  way  modified 
since  the  time  of  the  Prophet  by  its  contact  with  Christianity  I  think  every 
Moslem  would  answer  in  the  negative.  There  is  much  to  be  said  on  the 
other  side,  as,  for  example,  it  must  seem  to  a  Christian  student  that  the 
offices  and  qualities  assigned  to  the  Prophet  by  the  traditions,  which  are 
not  claimed  for  him  in  the  Koran,  must  have  been  borrowed  from  the 
Christian  teaching  in  regard  to  Christ;  but  we  have  not  time  to  enter  upon 
the  discussion  of  this  question. 

In  comparing  the  dogmatic  statements  of  Islam  and  Christianity  we 
must  confine  ourselves  as  strictly  as  possible  to  what  is  generally  acknowl¬ 
edged  to  be  essential  to  each  faith.  To  go  beyond  this  would  be  to  enter 
upon  a  sea  of  speculation  almost  without  limits  from  which  we  could  hope 
to  bring  back  but  little  of  any  value  to  our  present  discussion. 

It  has  been  formally  decided  by  various  fetvas  that  the  Koran  requires 
belief  in  seven  principal  doctrines,  and  the  confession  of  faith  is  this: 
“  I  believe  on  God,  on  the  Angels,  on  the  Books,  on  the  Prophets,  on  the 
Judgment  Day,  on  the  eternal  Decrees  of  God  Almighty  concerning  both 
good  and  evil,  and  on  the  Resurrection  after  Death.” 

There  are  many  other  things  which  a  good  Moslem  is  expected  to  believe, 
but  these  points  are  fundamental.  Taking  these  essential  dogmas  one  by 
one,  we  shall  find  that  they  agree  with  Christian  doctrine  in  their  general 
statement,  although  in  their  development  there  is  a  wide  divergence  of 
faith  between  the  Christian  and  Moslem. 

1.  The  Doctrine  of  *God — This  is  stated  by  Omer  Nessefi  (A.  D.  1142)  as 
follows: 

God  is  one  and  eternal.  He  lives,  and  is  almighty.  He  knows  all  things,  hears  all 
things,  sees  all  things.  He  is  endowed  with  will  and  action.  He  has  neither  form 
nor  feature,  neither  bounds,  limits,  nor  numbers,  neither  parts,  multiplicaiions 
nor  divisions,  because  he  is  neither  body  nor  matter.  He  has  neither  beginning 
nor  end.  He  is  self-existent,  without  generation,  dwelling,  or  habitation.  He  is 
outside  the  empire  of  time,  unequaled  in  his  nature  as  in  his  attributes,  which, 
without  being  foreign  to  his  essence,  do  not  constitute  it. 

The  Westminster  Catechism  says: 

God  is  a  spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  unchangeable,  in  his  being  wisdom,  power 
holiness,  justice,  goodness,  and  truth,  ihere  is  but  one  only,  the  living  and 
true  God. 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  statements  differ  chiefly  in  that  the 
Christian  gives  special  prominence  to  the  moral  attributes  of  God,  and  it 
has  often  been  said  that  the  God  of  Islam  is  simply  a  God  of  almighty 
power,  while  the  God  of  Christianity  is  a  God  of  infinite  love  and  perfect 
holiness;  but  this  is  not  a  fair  statement  of  truth.  The  ninety-nine  names 
of  God  which  the  good  Moslem  constantly  repeats  assign  these  attributes 
to  Him.  The  fourth  name  is  “The  Most  Holy;”  the  twenty-ninth  ‘'The 
Just;”  the  forty-sixth  “The  All  Loving;”  the  first  and  most  common  is 
“  The  Merciful,”  and  the  moral  attributes  are  often  referred  to  in  the  Koran. 
In  truth  there  is  no  conceivable  perfection  which  the  Moslem  would  neg¬ 
lect  to  attribute  to  God. 

Their  conception  of  Him  is  that  of  an  absolute  Oriental  monarch;  and 


238 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


His  unlimited  power  to  do  what  He  pleases  makes  entire  submission  to  His 
will  the  first,  most  prominent  duty.  The  name  which  they  gave  to  their 
religion  implies  this.  It  is  Islam,  which  means‘'submission  or  resignation; 
but  a  king  may  be  good  or  bad,  wise  or  foolish,  and  the  Moslem  takes  as 
much  pains  as  the  Christian  to  attribute  to  God  all  wisdom  and  all  goodness. 

The  essential  difference  in  the  Christian  and  Mohammedan  conception 
of  God  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  Moslem  does  not  think  of  this  great  King 
as  having  anything  in  common  with  his  subjects,  from  whom  he  is  infinitely 
removed.  The  idea  of  the  incarnation  of  God  in  Christ  is  to  them  not  only 
blasphemous,  but  absurd  and  incomprehensible  ;  and  tlie  idea  of  fellowship 
with  God,  which  is  expressed  in  calling  Him  our  Father,  is  altogether 
foreign  to  Mohammedan  thought.  God  is  not  immanent  in  the  world  in 
the  Christian  sense,  but  apart  from  the  world,  and  infinitely  removed  from 
man. 

2.  The  Doctrine  of  Degrees,  or  of  the  Sovereignty  of  God,  is  a  funda¬ 
mental  principle  of  both  Christianity  and  Islam. 

The  Koran  says : 

God  has  from  all  eternity  foreordained  by  an  immutable  decree  all  things 
whatsoever  come  to  pass,  whether  good  or  evil. 

The  Westminster  Catechism  says: 

The  decrees  of  God  are  his  eternal  purpose  according  to  the  counsel  of  His 
will,  whereby  for  His  own  glory  He  hath  foreordained  whatever  comes  to  pass. 

It  is  plain  that  these  two  statements  do  not  essentially  differ,  and  the 
same  controversies  have  arisen  over  this  doctrine  among  Mohammedans  as 
among  Christians,  with  the  same  differences  of  opinion. 

Omer  Nessefi  says: 

Predestination  refers  not  to  the  temporal  but  to  the  spiritual  state.  Election 
and  reprobation  decide  the  final  fate  of  the  soal,  ut  bin  temporal  affairs  man  is 
free. 

A  Turkish  confession  of  faith  says: 

Unbelief  and  wicked  acts  happen  with  the  foreknowledge  and  will  of  God,  but 
the  effect  of  his  predestination,  written  from  eternity  on  the  preserved  tables,  by 
His  operation  but  not  with  His  satisfaction.  God  foresees,  wills,  produces,  loves 
all  that  is  good,  and  does  not  love  unbelief  and  sin.  though  He  wills  and  effects  it. 

•  f  it  be  asked  why  God  wills  and  effects  what  is  evil  and  gives  the  devil  power  to 
tempt  man,  the  answer  is,  He  has  His  views  of  wisdom  which  it  is  not  granted  to 
us  to  know. 

Many  Christian  theologians  would  accept  this  statement  without  criti¬ 
cism,  but  ill  general  they  have  been  careful  to  guard  against  the  idea  that 
God  is  in  any  way  the  efficient  cause  of  sin,  and  they  generally  give  to  men 
a  wider  area  of  freedom  than  the  orthodox  Mohammedans. 

It  can  not  be  denied  that  this  doctrine  of  the  decrees  of  God  has  degen¬ 
erated  into  fatalism  more  generally  among  Moslems  than  among  Christians. 
I  have  never  known  a  Mohammedan  of  any  sect  who  was  not  more  or  less 
a  fatalist,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  there  have  been  Moslem  theolo¬ 
gians  who  have  repudiated  fatalism  as  vigorously  as  any  Christian. 

In  Christianity  this  doctrine  has  been  offset  by  a  different  conception  of 
God,  by  a  higher  estimate  of  man,  and  by  the  whole  scheme  of  redemp¬ 
tion  through  faith  in  Christ.  In  Islam  there  is  no  such  counteracting 
influence. 

3.  The  other  five  doctrines  we  pass  over  with  a  single  remark  in  regard 
to  each.  Both  Moslems  and  Christians  believe  in  the  existence  of  good  and 
evil  angels,  and  that  God  has  revealed  His  will  to  man  in  certain  inspired 
books,  and  both  agree  that  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  scriptures  are  such 
books.  The  Moslem,  however,  believes  that  they  have  been  superseded  by 
the  Koran,  which  was  brought  down  from  God  by  the  angel  Gabriel.  They 
believe  that  this  is  His  eternal  and  uncreated  word;  that  its  divine  char¬ 
acter  is  proved  by  its  poetic  beauty;  that  it  has  a  miraculous  power  over 
men  apart  from  what  it  teaches,  so  that  the  mere  hearing  of  it,  without 
understanding  it,  may  heal  the  sick  or  convert  the  infidel.  Both  Christians 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM. 


239 


and  Moslems  believe  that  God  has  sent  prophets  and  apostles  into  the 
world  to  teach  men  His  will;  both  believe  in  the  judgment-day,  and  the  res¬ 
urrection  of  the  dead,  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  rewards  and 
punishments  in  the  future  life. 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  simple  statement  the  seven  positive  doctrines  of 
Islam  are  in  harmony  with  Christian  dogma;  but  in  their  exposition  and 
development  the  New  Testament  and  the  Koran  part  company,  and 
Christian  and  Moslem  speculation  evolve  totally  different  conceptions, 
especially  in  regard  to  everything  concerning  the  other  world.  It  is  in 
these  expositions  based  upon  the  Koran  (e.  g.,  suras,  Ivi.  and  Ixxviii.),  and 
still  more  upon  the  traditions,  that  we  find  the  most  striking  contrasts 
between  Christianity  and  Mohammedanism;  but  it  is  not  easy  for  a  Chris¬ 
tian  to  state  them  in  a  way  to  satisfy  Moslems,  and  as  we  have  no  time  to 
quote  authorities  we  may  pass  them  over. 

4.  The  essential  dogmatic  difference  between  Christianity  and  Islam  is 
in  regard  to  the  person,  office,  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Koran 
expressly  denies  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  His  death,  and  the 
whole  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  and  the  Atonement,  and  rejects  the 
sacraments  which  He  ordained. 

It  accepts  His  miraculous  birth.  His  miracles.  His  moral  perfection,  and 
His  mission  as  an  inspired  prophet  or  teacher.  It  declares  that  He  did  not 
die  on  the  cross,  but  was  taken  up  to  heaven  without  death,  while  the  Jews 
crucified  one  like  Him  in  His  place.  It  consequently  denies  His  resurrec¬ 
tion  from  the  dead,  but  claims  that  He  will  come  again  to  rule  the  world 
before  the  day  of  judgment. 

It  says  that  He  will  Himself  testify  before  God  that  He  never  claimed  to 
be  divine;  this  heresy  originated  with  Paul. 

And  at  the  same  time  the  faith  exalts  Mohammed  to  very  nearly  the 
same  position  which  Christ  occupies  in  the  Christian  scheme:  He  is  not 
divine,  and  consequently  not  an  object  of  worship,  but  He  was  the  first  cre¬ 
ated  being;  God’s  first  and  best  beloved,  the  noblest  of  all  creatures,  the 
mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  greatest  intercessor,  the  first  to  enter 
paradise,  and  the  highest  there.  Although  the  Koran  in  many  places 
speaks  of  him  as  the  sinner  in  need  of  pardon  (Ex.,  suras  xxiii.,  xlvii.,  and 
xlviii.,).  His  absolute  sinlessness  is  also  an  article  of  faith. 

The  Holy  Spirit,  the  third  person  in  the  Trinity,  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
Koran,  and  the  Christian  doctrine  of  His  work  of  regeneration  and  sanctifi¬ 
cation  seems  to  have  been  unknown  to  the  prophet,  who  represents  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  teaching  that  it  consists  of  God  the 
Father,  Mary  the  Mother,  and  Christ  the  Son.  The  promise  of  Christ  in 
the  Gospel  of  John  to  send  the  Paraclete,  the  prophet  applies  to  Himself, 
reading  Parakletos  as  Periklytos,  which  might  be  rendered  in  Arabic  as 
Ahmed,  another  form  of  the  name  Mohammed. 

We  have,  then,  in  Islam,  a  specific  and  final  rejection  and  repudiation  of 
the  Christian  dogma  of  the  incarnation  and  the  Trinity,  and  the  substitu¬ 
tion  of  Mohammed  for  Christ  inmost  of  his  offices;  but  it  should  be  noted 
in  passing,  that  while  this  rejection  grows  out  of  a  different  conception  of 
God,  it  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  scientific  rationalistic  unbelief  of 
the  present  day.  If  it  can  not  conceive  of  God  as  incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ, 
it  is  not  from  any  doubt  as  to  His  personality  or  His  miraculous  interfer¬ 
ence  in  the  affairs  of  this  world,  or  the  reality  of  the  supernatural.  These 
ideas  are  fundamental  to  the  faith  of  every  orthodox  Mohammedan,  and 
are  taught  everywhere  in  the  Koran. 

There  are  nominal  Mohammedans  who  are  atheists,  and  others  who  are 
pantheists  of  the  Spinoza  type.  There  are  also  some  small  sects  who  are 
rationalists,  but  after  the  fashion  of  old  English  deism,  rather  than  of  the 
modern  rationalism.  The  deistic  rationalism  is  represented  in  that  most 
interesting  work  of  Justice  Ameer  Aali,  “The  Spirit  of  Islam.”  He  speaks 


240 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OE  RELIGIONS. 


of  Mohammed  as  Xenophon  did  of  Socrates,  and  he  reveres  Christ  also,  but 
he  denies  that  there  was  anything  supernatural  in  the  inspiration  or  lives 
of  eithei,  and  claims  that  Hanife  and  the  other  Imams  corrupted  Islam  as 
he  thinks  Paul,  the  apostle,  did  Christianity;  but  this  book  does  not  repre¬ 
sent  Mohammedanism  any  more  than  Renan’s  “  Life  of  Jesus  ”  represents 
Christianity.  These  small  rationalistic  sects  are  looked  upon  by  all  ortho¬ 
dox  Moslems  as  heretics  of  the  worst  description. 

The  practical  and  ethical  relations  of  Islam  to  Christianity  are  even 
more  interesting  than  the  historical  and  dogmatic.  The  Moslem  code  of 
morals  is  much  nearer  the  Christian  than  is  generally  supposed  on  either 
side,  although  it  is  really  more  Jewish  than  Christian.  The  truth  is  that 
we  judge  each  other  harshly  and  unfairly  by  those  who  do  not  live  up  to  the 
demands  of  their  religion,  instead  of  comparing  the  pious  Moslem  with  the 
consistent  Christian. 

We  can  not  enter  here  into  a  technical  statement  of  the  philosophical 
development 'of  the  principles  of  law  and  morality  as  they  are  given  by  the 
Imam  Hanife  and  others.  It  vmuld  be  incomprehensible  without  hours  of 
explanation,’'and  is  really  understood  by  but  few  Mohammedans,  although 
the  practical  application  of  it  is  the  substance  of  Mohammedan  law.  It  is 
enough  to  say  that  the  moral  law  is  based  upon  the  Koran,  and  the  tra¬ 
ditions  of  the  life  and  sayings  of  the  Prophet  enlarged  by  deductions  and 
analogies.  Whatever  comes  from  these  sources  has  the  force  and  author¬ 
ity  of  a  revealed  law  of  God. 

The  first  practical  duties  inculcated  in  the  religious  code  are:  Confession 
of  God  and  Mohammed  his  Prophet;  prayer  at  least  five  times  a  day;  fast¬ 
ing  during  the  month  of  Ramazan  from  dawn  to  sunset;  alms  to  the  annual 
amount  of  2)^  per  cent  on/" property;  pilgrimage  to  Mecca  at  least  once  in  a 
lifetime.  A  sixth  duty  of  equal  importance,  is  taking  part  in  sacred  war,  or 
war  for  religion,  but  some  orthodox  Moslems  hold  that  this  is  not  a  per¬ 
petual  obligation,  and  this  seems  to  have  been  the  'opinion  of  Hanife. 

In  addition  to  these  primary  duties  of  religion,  the  moral  code,  as  given 
by  Omer  Nessefi,  demands;  Honesty  in  business;  modesty  or  decency  in 
behavior;  fraternity  between  all  Moslems;  benevolence  and  kindness  toward 
all  creatures.  It  forbids  gambling,  music,  the  making  or  possessing  of 
images,  the  drinking  of  intoxicating  liquors,  the  taking  of  God’s  name  in 
vain,  and  all  false  oaths.  And,  in  general,  Omer  Nessefi  adds:  “It  is  an 
indispensable  obligation  for  every  Moslem  to  practice  virtue  and  avoid  vice, 
i.  e.,  all  that  is  contrary  to  religion,  law,  humanity,  good  manners,  and  the 
duties  of  society.  He  ought  especially  to  guard  against  deception,  lying, 
slander,  and  abuse  of  his  neighbor.” 

We  may  also  add  some  specimen  passages  from  the  Koran: 

God  commands  justice,  benevolence,  and  liberality.  He  forbids  crime,  injus¬ 
tice,  and  calumny. 

Avoid  sin  in  secret  and  in  public.  The  wicked  will  receive  the  rewards  of  his 
deeds. 

God  promises  His  mercy  and  a  brilliant  recompense  to  those  who  add  good 
works  to  their  faith. 

He  who  commits  iniquity  will  lose  his  soul. 

It  is  not  righteousness  that  you  turn  your  faces  in  prayer  toward  the  East  or 
the  West,  but  righteousness  is  of  him  who  believeth  in  God  and  the  last  day,  and 
the  angels  and  prophets,  who  giveth  money,  for  God’s  sake,  to  his  kindred  and  to 
orphans,  and  to  the  needy  and  the  stranger,  and  to  those  who  ask,  and  for  the 
redemption  of  captives;  who  is  constant  in  prayer,  and  giveth  alms;  and  of 
those  who  perform  their  covenant,  and  who  behave  themselves  patiently  in  the 
adversity  and  hardships,  and  in  time  of  violence.  These  are  they  who  are  true, 
and  these  are  they  who  fear  God. 

So  far,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  these  conceptions  of  the  moral  life 
are  essentially  the  same  as  the  Christian,  although  some  distinctively 
Christian  virtues,  such  as  meekness  and  humility,-  are  not  emphasized. 

Beyond  this  we  have  a  moral  code  equally  binding  in  theory,  and  equally 
important  in  practice,  which  is  not  at  all  Christian,  but  is  essentially  the 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANtSM, 


241 


morality  of  the  Talmud  in  the  extreme  value  which  it  attaches  to  outward 
observances,  such  as  fasting,  pilgrimages,  and  ceremonial  rights. 

All  the  concerns  of  life  and  death  are  hedged  about  with  prescribed  cere¬ 
monies,  which  are  not  simple  matters  of  propriety,  but  of  morality  and 
religion;  and  it  is  impossible  for  one  who  has  not  lived  among  Moslems  to 
realize  the  extent  and  importance  of  this  ceremonial  law. 

In  regard  to  polygamy,  divorce,  and  slavery  the  morality  of  Islam  is  in 
direct  contrast  with  that  of  Christianity,  and  as  the  principles  of  the  faith, 
so  far  as  determined  by  the  Koran  and  the  Traditions,  are  fixed  and 
unchangeable— no  change  in  regard  to  the  legality  of  these  can  be  expected. 
They  may  be  silently  abandoned,  but  they  can  never  be  forbidden  by  law 
in  any  Mohammedan  state.  It  should  be  said  here,  however,  that,  while 
the  position  of  woman,  as  determined  by  the  Koran,  is  one  of  inferiority  and 
subjection,  there  is  no  truth  whatever  in  the  current  idea  that,  according 
to  the  Koran,  they  have  no  souls,  no  hope  of  immortality  and  no  rights. 
This  is  an  absolutely  unfounded  slander. 

Another  contrast  between  the  morality  of  the  Koran  and  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  is  found  in  the  spirit  with  which  the  faith  is  to  be  propagated. 
The  Prophet  led  his  armies  to  battle,  and  founded  a  temporal  kingdom  by 
force  of  arms.  The  Koran  is  full  of  exhortation  to  fight  for  the  faith. 
Christ  founded  a  spiritual  kingdom,  which  could  only  be  extended  by  lov¬ 
ing  persuasion  and  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  is  true  that  Christians  have  had  their  wars  of  religion,  and  have  com¬ 
mitted  as  many  crimes  against  humanity  in  the  name  of  Christ  as  Moslems 
have  ever  committed  in  the  name  of  the  Prophet;  but  the  opposite  teach¬ 
ing  on  this  subject  in  the  Koran  and  in  the  New  Testament  is  unmistak¬ 
able,  and  involves  different  conceptions  of  morality. 

Such,  in  general,  is  the  ethical  code  of  Islam.  In  practice  there  are  cer¬ 
tainly  many  Moslems  whose  moral  lives  are  irreproachable  according  to  the 
Christian  standard,  who  fear  God,  and  in  their  dealings  with  men  are  hon¬ 
est,  truthful,  and  benevolent;  who  are  temperate  in  the  gratification  of 
their  desires  and  cultivate  a  self-denying  spirit,  of  whose  sincere  desire  to 
do  right  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

There  are  those  whose  conceptions  of  pure  spiritual  religion  seem  to 
rival  those  of  the  Christian  mystics.  This  is  specially  true  of  one  or  two 
sects  of  Dervishes.  Some  of  these  sects  are  simply  Mohammedan  Neo- 
Platonists,  and  deal  in  magic,  sorcery,  and  purely  physical  means  of  attain¬ 
ing  a  state  of  ecstasy;  but  others  are  neither  pantheists  nor  theosophists, 
and  seek  to  attain  unity  of  spirit  with  a  supreme,  personal  God  by  spiritual 
means. 

Those  who  have  had  much  acquaintance  with  Moslems  know  that  in 
addition  to  these  mystics  there  are  many  common  people — as  many  women 
as  men — who  seem  to  have  more  or  less  clear  ideas  of  spiritual  life  and 
strive  to  attain  something  higher  than  mere  formal  morality  and  verbal 
confession:  would  feel  their  personal  unworthiness  and  hope  only  in  God. 

The  following  extract  from  one  of  many  similar  poems  of  Shereef  Hanum, 
a  Turkish  Moslem  lady  of  Constantinople,  rendered  into  English  by  Kev. 
H.  O.  Dwight,  is  certainly  as  spiritual  in  thought  and  language  as  most  of 
the  hymns  sung  in  Christian  churches: 

O  Source  of  Kindness  and  of  Love, 

Who  givest  aid  all  hopes  above. 

’Mid  grief  and  guilt  although  I  grope. 

From  thee  I’ll  ne’er  cut  off  my  nope, 

My  Lord,  O  my  Lord! 

Thou  King  of  kings,  dost  know  my  need, 

Thy  pardoning  grace  no  bars  can  heed; 

Thou  lov’stto  help  the  helpless  one. 

And  bidd’st  his  cries  of  fear  be  done. 

My  Lord,  O  my  Lord! 


242 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Should’st  Thou  refuse  to  still  my  fears, 

Who  else  will  stop  to  dry  my  tears? 

For  I  am  guilty,  guilty  still. 

No  other  one  has  done  so  ill. 

My  Lord,  O  my  Lord! 

The  lost  in  torment  stand  aghast 
To  see  this  rebel’s  sin  so  vast; 

What  wonder,  then  that  8hereef  cries 
For  mercy,  mercy,  e’er  she  dies, 

My  Lord,  O  my  Lord! 

These  facts  are  important,  not  as  proving  that  Mohammedanism  is  a 
spiritual  faith  in  the  same  sense  as  Christianity,  for  it  is  not,  but  as  showing 
that  many  Moslems  do  attain  some  degree,  at  least,  of  what  Christians 
mean  by  spiritual  life;  while,  as  we  must  confess,  it  is  equally  possible  for 
Christianity  to  degenerate  into  mere  formalism. 

Notwithstanding  the  generally  high  tone  of  the  Moslem  code  of  morals, 
and  the  more  or  less  Christian  experience  of  spiritually  minded  Moham¬ 
medans,  I  think  that  the  chief  distinction  between  Christian  and  Moslem 
morality  lies  in  their  different  conceptions  of  the  nature  and  consequences 
of  sin. 

It  is  true  that  most  of  the  theories  advanced  by  Christian  writers  on 
theoretical  ethics  have  found  defenders  among  the  Moslems;  but  Moham¬ 
medan  law  is  based  on  the  theory  that  right  and  wrong  depend  on  legal 
enactment,  and  Mohammedan  thought  follows  the  same  direction.  An  act 
is  right  because  God  has  commanded  it,  or  wrong  because  He  has  forbidden 
it.  God  may  abrogate  or  change  his  laws,  so  that  what  was  wrong  may 
become  right.  Moral  acts  have  no  inherent  moral  character,  and  what  may 
be  wrong  for  one  may  be  right  for  another.  So,  for  example,  it  is  impossible 
to  discuss  the  moral  character  of  the  Prophet  with  an  orthodox  Moslem, 
because  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  any  criticism  to  say  that  God  commanded 
or  expressly  permitted  those  acts  which  in  other  men  would  be  wrong. 

There  is  however,  one  sin  which  is  its  very  nature  sinful,  and  which  man 
is  capable  of  knowing  to  be  such — that  is,  the  sin  of  denying  that  there  is 
one  God,  and  that  Mohammed  is  his  Prophet.  Everything  else  depends  on 
the  arbitrary  command  of  God,  and  may  be  arbitrarily  forgiven;  but  this 
does  not,  and  is  consequently  unpardonable.  For  whoever  dies  in  this  sin 
there  is  no  possible  escape  from  eternal  damnation. 

Of  other  sins  someare  grave  and  some  are  light,  and  it  must  not  be  sup¬ 
posed  that  the  Moslem  regards  grave  sins  as  of  little  consequence.  He  believes 
that  sin  is  rebellion  against  infinite  power,  and  that  it  cannot  escape  the 
notice  of  the  all-seeing  God,  but  must  call  down  his  wrath  upon  the  sin¬ 
ner;  so  that  even  a  good  Moslem  may  be  sent  to  hell  to  suffer  torment  for 
thousands  of  years  before  he  is  pardoned. 

But  he  believes  that  God  is  merciful;  that  “  he  is  minded  to  make  his 
religion  light,  because  man  has  been  created  weak.”  (Koran,  sura  iv.)  If  man 
h  as  sinned  against  his  arbitrary  commands  God  may  arbitrarily  remit  the  jien- 
alty,  on  certain  conditions,  on  the  intercession  of  the  Proxjhet,  on  account 
of  the  expiatory  acts  on  the  man’s  part,  or  in  view  of  counterbalancing 
good  works.  At  the  worst  the  Moslem  will  be  sent  to  hell  for  a  season  and 
then  be  pardoned,  out  for  consideration  for  his  belief  in  God  and  the  Prophet 
by  divine  mercy.  Still,  we  need  to  repeat,  the  Moslem  does  not  look  upon 
sin  as  a  light  thing. 

But,  notwithstanding  this  conception  of  the  danger  of  sinning  against 
God,  the  Mohammedan  is  very  far  from  comprehending  the  Christian  idea 
that  right  and  wrong  are  inherent  qualities  in  all  moral  actions;  that  God 
himself  is  a  moral  being,  doing  what  is  right  because  it  is  right,  and  that 
he  can  no  more  pardon  sin  arbitrarily  than  he  can  make  a  wrong  action 
right;  that  he  could  not  be  just  and  yet  justify  the  sinner  without  the  atone- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  MOHAMMEDANISM. 


243 


merit  made  by  the  incarnation  and  the  suffering  and  the  death  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

They  do  not  realize  that  sin  itself  is  corruption  and  death;  that  mere 
escape  from  hell  is  not  eternal  life,  but  that  the  sinful  soul  must  be  regen¬ 
erated  and  sanctified  by  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  before  it  can  know  the 
joy  of  beatific  vision.  ' 

Whether  I  have  correctly  stated  the  fundamental  difference  between  the 
Christian  and  Mohammedan  conceptions  of  sin  no  one  who  has  had  Moslem 
friends  can  have  failed  to  realize  that  the  difference  exists,  for  it  is  extremely 
difficult,  almost  impossible,  for  Christians  and  Moslems  to  understand 
one  another  when  the  question  of  sin  is  discussed.  There  seems  to  be  a 
hereditary  incapacity  in  the  Moslem  to  comprehend  this  essential  basis  of 
Christian  morality, 

Mohammedan  morality  is  also  differentiated  from  the  Christian  by  its 
fatalistic  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Decrees.  The  Moslem  who 
reads  in  the  Koran,  “As  for  every  man  we  have  firmly  fixed  his  fate  about 
his  neck,”  and  the  many  similar  passages,  who  is  taught  that  at  least  so  far 
as  the  future  life  is  concerned  his  fate  has  been  fixed  from  eternity  by  an 
arbitrary  and  irrevocable  decree,  naturally  falls  into  fatalism;  not  absolute 
fatalism,  for  the  Moslem,  as  we  have  seen,  has  his  strict  code  of  morality  and 
his  burdensome  ceremonial  law,  but  at  least  such  a  measure  of  fatalism  as 
weakens  his  sense  of  personal  responsibility,  and  leaves  him  to  look  upon  the 
whole  Christian  scheme  of  redemption  as  unnecessary,  if  not  absurd. 

It  is  perhaps  also  due  to  the  fatalistic  tendency  of  Mohammedan  thought 
that  the  Moslem  has  a  very  different  conception  from  the  Christian  of  the 
relation  of  the  will  to  the  desires  and  passions.  He  does  not  distinguish 
between  them,  but  regards  will  and  desire  as  one  and  the  same,  and  seeks  to 
avoid  temptation  rather  than  resist  it.  Of  conversion,  in  the  Christian 
sense,  he  has  no  conception — of  that  change  of  heart  which  makes  the 
regenerated  will  the  master  of  the  soul,  to  dominate  its  passions,  control 
the  desires,  and  lead  man  on  to  final  victory  over  sin  and  death. 

There  is  one  other  point  concerning  Mohammedan  morality,  of  which  I 
wish  to  speak  with  all  possible  delicacy,  but  which  can  not  be  passed  over 
in  silence.  It  is  the  influence  of  the  Prophet’s  life  upon  that  of  his  fol¬ 
lowers.  The  Moslem  world  accepts  him,  as  Christians'  do  Christ,  as  the 
ideal  man,  the  best  beloved  of  God,  and  consequently  their  conception  of 
his  life  exerts  an  important  influence  upon  their  practical  morality. 

I  have  said  nothing  thus  far  of  the  personal  character  of  the  Prophet, 
because  it  is  too  difficult  a  question  to  discuss  in  this  connection;  but  I 
may  say,-  in  a  word,  that  my  own  impression  is  that,  from  first  to  last,  he 
sincerely  and  honestly  believed  himself  to  be  a  supernaturally  inspired 
prophet  of  God.  I  have  no  wish  to  think  any  evil  of  him,  for  he  was  cer¬ 
tainly  one  of  the  most  remarkable  men  that  the  world  has  ever  seen.  I 
should  rejoice  to  know  that  he  was  such  a  man  as  he  is  represented  to  be 
in  Ameer  Aali’s  “  Spirit  of  Islam.”  for  the  world  would  be  richer  for  having 
such  a  man  in  it. 

But  whatever  may  have  been  his  real  character,  he  is  known  to  Moslems 
chiefly  through  the  traditions;  and  these,  taken  as  a  whole,  present  to  us  a 
totally  different  man  from  the  Christ  of  the  gospels.  As  we  have  seen,  the 
Moslem  code  of  morals  commands  and  forbids  essentially  the  same  things 
as  the  Christian;  but  the  Moslem  finds  in  the  traditions  a  mass  of  stories 
in  regard  to  the  life  and  sayings  of  the  Prophet,  many  of  which  are  alto¬ 
gether  inconsistent  with  Christian  ideas  of  morality,  and  which  make  the 
impression  that  many  things  forbidden  are  at  least  excusable. 

There  are  many  nominal  Christians  who  lead  lives  as  corrupt  as  any 
Moslem,  but  they  find  no  excuse  for  it  in  the  life  of  Christ.  They  know 
that  they  are  Christians  only  in  name;  while,  under  the  influence  of  the 
traditions,  the  Moheramedan  may  have  such  a  conception  of  the  Prophet 


244 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


that,  in  Bpite  of  his  immorality,  he  may  still  believe  himself  a  true  Moslem. 
If  Moslems  generally  believed  in  such  a  Prophet  as  is  described  in  the 
“Spirit  of  Islam,’’  it  would  greatly  modify  the  tone  of  Mohammedan  life. 

We  have  now  presented,  as  briefly  and  impartially  as  possible,  the  points 
of  contact  and  contrast,  between  Christianity  and  Islam,  as  historical,  dog¬ 
matic,  and  ethical. 

We  have  seen  that  while  there  is  a  broad,  common  ground  of  belief  and 
sympathy,  while  we  may  confldently  believe  as  Christians  that  God  is  lead¬ 
ing  many  pious  Moslems  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  saving 
them  through  the  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  spite  of  what  we  believe 
to  be  their  errors  of  doctrine,  these  two  religions  are  still  mutually  exclusive 
and  irreconcilable. 

The  general  points  of  agreement  are  that  we  both  believe  that  there  is 
one  sujjreme,  personal  God;  that  we  are  bound  to  worship  him;  that  we  are 
under  obligation  to  live  a  pious,  virtuous  life;  that  we  are  bound  to  repent 
of  our  sins  and  forsake  them;  that  the  soul  is  immortal,  and  that  we  shall 
be  rewarded  or  punished  in  the  future  life  for  our  deeds  here;  that  God 
has  revealed  His  will  to  the  world  through  prophets  and  apostles,  and  that 
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God. 

These  are  most  important  grounds  of  agreement  and  mutual  respect,  but 
the  points  of  contrast  are  equally  impressive. 

The  supreme  God  of  Christianity  is  immanent  in  the  world,  was  incar¬ 
nate  in  Christ,  and  is  ever  seeking  to  bring  His  children  into  loving  fellow¬ 
ship  with  Himself. 

The  God  of  Islam  is  apart  from  the  world,  an  absolute  monarch,  who  is 
wise  and  merciful,  but  infinitely  removed  from  man. 

Christianity  recognizes  the  freedom  of  man,  and  magnifies  the  guilt  and 
corruption  of  sin,  but  at  the  same  time  offers  a  way  of  reconciliation  and 
redemption  from  sin  and  its  consequences  through  the  atonement  of  a 
Divine  Savior  and  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Mohammedanism  minimizes  the  freedom  of  man  and  the  guilt  of  sin, 
makes  little  account  of  its  corrupting  influence  in  the  soul  and  offers  no 
plan  of  redemption  except  that  of  repentance  and  good  works. 

Christianity  finds  its  ideal  man  in  the  Christ,  of  the  Gospels;  the  Mos¬ 
lem  finds  his  in  the  Prophet  of  the  Koran  and  the  Traditions. 

Other  points  of  contrast  have  been  mentioned,  but  the  fundamental 
difference  between  the  two  religions  is  found  in  these. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  probable  future  of  these  two  great 
and  aggressive  religions,  but  there  is  one  fact  bearing  upon  this  point 
which  comes  within  the  scope  of  this  paper.  Christianity  is  essentially 
progressive,  while  Mohammedanism  is  unprogressive  and  stationary. 

In  their  origin  Christianity  and  Islam  are  both  Asiatic,  both  Semitic, 
and  Jerusalem  is  but  a  few  hundred  miles  from  Mecca.  In  regard  to  the 
number  of  their  adherents,  both  have  steadily  increased  from  the  beginning 
to  the  present  day.  After  1,900  years  Christianity  numbers  400,000,000,  and 
Islam,  after  1,-300  years,  200,000,000;  but  Mohammedanism  has  been  practi¬ 
cally  confined  to  Asia  and  Africa,  while  Christianity  has  been  the  religion 
of  Europe  and  the  New  World,  and  politically  it  rules  all  over  the  world 
excexit  China  and  Turkey. 

Mohammedanism  has  been  identified  with  a  stationary  civilization,  and 
Christianity  with  a  progressive  one.  There  was  a  time,  from  the  8th  to  the 
13th  centuries,  when  science  and  philosophy  flourished  at  Bagdad  and  Cor¬ 
dova  under  Moslem  rule,  while  darkness  reigned  in  Europe;  but  Renan  has 
shown  that  this  brilliant  period  was  neither  Arab  nor  Mohammedan  in  its 
spirit  or  origin,  and  although  his  statements  may  admit  of  some  modifica¬ 
tion,  it  is  certain  that,  however  brilliant  while  it  lasted,  this  period  has  left 
no  trace  in  the  Moslem  faith  unless  it  be  in  the  philosophical  basis  of 
Mohammedan  law,  while  Christianity  has  led  the  way  in  the  progress  of 
modern  civilization. 


STUDY  OF  COMPARATIVE  THEOLOGY. 


245 


Both  these  are  positive  religions.  Each  claims  to  rest  upon  a  divine 
revelation,  which  is,  in  its  nature,  final  and  unchangeable;  yet  the  one  is 
stationary  and  the  other  progressive.  The  one  is  based  upon  what  it 
believes  to  be  divine  commands,  and  the  other  upon  divine  principles;  just 
the  difference  that  there  is  between  the  law  of  Sinai  and  the  law  of  Love, 
the  Ten  Commandments  and  the  two.  The  ten  are  specific  and  unchange¬ 
able,  the  two  admit  of  ever  new  and  progressive  application. 

Whether  in  prayer  or  in  search  of  truth,  the  Moslem  must  always  turn 
his  face  to  Mecca  and  to  a  revelation  made  once  for  all  to  the  Prophet;  and 
I  think  that  Moslems  generally  take  pride  in  the  feeling  that  their  faith  is 
complete  in  itself,  and  as  unchangeable  as  Mount  Ararat.  It  can  not 
progress  because  it  is  already  perfect. 

The  Christian,  on  the  other  hand,  believes  in  a  living  Christ,  who  was 
indeed  crucified  at  Jerusalem,  but  rose  from  the  dead,  and  is  now  present 
everywhere,  leading  his  people  on  to  ever  broader  and  higher  conceptions 
of  truth,  and  ever  new  applications  of  it  to  the  life  of  humanity;  and  the 
Christian  church,  with  some  exceptions,  perhaps,,  recognizes  the  fact  that 
the  perfection  of  its  faith  consists  not  in  its  immobility,  but  in  its  adapta¬ 
bility  to  every  stage  of  human  enlightenment.  If  progress  is  to  continue  to 
be  the  watchword  of  civilization,  the  faith  which  is  to  dominate  this  civili¬ 
zation  must  also  be  progressive. 

It  would  have  been  pleasant  to  speak  here  to-day  only  of  the  broad  field 
of  sympathy  which  these  two  great  religions  occupy  in  common,  but  it 
would  have  been  as  unjust  to  the  Moslem  as  to  the  Christian.  If  I  have 
represented  his  faith  as  fairly  as  I  have  sought  to  do,  he  will  be  the  first  to 
applaud. 

The  truth,  spoken  in  love,  is  the  only  possible  basis  upon  which  this  con¬ 
gress  can  stand.  We  have  a  common  Father;  we  are  brethren;  we  desire  to 
live  together  in  peace,  or  we  should  not  be  here;  but  of  all  things  we  desire 
to  know  what  is  Truth,  for  Truth  alone  can  make  us  free. 

We  are  soldiers  all,  without  a  thought  of  ever  laying  down  our  arms,  but 
we  have  come  here  to  learn  the  lesson  that  our  confiict  is  not  with  each 
other,  but  with  error,  sin,  and  evil  of  every  kind.  We  are  one  in  our  hatred 
of  evil  and  in  our  desire  for  the  triumph  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  we  are 
only  partially  agreed  as  to  what  is  truth,  or  under  what  banner  the  triumph 
of  God’s  kingdom  is  to  be  won. 

No  true  Moslem  or  Christian  believes  that  these  two  great  religions  are 
essentially  the  same,  or  that  they  can  be  merged  by  compromise  in  a  com¬ 
mon  eclectic  faith.  We  know  that  they  are  mutually  exclusive,  and  it  is 
only  by  a  fair  and  honest  comparison  of  differences  that  we  can  work 
together  for  the  many  ends  which  we  have  in  common,  or  judge  of  the  truth 
in  those  things  in  which  we  differ. 


STUDY  OF  COMPARATIVE  THEOLOGY. 

PROFESSOR  C.  P  TIELE,  OF  LEIDEN  UNIVERSITY,  READ  BY  REV. 

FRANK  M.  BRISTOL  OF  CHICAGO. 

What  is  to  be  understood  by  comparative  theology?  I  find  that  English- 
writing  authors  use  the  appellation  promiscuously  with  comparative 
religion,  but  if  we  wish  words  to  convey  a  sound  meaning  we  should  at  least 
beware  of  using  these  terms  as  convertible  ones.  Theology  is  not  the  same 
as  religion;  and,  to  me,  comparative  theology  signifies  nothing  but  a  com¬ 
parative  study  of  religious  dogmas,  comparative  religion  nothing  but  a 
comparative  study  of  various  religions  in  all  their  branches;  I  suppose,  how- 


246 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


ever,  I  am  not  expected  to  make  this  distinction,  but  comparative  theology 
is  to  be  understood  to  mean  what  is  now  generally  called  the  science  of 
religion,  the  word  “  science  ”  not  being  taken  in  the  limited  sense  it  com 
monly  has  in  English,  but  in  the  general  signification  of  the  Dutch  Weten* 
schap  (H.  G.  Wissenschaft)  which  it  has  assumed  more  and  more  even  in  the 
Roman  languages.  So  the  history  and  the  study  of  this  science  would  have 
to  form  the  subject  of  my  paper,  a  subject  vast  enough  to  devote  to  it  one 
or  more  volumes.  It  is  still  in  its  infancy.  Although  in  former  centuries 
its  advent  was  heralded  by  a  few  forerunners,  as  Selden  (Dedus  Syrus),  de 
Brosses  (Le  culte  des  dieux  fetiches),  the  tasteful  Herder  and  others,  as  i 
science  it  reaches  back  not  much  farther  than  to  the  middle  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century,  “Duxius  Origine  de  Tous  les  Cultes,”  which  appeared  in 
the  opening  years  of  the  century,  is  a  gigantic  pamphlet,  not  an  impartial 
historical  research.  Nor  can  Creuren’s  and  Baur’s  Symbolik  and  Mythol- 
ogie  lay  claim  to  the  latter  appellation,  but  are  dominated  by  long  refuted 
theory.  Meiner’si  “Allgemeine  Kritische  Geschichte  des  Religionen” 
(1806-7)  only  just  came  up  to  the  law  standard  which  at  that  time  historical 
scholars  were  expected  to  reach.  Much  higher  stood  Benjamin  Constant, 
in  whose  work,  “La  Religion  Consideree  dans  sa  Source,  des  Formed  et  ses 
Developments”  (1824),  written  with  French  lucidity,  for  the  first  time  a  dis¬ 
tinction  was  made  between  the  essence  and  the  forms  of  religion,  to  which 
the  writer  also  applied  the  theory  of  development. 

From  that  time  the  science  of  religion  began  to  assume  a  more  sharply 
defined  character,  and  comparative  studies  on  an  ever-growing  scale  were 
entered  upon,  and  this  was  done  no  longer  chiefly  with  by-desires,  either  by 
the  enemiesof  Christianity  in  orderto  combat  it,  and  to  point  out  that  itdif- 
fered  little  or  nothing  from  all  the  superstitions  one  was  now  getting 
acquainted  with,  or  by  the  apologists  in  order  to  defend  it  against  these 
attacks,  and  to  prove  its  higher  excellence  when  compared  with  all  other 
religions.  The  impulse  came  from  two  sides.  On  one  side  it  was  due  to 
philosophy.  Philosophy  had  for  centuries  past  been  speculating  on  religion, 
but  only  about  the  beginning  of  our  century  it  had  become  aware  of  the 
fact  that  the  great  religious  problems  can  not  be  solved  without  the  aid  of 
history — that  in  order  to  define  the  nature  and  the  origin  of  religion  one  must 
first  of  all  know  its  development.  Already  before  Benjamin  Constant  this 
was  felt  by  others,  of  whom  we  will  only  mention  Hegel  and  Schelling.  It 
may  even  be  said  that  the  right  method  for  the  philosophical  inquiry  into 
religion  was  defined  by  Schelling,  at  least  from  a  theoretical  point  of  view, 
more  accurately  than  by  anyone  else;  though  we  should  add  that  he,  more 
than  anyone  else,  fell  short  in  the  applying  of  it.  Hegel  even  endeavored  to 
give  a  classification,  which,  it  is  proved,  hits  the  right  nail  on  the  head  here 
and  there,  but,  as  a  whole,  distinctly  proves  that  he  lacked  a  clear  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  real  historical  development  of  religion.  Nor  could  this  be  other¬ 
wise.  Even  if  the  one  had  not  been  confined  within  the  narrow  bounds  of 
an  a-prioristic  system  of  the  historical  data  which  were  at  his  disposal,  even 
if  the  other  had  not  been  led  astray  by  his  unbridled  fancy,  both  wanted 
the  means  to  trace  religion  in  the  course  of  its  developments.  Most  of  the 
religions  of  antiquity,  especially  those  of  the  East,  were  at  that  time  known 
but  superficially,  and  the  critical  research  into  the  newer  forms  of  religion 
had  as  yet  hardly  been  entered  upon. 

One  instance  out  of  many.  Hegel  characterized  the  so-called.  Syriac 
religions  as  “  die  Religion  des  Schinersens  ”  (religion  of  suffering)  In 
doing  this  he  of  course  thought  of  the  myth  and  the  worship  of  Thammur 
Adonis.  He  did  not  know  that  these  are  by  no  means  of  Aryanaic  origin, 
but  were  borrowed  by  the  people  of  Western  Asia  from  their  Eastern  neigh¬ 
bors,  and  are,  in  fact,  a  survival  of  an  older,  highly  sensual  naturism.  Even 
at  the  time  he  might  have  known  that  Adonis  was  far  from  being  an  ethcial 
ideal,  that  his  worship  was  far  from  being  the  glorification  of  a  voluntarily 


STUDY  OF  COMPARATIVE  THEOLOGY. 


247 


Buffering  Deity.  In  short,  it  was  known  that  only  the  comparative  method 
could  conduce  to  the  desired  end,  but  the  means  of  comparing,  though  not 
wholly  wanting,  were  inadequate. 

Meanwhile  material  was  being  supplied  from  another  quarter.  Philolog¬ 
ical  and  historical  science,  cultivated  after  strict  methods,  archaeology, 
anthropology,  ethnology,  no  longer  a  prey  to  the  superficial  theorists  and 
fashionable  dilettanti  only,  but  also  subjected  to  the  laws  of  the  critical 
research,  began  to  yield  a  rich  harvest.  I  need  but  hint  at  the  many  impor¬ 
tant  discoveries  of  the  last  hundred  years,  the  number  of  which  is  con¬ 
tinually  increasing.  You  know  them  full  well,  and  you  also  know  that 
they  are  not  confined  to  a  single  province  nor  to  a  single  period.  They 
reach  back  as  far  as  the  remotest  antiquity  and  show  us,  in  those  ages 
long  gone  by,  a  civilization  postulating  a  long  previous  development,  but 
also  draw  our  attention  to  many  conceptions,  manners,  and  customs  among 
several  backward  or  degenerate  tribes  of  our  own  time,  giving  evidence 
of  the  greatest  rudeness  and  barbarousness.  They  thus  enable  us  to  study 
religion  as  it  appears  among  all  sorts  of  people  and  in  the  most  diversified 
degrees  of  development.  They  have  at  least  supplied  the  sources  to  draw 
from,  among  which  are  the  original  records  of  religion  concerning  which 
people  formerly  had  to  be  content  with,  very  scanty,  very  recent,  and  very 
untrustworthy  information.  You  will  not  expect  me  to  give  you  an 
enumeration  of  them.  Let  me  mention  only  Egypt,  Babylonia,  and  Assyria, 
India  and  Persia,  and  of  their  sacred  books,  the  “  Book  of  the  Dead,”  the 
so-called  “  Chaldean  Genesis,”  the  “  Cabylonia,”  the  “  penitential  psalms  ” 
and  mythological  texts,  the  “Veda,”  and  the  vesta.”  These  form  but  a 
small  part  of  the  acquired  treasures,  but  though  we  had  nothing  else  it 
would  be  much. 

I  know  quite  well  that  at  first,  even  after  having  deciphered  the  writing 
of  the  first  two  named  and  having  learned  in  some  degree  to  understand 
the  languages  of  all,  people  seemed  not  to  be  fully  aware  of  what  was  to  be 
done  with  these  treasures  and  that  the  translations  hurriedly  put  together 
failed  to  lead  to  an  adequate  perception  of  the  contents.  I  know  also  that 
even  now,  after  we  have  learned  how  to  apply  to  the  study  of  these  records 
the  universally  admitted,  sound  philological  principles,  much  of  what  we 
believe  to  be  known  has  been  rejected  as  being  valueless  and  that  the  ques¬ 
tions  and  problems  which  have  to  be  solved  have  not  decreased  in  number, 
but  are  daily  increasing.  I  can  not  deny  that  scholars  of  high  repute  and 
indisputable  authority  are  much  divided  in  opinion  concerning  the  expla¬ 
nation  of  those  texts  and  that  it  is  not  easy  to  make  a  choice  out  of  so 
many  conflicting  opinions.  How  much  does  Brugsch  differ  in  his  represen¬ 
tation  of  the  Egyptian  mythology  from  Edward  Meyer  and  Ermann!  How 
great  a  division  among  the  Assyriologists  between  the  Accadists,  or  Sum- 
merists  and  the  anti-Summerists  or  anti- Accadists!  How  much  differs  the 
explanation  of  the  Veda  by  Roth,  Muller,  and  Grassman,  from  that  of 
Ludwig,  and  how  different  in  Barth’s  explanation  from  Bergaine’s  and 
Regnand’s!  How  violent  was  the  controversy  between  Speigel  and  Haupt 
about  the  explanation  of  the  most  ancient,  pieces  in  the  Avesta,  and  now  in 
this  year  of  grace,  while  the  younger  generation,  Bartholomae  and  Geldmer 
on  the  one  hand,  Geiger,  Wilhelm,  Hubschmann,  Mills  on  the  other  hand, 
are  following  different  roads,  there  has  come  a  scholar  and  a  man  of  genius, 
who  is,  however,  particularly  fond  of  paradoxes — James  Darnesteter — to 
overthrow  all  that  was  considered  up  to  his  time  as  being  all  but  stable, 
nay,  even  to  undermine  the  foundations,  which  were  believed  safe  enough 
to  be  built  upon! 

But  all  this  can  not  do  away  with  the  fact  that  we  are  following  the  right 
path,  that  much  has  already  been  obtained  and  much  light  has  been  shed 
on  what  was  dark.  Of  not  a  few  of  these  new-fangled  theories  may  be 
said  they  are  at  least  useful  in  compelling  us  once  more  to  put  to  a  severe 


248 


THE  FAULT  AMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


test  the  results  obtained.  So  we  see  that  the  modern  science  of  religion, 
comparative  theology,  has  sprung  from  these  two  sources:  The  want  of  a 
firmer  empirical  base  of  operations,  felt  by  the  philosophy  of  religion,  and 
the  great  discoveries  in  the  domain  of  history,  archaeology,  and  anthropol¬ 
ogy. 

These  discoveries  have  revealed  a  great  number  of  forms  of  religion  and 
religious  phenomena,  which  until  now  were  known  imperfectly  or  not  at  all; 
and  it  stands  to  reason  that  these  have  been  compared  with  those  already 
known,  and  that  inferences  have  been  drawn  from  this  comparison.  Can 
anyone  be  said  to  be  the  founder  of  the  young  science?  Many  have  con¬ 
ferred  this  title  upon  the  famous  Oxford  professor,  P.  Max  Muller;  others, 
among  them  his  great  American  opponent,  the  no  less  famous  professor  of 
Yale  college,  W.  Dwight  Whitney,  have  denied  it  to  him.  We  may  leave 
this  decision  to  posterity.  I,  for  one,  may  rather  be  said  to  side  with  Whit¬ 
ney  than  with  Muller.  Though  I  have  frequently  contended  the  latter’s 
speculations  and  theories,  I  would  not  close  my  eyes  to  the  great  credit  he 
has  gained  by  what  he  has  done  for  the  science  of  religion,  nor  would  I 
gainsay  the  fact  that  he  has’given  a  mighty  impulse  to  the  study  of  it, 
especially  in  England  and  in  France. 

But  a  new  branch  of  study  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  founded.  Like 
others,  this  was  called  into  being  by  a  generally  felt  want,  in  different  coun¬ 
tries  at  the  same  time  and  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  number  of  those 
applying  themselves  to  it  has  been  gradually  increasing,  and  for  years  it 
has  been  gaining  chairs  at  universities,  first  in  Holland,  afterward  also  in 
Franco  and  elsewhere,  now  affeo  in  America.  It  has  already  a  rich  litera¬ 
ture,  even  periodicals  of  its  own.  Though  at  one  time  the  brilliant  talents 
of  some  writers  threatened  to  bring  it  into  fashion  and  to  cause  it  to  fall  a 
])rey  to  dilettanti — a  state  of  things  that  is  to  be  considered  most  fatal  to 
any  science,  but  especially  to  one  that  is  still  in  its  infancy — this  danger 
has  fortunately  been  warded  off,  and  it  is  once  more  jHirsuing  the  noiseless 
tenor  of  its  way,  profiting  by  the  fell  criticism  of  those  who  hate  it. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  write  its  history.  The  time  for  it  has  not  yet 
come.  The  rise  of  this  new  science,  the  comparative  research  of  new  relig¬ 
ions,  is  as  yet  too  little  a  feature  of  the  past  to  be  surveyed  from  an  impar¬ 
tial  standpoint.  Moreover,  the  writer  of  this  pai)er  himself  has  been  one  of 
the  laborers  in  this  field  for  more  than  thirty  yearspast,  and  so  he  is,  to  some 
extent,  a  party  to  the  conflict  of  opinions.  His  views  would  be  apt  to  be 
too  subjective,  and  could  bo  justified  only  by  an  exhaustive  criticism  which 
would  be  misplaced  here,  and  the  writing  of  which  would  require  a  longer 
time  of  preparation  than  has  now  been  allowed  to  him.  A  dry  enumera¬ 
tion  of  the  names  of  the  principal  writers  and  the  titles  of  their  works 
would  be  of  little  use,  and  would  prove  very  little  attractive  to  you. 
Therefore,  let  me  add  some  words  on  the  study  of  comparative  theology. 

The  first,  the  predominating  question  is:  Is  this  study  possible?  In 
other  words,  what  man,  however  talented  and  learned  he  may  be,  is  able  to 
command  this  immense  field  of  inquiry,  and  what  lifetime  is  long  enough 
for  the  acquiring  of  an  expansive  knowledge  of  all  religion?  It  is  not  even 
within  the  bounds  of  ])0ssibility  that  a  man  should  master  all  languages  to 
study  in  the  vernacular  the  religious  records  of  all  nations,  not  only  recog¬ 
nized  sacred  writings,  but  also  those  of  dissenting  sects  and  the  songs  and 
sagas  of  uncivilized  jjeople.  So  one  will  have  to  put  up  with  the  transla¬ 
tions,  and  everybody  knows  that  meaning  of  the  original  is  but  poorly  ren¬ 
dered  even  by  the  best  translations.  One  will  have  to  take  upon  trust  what 
may  be  called  second-hand  information,  without  being  able  to  test  it,  espe¬ 
cially  where  the  religions  of  the  so-called  primitive  peoples  are  concerned. 
All  these  objections  have  been  made  by  me  for  having  the  pleasure  of  set¬ 
ting  them  aside;  they  have  frequently  been  raised  against  the  new  study 
and  have  already  dissuaded  many  from  devoting  themselves  to  it.  Nor  can 


STUDY  OF  COMPARATIVE  THEOLOGY. 


249 


it  be  denied  that  they  at  least  contain  some  truth.  But  if,  on  account  of 
these  objections,  the  comparative  study  of  religions  were  to  be  esteemed 
impossible,  the  same  judgment  would  have  to  be  pronounced  upon  many 
other  sciences. 

I  am  not  competent  to  jjass  an  opinion  concerning  the  physical  and  bio¬ 
logical  sciences.  I  am  alluding  only  to  anthropology  and  ethnology,  history, 
the  history  of  civilization,  archmology,  comparative  philology,  comparative 
literature,  ethics,  philosophy.  If  the  independent  study  of  all  these  sciences 
to  be  relinquished  because  no  one  can  be  required  to  bo  versed  in  each  of 
their  details  equally  well,  to  have  acquired  an  exhaustive  knowledge,  got  at 
the  mainspring  of  every  people,  every  language,  every  literature,  every  civ¬ 
ilization,  every  group  of  records,  every  period,  every  system?  There  is 
nobody  who  will  think  of  insisting  upon  this.  Every  science,  even  the  most 
comprehensive  one,  every  theory  must  rest  on  an  empirical  basis,  must  start 
from  an  “  unbiased  ascertaining  of  facts,”  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
tracing,  the  collecting,  the  sorting,  and  the  elaborating  of  these  facts  and 
the  building  up  of  a  whole  out  of  these  materials  must  needs  be  consigned 
to  the  same  hands.  The  fiimsily-constructed  speculative  systems,  jjaste- 
board  buildings  all  of  them,  we  have  done  away  with  for  good  ajj^id  all. 

But  a  science  is  not  a  system,  not  a  well-arranged  storehouse  of  things 
that  are  known,  but  an  aggregate  of  researches  all  tending  to  the  same  i)ur- 
pose,  though  independent  yet  mutujrf'ly  connected,  and  each  in  particular 
connected  with  similar  researches  in  other  domains,  which  servo  thus  as 
auxiliary  sciences.  Now,  the  science  of  religion  has  no  other  purpose  than 
to  lead  to  the  knowledge  of  religion  in  its  nature  and  in  its  origin.  And 
this  knowledge  is  not  to  be  acquired,  at  least  if  it  is  to  bo  a  sound,  not  a 
would-be  knowledge,  but  by  an  unprejudiced  historical-psychological 
research.  What  should  be  done  first  of  all  is  to  trace  religion  in  the  course 
of  its  development,  that  is  to  say  in  its  life,  to  inquire  what  every  family  of 
religions,  as,  for  instance,  the  Aryan  and  Semitic,  what  every  particular 
religion,  what  the  great  religious  persons  have  contributed  to  this  develop¬ 
ment,  to  what  laws  and  conditions  this  development  is  subjected,  and  in 
what  it  really  consists?  Next  the  religious  i)henomena,  ideas  and  dogmas, 
feelings  and  inclinations,  forms  of  worship  and  religious  acts  are  to  be 
examined,  to  know  from  what  wants  of  the  soul  they  have  sprung  and  of 
what  aspirations  they  are  the  expression.  But  these  researches,  without 
which  one  can  not  x^enetrate  into  the  nature  of  religion,  nor  form  a  con¬ 
ception  of  its  origin,  can  not  bear  lasting  fruit  unless  the  comparative  study 
of  religious  individualities  lie  at  the  root  of  them.  Only  to  a  few  it  has 
been  given  to  institute  this  most  comprehensive  inquiry,  to  follow  to  the 
end  this  long  way.  He  who  ventures  ujjon  it  can  not  think  of  examining 
closely  all  the  particulars  himself;  he  has  to  avail  himself  of  what  the 
students  of  special  branches  have  brought  to  light  and  have  corroborated 
with  sound  evidence. 

It  is  not  required  of  every  student  of  the  s:.ience  of  religion  that  he 
should  be  an  architect;  yet,  though  his  study  may  be  confined  within  the 
narrow  bounds  of  a  small  section,  if  he  does  not  lose  sight  of  the  chief  pur¬ 
pose,  and  if  he  applies  the  right  method,  he  too  will  contribute  not 
unworthily  to  the  great  common  work. 

So  a  search  after  the  solution  of  the  abstruse  fundamental  questions  had 
better  bo  left  to  those  few  who  add  a  great  wealth  of  knowledge  to  x>hilo- 
sophical  talents.  What  should  be  considered  most  needful  with  a  view  to 
the  present  standpoint  uf  comijarative  theology  is  this;  Learning  how  to 
put  the  right  use  to  the  new  sources  that  have  been  opened  uj);  studying 
thoroughly  and  penetrating  into  the  sense  of  records  that  on  manj-  points 
still  leave  us  in  the  dark;  subjecting  to  a  close  examination  i)articular  relig¬ 
ions  and  important  periods  about  which  we  possess  but  scanty  information; 
searching  for  the  religious  meaning  of  myths;  tracing  prominent  deities  in 


250 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


their  rise  and  development,  and  forms  of  worship  through  all  the  important 
changes  of  meaning  they  have  undergone;  after  this  the  things  thus  found 
have  to  be  compared  with  those  already  known. 

Two  things  must  be  required  of  the  student  of  the  science  of  religion. 
He  must  be  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  present  state  of  the  research 
— he  must  know  what  has  already  been  got,  but  also  what  questions  are 
still  unanswered;  he  must  have  walked,  though  it  be  in  quick  time,  about 
the  whole  domain  of  his  science;  in  short,  he  must  possess  a  general  knowl¬ 
edge  of  religions  and  religious  phenomena.  But  he  should  not  be  satisfied 
with  this.  He  should  then  select  a  field  of  his  own,  larger  or  smaller, 
according  to  his  capacities  and  the  time  at  his  disposal;  a  field  where 
he  is  quite  at  home,  where  he  himself  probes  to  the  bottom  of  everything  of 
which  he  knows  all  that  is  to  be  known  about  it,  and  the  science  of  which 
he  then  must  try  to  give  a  fresh  impulse  to.  Both  requirements  he  has  to 
fulfill.  Meeting  only  one  of  them  w'ill  lead  either  to  the  superficial  dilet¬ 
tantism  which  has  already  been  alluded  to,  or  the  trifling  of  those  Philis¬ 
tines  of  science,  who  like  nothing  better  than  occupying  our  attention  long¬ 
est  of  all  Avith  such  things  as  lie  beyond  the  bounds  of  what  is  worth  know¬ 
ing.  But  IJie  last-named  danger  does  not  need  to  be  especially  cautioned 
against,  at  least  in  America.  I  must  not  conclude  without  expressing  my 
ioy  at  the  great  interest  in  this  new  branch  of  science,  which  of  late  years 
has  been  revealing  itself  in  the  New  World. 


DUTY  OF  GOD  TO  MAN  INQUIRED. 

MRS.  LAURA  ORMISTON  CHANT. 

She  was  greeted  with  a  great  outburst  of  applause  as  she 
stepped  forward,  the  audience  thus  evidencing  that  it  had  been 

waiting  to  hear  this  popular  English  woman  and  speaker. 

Dear  Frie^ids :  After  listening  long  enough  to  the  science  of  religion, 
probably,  as  this  is  the  last  word  this  morning,  it  may  be  a  little  relief  to 
run  off  or  leave  the  science  of  religion  to  take  care  of  itself  for  awhile  and 
take  a  few  thoughts  on  religion  independent  of  its  science.  That  religion 
will  hold  the  world  at  last  which  makes  men  most  good  and  most  happy 
Whatever  there  has  been  in  this  old  past  of  the  faiths  that  have  made  men 
more  good  and  more  happy,  that  lives  with  us  to-day,  and  helps  on  the  pro¬ 
gressiveness  of  ail  that  we  have  learned  since.  We  have  learned  that 
religion,  whatever  the  science  of  it  may  be,  is  the  principle  of  spiritual 
growth.  We  have  learned  that  to  be  religious  is  to  be  alive. 

The  more  religion  you  have,  the  more  full  of  life  and  truth  you  are,  an 
the  more  able  to  give  life  to  all  those  with  whom  you  come  in  contact. 
Tbat  religion  which  helps  us  to  the  most  bravery  in  dealing  with  human 
souls,  that  is  the  religion  that  will  hold  the  world.  That  which  makes  you 
or  me  the  most  brave  in  days  of  failure  or  defeat  is  that  religion  v/hich  is 
bound  to  conquer  in  the  end,  by  whatever  name  you  call  it.  And  believe  me, 
and  my  belief  is  on  all  fours  with  that  of  most  of  you  here,  that  religion 
which  to-day  goes  most  bravely  to  the  worst  of  all  evils,  goes  with  its 
splendid  optimism  into  the  darkest  corners  of  the  earth,  that  is  the  religion 
of  to-day,  under  whatever  name  you  call  it. 

We  are  obliged  to  admit  tbat  the  difference  between  the  dead  forms  of 
religion  and  the  living  forms  to-day,  is  that  the  dead  forms  of  religion  deal 
with  those  who  least  need  it,  while  the  living  forms  of  religion  deal  with 
those  who  need  it  most.  Consequently,  to-day — and  it  is  one  of  the  most 


DUTY  OF  GOD  TO  MAN  INQUIRED. 


251 


glorious  comforts  of  the  progress  that  we  are  making — the  real  religious¬ 
ness  of  our  life,  whether  of  the  individual,  the  nation,  or  of  the  world  at 
large,  is  that  we  will  not  accent  sin,  sorrow,  pain,  misery,  and  failure  as 
eternal,  or  even  temporary,  longer  than  our  love  can  let  them  be.  And  out 
of  that  has  grown  the  feeling  that  has  hardly  taken  on  a  name  as  yet — it 
has  taken  on  a  very  practical  name  to  those  who  hold  it — out  of  that  has 
grown  a  feeling  which  will  not  admit  that  God  may  do  what  it  is  wrong  for 
man  to  do  as  an  individual. 

It  is  a  strange  turning  around  in  the  idea  of  our  relationship  to  God 
that  to-day,  for  the  first  time  in  the  whole  world’s  history,  we  are  asking 
what  is  God’s  duty  to  us.  To-day,  for  the  first  time  in  the  world’s  history, 
we  are  certain  that  God’s  duty  to  us  will  be  performed.  For  ages  man 
asked,  what  was  his  duty  to  God  ?  That  was  the  first  part  of  his  progress; 
but  to-day  you  and  I  are  asking,  what  is  God’s  duty  to  us  ?  And  Oh,  God 
be  thanked  that  it  is  so.  If  I  can  throw  the  whole  of  my  being  into  the 
arms  of  God  and  be  certain  He  will  do  His  duty  by  m^,  that  duty  will  first 
of  all  be  to  succeed  in  me;  it  will  not  be  to  fail  in  me.  And  I  can  come  to 
Him  through  all  my  blunders  and  sins  and  with  my  eyes  full  of  tears,  and 
catch  the  rainbow  light  of  His  love  upon  those  tears  of  mine,  certain  He 
will  do  His  duty  by  me  and  that  He  will  succeed  in  me  at  the  last. 

Again,  we  have  listened  this  morning  to  these  profoundly  interesting, 
scholarly  papers,  and  perhaps  it  is  almost  too  frank  of  me  to  say  that  we 
have  been  thinking  what  marvelous  intellectual  jugglers  these  theologians 
are.  I  dare  say  that  some  of  you  have  come  to  think  this  morning,  after 
all,  what  is  this  about  ?  It  is  mostly  about  words.  Words  in  all  sorts  of 
languages,  words  that  almost  dislocate  the  jaw  in  trying  to  pronounce, 
words  that  almost  daze  the  brain  in  trying  to  think  out  what  their  mean¬ 
ing  is;  but  it  is  words  for  all  that.  Underneath  is  poor  humanity  coming, 
coming,  coming  slowly  along  the  path  of  progress,  nearer,  up  to  the  light 
for  which  Goethe  prayed.  And  we  are  nearer  the  light  in  proportion  as 
our  religion  has  made  us  more  and  more  lovely,  more  and  more  beautiful, 
more  and  more  tender,  more  true,  and  more  safe  to  deal  with. 

After  all  there  is  a  line  of  demarkation  to-day  between  people  whom  it 
is  safe  to  be  with  and  those  who  are  unsafe.  Our  religion  has  become 
a  very  national  thing,  for  we  are  asking  to  be  able  to  so  deal  with  unsafe 
people  as  to  bring  them  over  into  the  lines  of  the  safe.  But  with  those  who 
have  been  educated  in  the  schools  of  the  Master  who  taught  no  creed  and 
who  belonged  to  no  denomination,  but  w^ho  was  universal  in  his  teachings 
and  in  his  love  of  mankind,  as  the  children  of  God  we  believe  that  He 
taught  us  that  it  was  blessed,  it  was  happy  to  be  pure  in  heart,  to  be  mer¬ 
ciful,  to  be  humble,  to  be  a  peacemaker,  to  be  all  those  things  which  help 
mankind  to  be  happiest  and  best. 

And,  therefore,  we  are  beginning  to  understand  that  a  system  of  theol¬ 
ogy  that  did  not  take  and  does  not  take  into  itself  all  that  literature  has 
given  and  all  that  art  is  pouring  forth,  all  that  the  heart  of  man  is  yearn¬ 
ing  after,  would  be  insufficient  to-day;  and  the  consequence  is  that  in  and 
outside  the  churches  the  religiousness  of  the  world  is  calling  for  art  to  take 
her  place  as  an  exponent  of  religion;  for  nature  to  take  her  part  as  the 
great  educator  of  men  in  all  those  feelings  that  are  most  religious  as 
regards  God.  In  fact,  that  I  and  you,  when  we  want  to  do  best  for  that 
criminal,  or  that  outcast,  or  that  hard  one,  we  will  learn  it  not  by  going  to 
schoolmasters  and  books,  but  by  going  right  into  the  solitudes  of  the  mount¬ 
ains  and  of  the  lakes  which  our  Father  has  made,  and  learn  of  His  marvels 
in  the  wild  flower  and  the  song  of  the  birds,  and  come  back  to  our  brother 
and  say,  “  Is  not  this  human  soul  of  more  value  than  many  sparrows?  ” 

If  God  so  clothed  the  mountains,  heaths,  and  meadows  of  the  world, 
shall  He  not  clothe  these  human  souls  with  a  beauty  that  transcends  Sol¬ 
omon  in  all  his  glory,  with  a  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory?  It  is  the 


252 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OP  RELIGIONS. 


deepening,  the  heightening,  the  broadening  of  that  that  is  to  be  the  out¬ 
come  of  this  most  wonderful  parliament.  Is  it  not  that  the  Day  of  Pente¬ 
cost  has  come  back  to  us  once  again  ?  Do  we  not  hear  them  all  speak  with 
the  tongue  wherein  we  were  born,  this  tongue  of  prayer,  that  we  may  know 
each  other  and  go  up  and  be  more  likely  to  get  nearer  to  Him  as  the  ages 
roll  op?  This  parliament  will  be  far-reaching.  There  is  no  limit  in  the 
world  to  what  these  parliaments  will  mean  in  the  impetus  given  to  the 
deepening  of  religious  life.  It  will  be  so  much  easier  for  you  and  me,  in 
the  years  to  come,  to  bow  our  heads  with  reverence  when  we  catch  the 
sound  of  the  Moslem’s  prayer.  It  will  be  so  much  easier  for  you  and  me, 
in  the  days  to  come,  to  picture  God,  our  Father,  answering  the  prayer  of 
the  Japanese  in  the  Jap’s  own  language.  It  will  be  so  much  easier  for  you 
and  me  to  understand  that  God  has  no  creed  whatever,  that  mankind  is  His 
child  and  shall  be  one  with  Him  one  day  and  live  with  Him  forever. 

And,  in  conclusion,  we  have  some  of  us  made  a  great  mistake  in  not 
seizing  all  and  every  means  of  being  educated  in  the  religiousness  of  our 
daily  conduct.  I  believe — even  though  it  sounds  commonplace  to  say  it, 
but  I  do  believe — with  all  due  deference  to  our  dear  brothers  the  theo¬ 
logians,  that  this  Parliament  of  Religions  will  have  taught  them  some  of 
the  courtesies  that  it  would  have  been  well  if  they  had  had  years  ago. 
I  think  it  will  have  taught  them  that  you  can  never  convince  your  adversary 
by  hurling  an  argument  like  a  brickbat  at  his  head.  It  will  have  taught  all 
of  us  to  have  the  good  manners  to  listen  in  silence  to  what  we  do  not 
approve. 

It  will  have  taught  us  that  after  all  it  is  not  the  words  that  are  the  things, 
but  it  is  the  soul  behind  the  words;  and  the  soul  there  is  behind  this  great 
Parliament  of  Religions  to-day  is  this  newer  humility,  which  makes  me  feel 
that  I  am  not  the  custodian  of  all  or  every  truth  that  has  been  given  to  the 
world.  That  God,  my  Father,  has  made  religious  truth  like  the  facets  of  tthe 
diamond — one  facet  reflecting  one  color  and  another  another  color,  and  it  is 
not  for  me  to  dare  to  say  that  the  particular  color  that  my  eye  rests  upon 
is  the  only  one  that  the  world  ought  to  see.  Thank  God  for  these  different 
voices  that  have  been  speaking  to  us  this  morning.  Thank  God,  out  from 
the  mummies  of  Egypt,  out  from  the  mosques  of  Syria,  there  have  come  to 
you  and  me  this  morning  that  which  shall  send  us  back  to  our  homes  more 
religious,  in  the  deepest  sense  of  the  word,  than  we  were  before,  and  there¬ 
fore  better  able  to  take  up  this  great  work  of  religion  to  the  redeeming  of 
the  world  out  of  darkness  into  light,  out  of  sorrow  into  happiness,  out  of 
sin  and  misery  into  the  righteousness  that  abideth  forever. 

There  is  one  voice  speaking  to  us  this  morning  which  was  laid  down  in 
the  close  of  one  of  his  poems,  those  words  of  Shelley  in  that  magnificent 
poem,  “Prometheus  Unbound.”  It  will  stand  for  every  language  and 
tongue  to-day  for  the  embodiment  of  the  outcome  of  religious  feeling  in 
you  and  me: 

To  forgive  wrongs  darker  than  death  and  night; 

To  suffer  woes  that  hope  thinks  infinite; 

To  love  and  bear;  to  hope,  till  hope  creates 

From  her  own  wrecks,  the  thing  she  contemplates. 

Never  to  change,  nor  falter,  nor  repent. 

This,  like  thy  glory.  Titan,  is  to  be 

Good,  brave,  and  joyous,  beautiful,  and  free; 

This  is  alone  life,  love,  empire,  and  victory. 


CONFUCIANISM. 

RUNG  HSIEN  HO,  SHANGHAI. 

A  prize  essay  by  Kung  Hsien  Ho,  of  Shanghai,  translated  by 
Rev.  Timothy  Richard,  of  the  English  Baptist  Mission,  China. 


CONFUCIANISM. 


253 


The  most  important  thing  in  the  superior  man’s  learning  is  to  fear 
disobeying  heaven’s  will.  Therefore  in  our  Confucian  religion  the  most 
important  thing  is  to  follow  the  will  of  heaven.  The  book  of  Yih  King  says: 
“  In  the  changes  of  the  world  there  is  a  Great  Supreme  which  produces  two 
principles,  and  these  two  principles  are  Yin  and  Yang.  By  Supreme  is 
meant  the  spring  of  all  activity.  Our  sages  regard  Yin  and  Yang  and  the 
five  elements  as  acting  and  reacting  on  each  other  without  ceasing,  and  this 
doctrine  is  all  important,  like  as  the  hinge  of  a  door. 

The  incessant  production  of  all  things  depends  on  this  as  the  tree  does 
on  the  root.  Even  all  human  affairs  and  all  good  are  also  dependent  on  it; 
therefore  it  is  called  the  Supreme  just  as  we  speak  of  the  extreme  points 
of  the  earth  as  the  north  and  south  poles. 

By  Great  Supreme  is  meant  that  there  is  nothing  above  it.  But  heaven 
is  without  sound  or  smell,  therefore,  the  ancients  spoke  of  the  infinite  and 
the  Great  Supreme.  The  Great  Supreme  producing  Yin  and  Yang  is  law  pro¬ 
ducing  forces.  When  Yang  and  Yin  unite  they  produce  water,  fire,  wood, 
metal,  earth.  When  these  five  forces  operate  in  harmony  the  four  seasons 
come  to  pass.  The  essences  of  the  infinite,  of  Yin  and  Yang,  and  of  the  five 
elements,  combine,  and  the  heavenly  become  male,  and  the  earthly  become 
female.  When  these  powers  act  on  each  other  all  things  are  produced  and 
reproduced  and  developed  without  end. 

As  to  man,  he  is  the  best  and  most  intelligent  of  all.  This  is  what  is 
meant  in  the  Book  of  Chung  Yung  when  it  says  that  what  heaven  has  given 
is  the  spiritual  nature.  This  nature  is  law.  All  men  are  thus  born  and 
have  this  law.  Therefore  it  is  Meneius  says  that  all  children  love  the  par¬ 
ents  and  when  grown  up  all  respect  their  elder  brethren.  If  man  only  fol¬ 
lowed  the  natural  bent  of  his  nature,  then  all  would  go  the  right  way; 
hence,  the  Chung  Yung  says,  “To  follow  nature  is  the  right  way.” 

The  choicest  product  of  Yin-Yang  and  the  five  elements  in  the  world  is  man, 
the  rest  are  refuse  products.  The  choicest  among  the  choice  ones  are  the 
sages  and  worthies,  and  the  refuse  among  them  are  the  foolish  and  the  bad. 
And  as  man’s  body  comes  from  the  Yin,  and  man’s  soul  from  theYang,  he  can 
not  be  perfect.  This  is  what  the  Lung  philosophers  called  the  material  nature. 
Although  all  men  have  at  birth  a  nature  for  goodness,  still,  if  there  is  noth¬ 
ing  to  fix  it,  then  desires  arise  and  passions  rule,  and  men  are  not  far  from 
being  like  beasts;  hence  Confucius  says:  “Men’s nature  is  originally  alike, 
but  in  practice  men  become  very  different.”  The  sages,  knowing  this, 
sought  to  fix  the  nature  with  the  principles  of  moderation,  uprightness, 
benevolence,  and  righteousness.  Heaven  appointed  rulers  and  teachers, 
who  in  turn  established  worship  and  music  to  improve  men’s  disposition, 
and  set  up  governments  and  penalties  in  order  to  check  men’s  wickedness. 
The  best  among  the  people  are  taken  into  schools  where  they  study  wisdom, 
virtue,  benevolence,  and  righteousness,  so  that  they  may  know  beforehand 
how  to  conduct  themselves  as  rulers  or  ruled. 

And  unless,  after  many  generations,  there  should  be  degeneration  and 
difficulty  in  finding  the  truth,  the  principles  of  heaven  and  earth,  of  men 
and  of  all  things  have  been  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Odes  for  the  use  of 
after  generations.  The  Chung  Yung  calls  the  practice  of  wisdom  religion. 
Our  religion  well  knows  heaven’s  will,  it  looks  on  all  under  heaven  as  one 
family,  great  rulers  as  elder  branches  in  their  parent’s  clan,  great  ministers 
as  chief  officers  of  this  clan,  and  people  at  large  as  brothers  of  the  same 
parents;  and  it  holds  that  all  things  should  be  enjoyed  in  common,  because 
it  regards  heaven  and  earth  as  the  parents  of  all  alike.  And  the  command¬ 
ment  of  the  Confucian  is,  “Pear  greatly  lest  ye  offend  against  heaven.” 

But  what  Confucians  lay  great  stress  on  is  human  affairs.  What  are 
these?  These  are  the  five  relations  and  the  five  constants.  What  are  the 
five  relations?  They  are  those  of  sovereign  and  minister,  father  and  son, 
elder  and  younger  brother,  husband  and  wife,  and  that  between  friend  and 


254  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 

friend.  Now,  the  ruler  is  the  son  of  heaven,  to  be  honored  above  ah  other^y 
therefore  in  serving  him  there  has  to  be  loyalty.  The  parents’  goodness  to 
their  children  is  boundless,  therefore  the  parents  should  be  served  filially. 
Brothers  are  branches  from  the  same  root,  therefore  mutual  respect  is 
important.  The  marriage  relation  is  the  origin  of  all  human  relations, 
therefore  mutual  gentleness  is  important.  As  to  friends,  though  as  if  strang¬ 
ers  to  our  homes,  it  is  important  to  be  very  affectionate. 

When  one  desires  to  make  progress  in  the  practice  of  virtue  as  ruler  or 
minister,  as  parent  or  child,  as  elder  or  younger  brother,  or  as  husband  or 
wife,  if  anyone  wishes  to  be  perfect  in  any  relation,  how  can  it  be  done  with¬ 
out  a  friend  to  exhort  one  to  good  and  check  one  in  evil?  Therefore,  one 
should  seek  to  increase  his  friends.  Among  the  five  relations  there  are  also 
the  three  hands.  The  ruler  is  the  hand  of  the  minister,  the  father  is  that 
of  the  son,  and  the  husband  is  that  of  the  wife.  And  the  book  of  the  Ta 
Hsioh  says:  “  From  the  Emperor  down  to  the  common  people  the  funda¬ 
mental  thing  for  all  to  do  is  to  cultivate  virtue.”  If  this  fundamental 
foundation  is  not  laid,  then  there  can  not  be  order  in  the  world.  Therefore, 
great  responsibility  lies  on  the  leaders.  This  is  what  Confucius  means 
when  he  says:  “  When  a  ruler  is  upright  he  is  obeyed  without  commands.” 

Now,  to  cause  the  doctrine  of  the  five  relations  to  be  carried  out  every¬ 
where  by  all  under  heaven,  the  ruler  must  be  intelligent  and  the  minister 
good,  then  the  government  will  be  just;  the  father  must  be  loving  and  the 
son  filial,  the  elder  brother  friendly,  the  younger  brother  respectful,  the 
husband  kind,  and  the  wife  obedient,  then  the  home  will  be  right;  in  our 
relation  with  our  friends  there  must  be  confidence,  then  customs  will  be 
reformed  and  order  will  not  be  difficult  for  the  whole  world,  simply  because 
the  rulers  lay  the  foundation  for  it  in  virtue. 

What  are  the  five  constants?  Benevolence,  righteousness,  worship, 
wisdom,  faithfulness.  Benevolence  is  love,  righteousness  is  fitness,  worship 
is  principle,  wisdom  is  thorough  knowledge,  faithfulness  is  what  one  can 
depend  on.  He  who  is  able  to  restore  the  original  good  nature  and  to  hold 
fast  to  it  is  called  a  worthy.  He  who  has  got  hold  of  the  spiritual  nature 
and  is  at  peace  and  rest  is  called  a  sage.  He  who  sends  forth  unseen  and 
infinite  infiuences  throughout  all  things  is  called  divine.  The  infiuence  of 
the  five  constants  is  very  great,  and  all  living  things  are  subject  to  them. 

Mencius  says:  “  He  who  has  no  pity  is  not  a  man;  he  who  has  no  sense 
of  shame  for  wrong  is  not  a  man;  he  who  has  no  yielding  disposition  is  not 
a  man,  and  he  who  has  not  the  sense  of  right  and  wrong  is  not  a  man.  The 
sense  of  pity  is  the  beginning  of  benevolence,  the  sense  of  shame  for  wrong 
is  the  beginning  of  righteousness,  a  yielding  disposition  is  the  beginning  of 
religion,  the  sense  of  right  and  wrong  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom.  Faith¬ 
fulness  is  not  spoken  of,  as  it  is  what  makes  the  other  four  real;  like  the 
earth  element  among  the  five  elements,  without  it  the  other  four  manifestly 
can  not  be  placed. 

The  Chung  Yung  says,  “Sincerity  or  reality  is  the  beginning  and  the 
end  of  things.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  supreme  sincerity  without  action. 
This  is  the  use  of  faithfulness.” 

As  to  the  benevolence,  it  also  includes  righteousness,  religion,  and  wis¬ 
dom;  therefore  the  sages  consider  that  the  most  important  thing  is  to  get 
benevolence.  The  idea  of  benevolence  is  gentleness  and  liberal  mindedness, 
that  of  righteousness  is  clear  duty,  that  of  religion  is  showing  forth,  that  of 
wisdom  is  to  gather  silently.  When  there  is  gentleness,  clear  duty,  showing 
forth  and  silent  gathering  constantly  going  on,  then  everything  naturally 
falls  to  its  proper  place,  just  like  the  four  seasons;  e.g.,  the  spring  infiuences 
are  gentle  and  liberal  and  are  life-giving  ones;  in  summer  life-giving  things 
grow,  in  autumn  these  show  themselves  in  harvest,  and  in  winter  they  are 
stored  up.  If  there  v/ere  no  spring  the  other  three  seasons  would  have 
nothing;  so  it  is  said  the  benevolent  man  is  the  life.  Extend  and  develop 


CONFUCIANISM.  255 

this  benevolence  and  all  under  heaven  may  be  benefited  thereby.  This  is 
how  to  observe  human  relation. 

As  to  the  doctrine  of  future  life,  Confucianism  speaks  of  it  most  mi¬ 
nutely.  Cheng  Tsze  says  the  spirits  are  the  forces  or  servants  of  heaven  and 
earth  and  signs  of  creative  power.  Chu  Fu  Tsze  says:  “Speaking  of  two 
powers,  the  demons  are  the  intelligent  ones  of  Yin,  the  gods  are  the  intelli¬ 
gent  ones  of  Yang;  speaking  of  one  power,  the  supreme  and  originating  is 
called  God,  the  reverse  and  the  returning  is  demon.” 

Confucius,  replying  to  Tsai  Wo,  says:  “  When  flesh  and  bones  die  below 
the  dust  the  material  Yin  becomes  dust,  but  the  immaterial  rises  above  the 
grave  in  great  light,  has  odor,  and  is  very  pitiable.  This  is  the  immaterial 
essence.  ”  The  Chung  Yung,  quoting  Confucius,  says:  “  The  power  of  the 
spirits  is  very  great.  You  look  and  can  not  see  them,  you  listen  and  can  not 
hear  them,  but  they  are  embodied  in  all  things  without  missing  any,  caus¬ 
ing  all  men  to  reverence  them  and  be  purified  and  be  well  adorned  in  order 
to  sacrifice  unto  them.  ”  All  things  are  alive,  as  if  the  gods  were  right 
above  our  heads  or  on  our  right  hand  or  on  our  left.  Yih  King  makes 
much  of  divining  to  get  decisions  from  the  gods,  knowing  that  the  gods  are 
the  forces  of  heaven  and  earth  in  operation.  Although  unseen,  still  they 
influence;  if  difficult  to  prove,  yet  easily  known.  The  great  sages  and  great 
worthies,  the  loyal  ministers,  the  righteous  scholars,  filial  sons,  the  pure 
women  of  the  world  having  received  the  purest  influences  of  the  divinest 
forces  of  heaven  and  earth,  when  on  earth  were  heroes,  when  dead  are  the 
gods.  Their  influences  continue  for  many  generations  to  affect  the  world 
for  good,  therefore  many  venerate  and  sacrifice  unto  them. 

As  to  evil  men,  they  arise  from  the  evil  forces  of  nature;  when  dead 
they  also  influence  for  evil,  and  we  must  get  holy  influences  to  destroy  evil 
ones. 

As  to  rewards  and  punishments,  the  ancient  sages  also  spoke  of  them. 
The  great  Yu,  B.  C.  2255,  said:  “Follow  what  is  right,  and  you  will  be  fortu¬ 
nate;  do  not  follow  it,  and  you  will  be  unfortunate;  the  results  are  only 
shadows  and  echoes  of  our  acts.”  Tang,  B.  C.  1766,  says:  “Heaven’s  way 
is  to  bless  the  good  and  to  bring  calamity  on  the  evil.”  His  minister,  Yi 
Yin,  said:  “It  is" only  God  who  is  perfectly  just;  good  actions  are  blessed 
with  a  hundred  favors;  evil  actions  are  cursed  with  a  hundred  evils.”  Con¬ 
fucius,  speaking  of  the  Book  of  Changes  (Yih  King),  said:  “Those  who 
multiply  good  d^eeds  will  have  joys  to  overflowing;  those  who  multiply  evil 
deeds  will  have  calamities  running  over.” 

But  this  is  very  different  from  Taoism,  which  says  that  there  are  angels 
from  heaven  examining  into  men’s  good  and  evil  deeds,  and  from  Buddhism, 
which  says  that  there  is  a  purgatory  or  hell  according  to  one’s  deeds. 
Rewards  and  punishments  arise  from  our  different  actions  just  as  water 
flows  to  the  ocean  and  as  fire  seizes  what  is  dry;  without  expecting  certain 
consequences,  they  come  inevitably.  When  these  consequences  do  not 
appear,  they  are  like  cold  in  summer  or  heat  in  winter,  or  like  both  happen¬ 
ing  in  winter;  but  this,  we  say,  is  unnatural.  Therefore  it  is  said.  Sincerity 
is  the  way  of  heaven.  If  we  say  that  the  gods  serve  heaven  exactly  as  man¬ 
darins  do  on  earth,  bringing  quick  retribution  on  every  little  thing,  this  is 
really  to  make  them  appear  very  slow.  At  present  men  say,  “Thunder 
killed  the  bad  man.”  But  it  is  not  so,  either.  The  Han  philosopher,  Tung 
Chung  Shu  (2d  century  B.  C.),  says:  “Vapors,  when  they  clash  above, 
make  rain;  when  they  clash  below,  make  fog.  Wind  is  nature’s  breathing. 
Thunder  is  the  sound  of  clouds  clashing  against  each  other.  Lightning  is 
light  emitted  by  their  collision.  Thus  we  see  that  when  a  man  is  killed,  it 
is  by  the  collision  of  these  clouds.” 

As  to  becoming  genii  and  transmigration  of  souls,  these  are  still  more 
beside  the  mark.  If  we  became  like  genii,  then  we  would  live  on  without 
dying;  how  could  the  world  hold  so  many?  If  we  transmigrate,  then  so 


256 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


many  would  transmigrate  from  the  human  life  and  ghosts  would  be  numer¬ 
ous.  Besides  when  the  lamp  goes  out  and  is  lit  again  it  is  not  the  former 
flame  that  is  lit.  When  the  cloud  has  a  rainbow  it  rains,  but  it  is  not 
the  same  rainbow  as  when  the  rainbow  appeared  before.  From  this  we 
know  also  that  these  doctrines  of  transmigration  should  not  be  believed  in. 
So  much  on  the  virtue  of  the  unseen  and  hereafter. 

As  to  the  great  aim  and  broad  basis  of  Confucianism,  we  say  it  searches 
into  things,  it  extends  knowledge,  it  has  a  sincere  aim,  i.  e.,  to  have  a  right 
heart,  a  virtuous  life,  so  as  to  regulate  the  home,  to  govern  the  nation,  and 
to  give  peace  to  all  under  heaven.  The  Book  of  Great  Learning,  Ja  Hsigh 
has  already  clearly  spoken  of  these.  The  foundation  is  laid  in  illustrating 
virtue;  for  our  religion  in  discussing  government  regards  virtue  as  the 
foundation  and  wealth  as  the  superstructure.  Mencius  says:  “  When  the 
rulers  and  ministers  are  only  seeking  gain,  the  nation  is  in  danger.”  He 
also  says:  “There  is  no  benevolent  man  who  neglects  his  parents;  there 
is  no  righteous  man  who  helps  himself  before  his  ruler.”  From  this  it  is 
apparent  what  is  most  important. 

Not  that  we  do  not  speak  of  gain;  the  Great  Learning  says:  “  There  is 
a  right  way  to  get  gain.  Let  the  producers  be  many  and  the  consumers 
few.  Let  there  be  activity  in  production  and  economy  in  the  expenditure. 
Then  the  wealth  will  always  be  sufficient.  But  it  is  important  that  the 
high  and  low  should  share  it  alike.” 

As  to  how  to  govern  the  country  and  give  peace  to  all  under  heaven  the 
nine  paths  are  most  important.  The  nine  paths  are:  Cultivate  a  good 
character,  honor  the  good,  love  your  parents,  respect  great  officers,  carry  out 
the  wishes  of  the  ruler  and  ministers,  regard  the  common  people  as  your 
children,  invite  all  kinds  of  skillful  workmen,  be  kind  to  strangers,  have 
consideration  for  all  the  feudal  chiefs.  These  are  the  great  principles. 

Their  origin  and  history  may  also  be  stated.  Far  up  in  mythical  ancient 
times,  before  literature  was  known,  Fu  Hi  arose  and  drew  the  eight  dia¬ 
grams,  in  order  to  understand  the  superhuman  powers  and  the  nature  of 
all  things.  At  the  time  of  Tang  Yao  (B.  C.  2356)  they  were  able  to  illustrate 
noble  virtue.  Nine  generations  lived  together  in  one  home  in  love  and 
peace,  and  the  people  were  firm  and  intelligent.  Yao  handed  down  to 
Shun  a  saying,  “  Sincerely  hold  fast  to  the  ‘  mean’ .”  Shun  transmitted  it  to 
Yu,  and  said:  “The  mind  of  man  is  restless,  prone  to  err;  its  infinity  for 
the  right  way  is  small.  Be  discriminating;  be  undivided,  that  you  may 
sincerely  hold  fast  to  the  ‘  mean  ’.”  Yu  transmitted  this  to  Tang  of  the  Siang 
dynasty  (B.  C.  1766).  Tang  transmitted  it  to  Kings  Wen  and  Wu  of  the 
Chow  dynasty  (B.  C.  1122).  These  transmitted  it  to  Duke  Kung.  And 
these  were  all  able  to  observe  this  rule  of  the  heart  by  which  they  held  fast 
to  the  “  mean.” 

The  Chow  dynasty  later  degenerated,  then  there  arose  Confucius,  who 
transmitted  the  doctrines  of  Yao  and  Shun  as  if  they  had  been  his  ances¬ 
tors,  elegantly  displayed  the  doctrines  of  Wen  and  Wu,  edited  the  odes  and 
the  history,  reformed  religion,  made  notes  on  the  Book  of  Changes,  wrote 
the  annals  of  spring  and  autumn,  and  spoke  of  governing  the  nation,  say¬ 
ing:  “  Treat  matters  seriously  and  be  faithful,  be  temperate  and  love  men, 
employ  men  according  to  proper  times,  and  in  teaching  your  pupil  you 
must  do  BO  with  love.”  He  said  to  Yen  Tsze:  “  Self-sacrifice  and  truth  are 
benevolence.  If  you  can  for  one  whole  day  entirely  sacrifice  self  and  be 
true,  then  all  under  heaven  will  become  benevolent.”  Speaking  of  being 
able  to  put  away  selfishness  and  attaining  to  the  truth  of  heaven,  every¬ 
thing  is  possible  to  such  a  heart. 

Alas !  He  was  not  able  to  get  his  virtues  put  into  practice,  but  his  dis¬ 
ciples  recorded  his  words  and  deeds  and  wrote  the  Confucian  Analects. 
His  disciple,  Jseng  Tsze,  composed  the  Great  Learning.  His  proud  son, 
Tsze  Sze,  composed  the  Doctrine  of  the  Mean  (Chung  Yung).  When  the 


CONFUCIANISM. 


^57 


contending  states  were  quarreling,  Mencius,  with  a  loving  heart  that  could 
not  endure  wrong,  arose  to  save  the  times.  The  rulers  of  the  time  would 
not  use  him,  so  he  composed  a  book  in  seven  chapters.  After  this, 
although  the  ages  changed  this,  religion  flourished.  In  the  Han  dynasty, 
Tung  Chung  Shu  (20th  century  B.  C.);  in  the  Sui  dynasty,  Wang  Tung 
(A.  D.  583-017);  in  the  Tang  dynasty,  Han  Yo  (A.  D.  768-824)  each  made 
some  part  of  this  doctrine  better  known.  In  the  Sung  dynasty  (960-1260), 
these  were  the  disciples  of  the  x>hilosophers  Cheng,  Chow,  and  Chang, 
searching  into  the  spiritual  nature  of  man,  and  Chu  Fu-Tsze  collected  their 
works,  and  this  religion  shone  with  great  brightness.  Our  present  dynasty, 
respecting  scholarship  and  considering  truth  important,  placed  the  philos¬ 
opher  Cho  in  Confucian  temj^les  to  be  reverenced  and  sacrificed  to.  Con- 
fucianist  all  follow  Chu  Fu-Tsze’s  comments.  From  ancient  times  till  now 
those  who  followed  the  doctrines  of  Confucius  were  able  to  govern  the 
country;  whenever  these  were  not  followed  there  was  disorder. 

On  looking  at  it  down  the  ages  there  is  also  clear  evidence  of  results  in 
governing  the  country  and  its  superiority  to  other  religions.  There  is  a 
prosperity  of  Tang  Yis,  of  the  dynasties  Hsia  Slang  and  Chow  (B.  C.  2356, 
B.  C.  255),  when  virtue  and  good  government  flourished.  It  is  needless  to 
enlarge  upon  them.  At  the  time  of  the  contending  states  there  arose  the¬ 
orists,  and  all  under  heaven  became  disordered.  The  Tsin  dynasty  (of  Tsin 
She-Hwang  fame)  burned  the  books  and  buried  the  Confucianists,  and  did 
many  other  heartless  things,  and  also  went  to  seek  the  art  of  becoming 
immortal  (Taoism),  and  the  empire  was  soon  lost. 

Then  the  Han  dynasty  arose  (B.  C.  206-A.  D.  220).  Although  it  leaned 
toward  Taoism,  the  people,  after  having  suffered  so  long  from  the  cruelties 
of  the  Tsin,  were  easily  governed.  Although  the  religious  rites  of  the  Shu 
Sun-tung  do  not  command  our  confidence,  the  elucidation  of  the  ancient 
classics  and  books  we  owe  mostly  to  the  Confucianists  of  the  Han  period 
Although  the  emperor,  the  Emperor  Wu,  of  the  Western  (early)  Han 
dynasty,  was  fond  of  genii  (Taoism),  he  knew  how  to  select  worthy  minis¬ 
ters.  Although  the  Emperor  Ming,  of  the  Eastern  (later)  Han  dynasty, 
introduced  Buddhism,  he  was  able  to  respect  the  Confucian  doctrines! 
Since  so  many  followed  Confucianism,  good  mandarins  were  very  abundant 
under  the  Eastern  and  Western  Han  dynasties,  and  the  dynasty  lasted  very 
long. 

Passing  on  to  the  epoch  of  the  Three  Kingdoms  and  the  Tsin  dynasty 
(A.  D.  221-419)  the  people  then  leaned  toward  Taoism  and  neglected  the 
country.  Afterward  the  North  and  South  quarreled  and  Emperor  Laing 
Wu  reigned  the  longest,  but  lost  all  by  believing  in  Buddhism  and  going 
into  the  monastery  at  Tsing  Tai,  where  he  died  of  starvation  at  Tai  Ching 
When  Yuen  Ti  came  to  the  throne  (A.  D.  552)  the  soldiers  of  Wei  arrived 
while  the  teaching  of  Taoism  was  still  going  on  and  the  country  was  ruined. 
It  is  not  v/orth  while  to  speak  of  the  Sui  dynasty.  The  first  emperor  of 
the  Tang  dynasty  (618-907)  greatly  sought  out  famous  Confucianists  and 
increased  the  demand  for  scholars,  so  that  the  country  was  ruled  almost 
equal  to  Cheng  and  Kang  of  ancient  times.  Although  there  was  the  affair 
of  Empress  Woo  and  Lu  Shan  the  dynasty  flourished  long.  Its  fall  was 
because  the  Emperor  Hueu  Tsung  was  fond  of  Taoism  and  Buddhism,  and 
was  put  to  death  by  taking  wrong  medicine.  The  Emperor  Mu  Tsung  also 
bellied  in  Taoism,  but  got  ill  by  eatiing  immortality  pills.  After  this 
the  Emperor  Wu  Tsung  was  fond  of  Taoism,  and  reigned  only  a  short  time. 
1  he  Emperor  Tsung  followed  Buddhism  and  the  dynasty  fell  into  a  pre¬ 
carious  condition. 

Passing  by  the  five  dynasties  (907-960)  on  to  the  first  emperor  of  the 
Sung  dynasty  (960-1360)  who,  cherishing  the  people  and  having  good 
government,  step  by  step  prospered— when  Jen  Tsung  ruled  he  reverenced 
heaven  and  cared  for  the  people;  he  reformed  the  punishment  and  lightened 


^58 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  taxes,  and  was  assisted  by  such  scholars  as  Han  Ki,  Fan  Chung  Yen, 
Foo  Pih,  Ou  Yang  Sui,  Wen  Yen  Poh,  and  Chas  Pien.  They  established  the 
government  at  the  mountain  Pas  Sang,  and  raised  the  people  to  the  state 
of  peace  which  is  still  in  every  home.  Such  government  may  be  called 
benevolent. 

Afterward  there  arose  the  troubles  of  Kin,  when  the  good  ministers 
were  destroyed  by  cliques,  and  the  Sang  dynasty  moved  to  the  south  of 
China.  ^  .  ;  . 

When  the  Mongol  dynasty  (A.  D.  12G0-1368)  arose,  it  believed  in  and 
employed  Confucian  methods,  and  all  under  heaven  was  in  order.  In  the 
time  of  Jen  Chung  the  names  of  the  philosophers,  Chow  and  Cheng  (of  the 
Sung  dynasty),  were  placed  in  the  Confucian  temples  to  be  sacrificed  to. 
They  carried  out  the  system  of  examinations  and  sent  commissioners  to 
travel  throughout  the  land  to  inquire  into  the  sufferings  of  the  people. 

The  Emperor  served  the  Empress  Dowager  with  filial  pity,  and  treated 
all  his  relations  with  honor,  and  he  may  be  called  one  of  our  noble  rulers, 
but  the  death  of  Shunti  was  owing  to  his  passion  for  pleasure.  He  prac¬ 
ticed  the  methods  of  Western  priests  (Buddhists)  to  regulate  the  health,  and 
had  no  heart  for  matters  of  state. 

When  the  first  emperor  of  the  Ming  dynasty  (A.  D.  1368-1644)  arose  and 
reformed  the  religion  and  ritual  of  the  empire,  he  called  it  the  great,  peace¬ 
ful  dynasty.  The  pity  was  that  he  selected  Buddhist  priests  to  attend  on 
the  princes  of  the  empire,  and  the  priest  Tao  Yen  corrupted  the  Pekin 
prince,  and  a  rebellious  spirit  sprung  up,  which  was  a  great  mistake.  Then 
Ten  Tsung,  too,  employed  Yen  Sung,  who  only  occupied  himself  in  worship. 
Hi  Tsung  employed  Ni  Ngan,  who  defamed  the  royal  and  the  good,  and  the 
dynasty  failed.  These  are  the  evidences  of  the  value  of  Confucianism  in 
every  age. 

But  in  our  present  dynasty  worship  and  religion  have  been  wisely  regu¬ 
lated,  and  the  government  is  in  fine  order;  noble  ministers  and  able  officers 
have  followed  in  succession  down  all  these  centuries. 

That  is'  what  has  caused  Confucianism  to  be  transmitted  from  the  oldest 
times  till  now,  and  wherein  it  constitutes  its  superiority  to  other  religions 
is  that  it  does  not  encourage  mysteries  and  strange  things  or  marvels.  It  is 
impartial  and  upright.  It  is  a  doctrine  of  great  impartiality  and  strict 
uprightness,  which  one  may  body  forth  in  one’s  person  and  carry  out  with 
vigor  in  one’s  life;  therefore,  we  say,  when  the  sun  and  moon  come  forth 
(as  in  Confucianism),  then  the  light  of  candles  can  be  dispensed  with. 

EACH  IN  HIS  OWN  LITTLE  WELL, 

SWAMI  VI VEK  AN  AN  AD  A  OF  BOMBAY. 

Just  before  the  close  of  the  afternoon  session  the  chairman 
called  on  Swami  Vivekananda,  a  monk  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj, 
for  remarks.  He  was  enthusiastically  received  and  responded 
with  a  little  speech. 

If  you  will  be  kind  to  me,  if  you  will  have  the  patience  to  listen  to  it,  I 
will  tell  you  a  little  story.  You  have  heard  the  eloquent  speaker  who  has 
just  finished  say,  “Let  us  cease  from  abusing  each  other,”  and  he  was  very 
sorry  that  there  should  be  always  so  much  variance. 

But  I  think  I  should  tell  you  a  story  which  would  illustrate  the  cause 
of  this  variance.  The  frog  lived  in  a  well.  It  had  lived  there  for  a  long 
time.  It  was  born  there  and  brought  up  there,  and  yet  was  a  little,  small 
frog.  Of  course  the  evolutionists  were  not  there  then  to  tell  us  whether  the 


SERVICE  OF  THE  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGIONS. 


259 


frog  lost  its  eyes  or  not,  but,  for  our  story’s  sake,  we  must  take  it  for 
granted  that  it  had  its  eyes,  and  that  it  every  day  cleansed  the  waters  of 
all  the  worms  and  bacilli  that  lived  in  it  with  an  energy  that  would  give 
credit  to  our  modern  bacteriologists.  In  this  way  it  went  on  and  became 
a  little  slick  and  fat — perhaps  as  much  as  myself.  Well,  one  day  another 
frog  that  lived  in  the  sea  came  and  fell  into  the  well. 

“  Whence  are  you  from?  ” 

“  I’m  from  the  sea.” 

“  The  sea;  how  big  is  that?  Is  it  as  big  as  my  well?  ”  and  he  took  a  leap 
from  one  side  of  the  well  to  the  other. 

“  My  friend,”  says  the  frog  of  the  sea,  “  how  do  you  compare  the  sea  with 
your  little  well?  ” 

Then  the  frog  took  another  leap  and  asked:  “  Is  your  sea  so  big?  ” 

“  What  nonsense  you  speak,  to  compare  the  sea  with  your  well.” 

“  Well,  then,”  said  the  frog  of  the  well,  “  nothing  can  be  bigger  than  my 
well ;  there  can  be  nothing  bigger  than  this;  this  fellow  is  a  liar,  so  turn 
him  out.” 

That  has  been  the  difficulty  all  the  while. 

I  am  a  Hindu.  I  am  sitting  in  my  own  little  well  and  thinking  that 
the  whole  world  is  my  well.  The  Christian  sits  in  his  little  well  and  thinks 
the  whole  world  is  his  well.  The  Mohammedan  sits  in  his  little  well  and 
thinks  the  whole  world  that.  I  have  to  thank  you  of  America  for  the  great 
attempt  you  are  making  to  break  down  the  barriers  of  this  little  world  of 
ours,  and  hope  that,  in  the  future,  the  Lord  will  help  you  to  accomplish 
your  purpose. 


SERVICE  OF  THE  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGIONS  TO 
THE  CAUSE  OF  RELIGIOUS  UNITY. 

MAEWIN-MAKIE  SNELL. 

Religion  is  a  universal  fact  of  human  experience.  There  are  people 
without  gods,  without  sacred  books,  without  sacraments,  without  doctrines, 
if  you  will  —  but  none  without  religion.  There  is  in  every  human  breast  an 
instinct  which  reaches  outward  and  upward  toward  the  highest  truth,  the 
highest  goodness,  the  highest  beauty,  and  which  testifies  at  the  same  time 
to  the  existence  of  an  intimate  relation  of  affection,  of  honor,  and  of  beauty 
between  each  individual  person  and  the  surrounding  universe. 

Everything  that  exists  or  can  exist  may  be  an  object  of  religious  devo¬ 
tion,  for  everything  is  in  some  sense  a  compendium  of  the  World- All  and  a 
symbol  of  creative  power,  preserving  wisdom  and  transforming  providence. 
In  all  the  world,  from  pole  to  pole,  and  from  ocean  to  ocean,  there  lives  not 
one  single  unperverted  human  being  from  whose  soul  there  does  not  ascend 
the  incense  of  adoration  and  in  whose  hand  is  not  found  the  pilgrim  staff 
of  duty.  Mankind  is  one  in  the  recognition  of  the  relationship  between  the 
individual  and  the  cosmos,  and  one  in  the  effort  to  manifest  and  perfect 
that  relationship  by  sacrifice  and  service.  Superimposed  upon  this  uni¬ 
versal  foundation  of  the  spiritual  sense,  as  the  late  Brother  Azarias  was 
wont  to  describe  it,  rises  a  great  structure  of  religious  and  ethical  truths 
and  principles,  regarding  which  there  is  a  substantial  agreement  among  all 
the  branches  of  the  human  family.  If  the  precise  extent  of  this  agreement 
can  be  definitely  ascertained,  as  well  as  the  exact  significance  and  cause  of 
the  real  or  apparent  divergencies  from  a  common  standard,  either  in  the 
way  of  omission  or  addition,  the  way  will  be  prepared  for  the  complete 
annihilation  of  vital  religious  differences,  and  the  placing  of  the  facts  and 
principles  of  religions  upon  an  absolutely  inexpungable  basis. 

It  can  not  be  too  much  insisted  upon  that  for  a  perfect  realization  of  the 


2G0 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


highest  development  and  firmest  demonstration  of  religion,  the  perfection 
of  the  science  of  religions  is  an  indispensable  condition.  Of  this  fact  the 
friends  of  the  World’s  Parliament  of  Religions  cannot  permit  themselves 
to  doubt;  for  the  parliament  itself  is  a  vast  hierological  museum,  a  work¬ 
ing  collection  of  religious  specimens,  having  the  same  indispensable  value  to 
the  hierologist  that  the  herbarium  has  to  the  botanist;  It  is  not  only  an 
exhibit  of  religions,  but  a  school  of  comparative  religion,  and  everyone  who 
attends  its  sessions  is  taking  the  first  steps  toward  becoming  a  hierologist. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  fitting  that  the  science  of  religions 
should  here  receive  special  attention  under  its  own  name.  And  this  all 
the  more  as  the  prejudices  and  animosities  which  perpetuate  religious  dis¬ 
union  are  in  a  large  proportion  of  cases  the  result  of  gross  misconceptions 
of  the  true  character  of  the  rival  creeds  or  cults.  The  anti-Catholic,  anti- 
Mormon,  and  anti-Semitic  agitations  in  Christendom,  and  the  highly  colored 
pictures  of  heathen  degradation  in  which  a  certain  class  of  foreign  mission¬ 
aries  indulge,  are  significant  illustrations  of  the  malignant  results  of  religious 
ignorance. 

No  one  would  hate  or  despise  the  Catholic  Church  who  knew  its  teach¬ 
ings  and  practices  as  they  really  are;  no  one  would  exclude  the  Church  of 
the  Latter  Day  Saints  from  the  family  of  the  world’s  religions  who  had 
caught  the  first  glimpse  of  its  profound  cosmogony,  its  spiritual  theology 
and  its  exalted  morality ;  no  one  would  fail  in  respect  to  Judaism  could  he 
once  enter  into  the  spirit  of  its  teaching  and  ritual;  and  no  one  would 
attribute  a  special  ignorance  and  superstition  to  the  pagan  systems  as 
such  who  had  taken  the  trouble  to  acquaint  himself  with  their  phenomena, 
and,  as  it  were,  enter  into  union  with  their  inner  souls  and  thus  fully  per¬ 
ceive  the  divine  truths  upon  which  they  rest. 

Those  who  aspire  to  prepare  themselves  to  give  intelligent  assistance  to 
the  cause  of  religious  unity  by  a  scientific  study  of  religions  should  bear  in 
mind  the  following  rules: 

1.  An  impartial  collection  and  examination  of  data  regarding  all  religions 
without  distinction  is  of  primary  importance. 

2.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  doubt  or  disbelieve  one’s  own  creed  in 
order  to  give  a  perfectly  unbiased  examination  to  all  other.s. 

3.  In  cases  where  the  facts  are  in  dispute  the  testimony  of  the  adherents  of 
the  system  under  consideration  must  outweigh  those  who  profess  some  other 
religion  or  none. 

4.  The  facts  collected  must  be  studied  in  due  chronological  order,  and  it  is  not 
legitimate  to  construct  a  history  of  religions  based  upon  a  study  of  contemporary 
cults  without  regard  to  history. 

5.  Resemblances  in  nomenclature,  in  beliefs,  or  in  customs  must  not  be  too 
hastily  accepted  as  conclusive  evidence  of  the  special  relationship  between  sys¬ 
tems. 

6.  Resemblances  in  ceremonial  details  must  not  be  considered  as  necessarily 
indicating  any  fundamental  similarity  or  kinship. 

7.  when  any  religion  or  any  one  of  its  constittient  elements  appears  to  be 
absurd  and  false,  consider  that  this  appearance  may  result  from  an  error  as  to 
the  facts  in  the  case,  or  misunderstanding  of  the  true  significance  of  those  facts. 

I  believe  it  to  be  most  certain  that  every  positive  element  in  every 
religion  derives  its  being  from  the  truth  it  embodies  of  the  utility  of  the 
truth  which  it  subserves;  and  that  every  doctrine  and  practice,  especially 
those  which  are  most  widespread,  have  their  roots  deep  down  in  the  human 
nature  common  to  us  all,  and  while  it  may  be  perfected  or  superseded  it 
can  in  no  case  be  permanently  eliminated. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  be  a  scientist  by  profession  in  order  to  give  intel¬ 
ligent  study  to  the  science  of  religions.  The  professional  hierologist  ana¬ 
lyzes  and  compares  religions  from  a  pure  love  of  his  science;  the  man  of 
broadening  culture  and  thought  may  study  them  with  the  practical  end  of 
a  fuller  self -enlightenment  regarding  his  duties  to  God  and  the  race;  and 
the  intelligent  religious  partisan  may  seek  to  master,  by  means  of  his  science, 
the  secret  of  religious  variations,  and  to  obtain  such  a  knowledge  of  the 
relation  of  other  religious  systems  to  his  own,  their  points  of  agreement  and 


THE  ANCIENT  EGYPTIAN  RELIGION. 


261 


contradiction,  and  their  historic  contact  as  will  enable  him  to  carry  on  a 
very  powerful  and  fruitful  propaganda. 

Missionary  work,  in  particular,  can  not  dispense  with  this  science.  I  do 
not  refer  to  Christian  missions  exclusively,  but  to  missionary  work  in 
general,  whoever  be  its  objects  and  whatever  its  aims,  and  whether  it  be 
Catholic,  Protestant,  Buddhist,  or  Moslem.  Every  missionary  training 
school  should  be  a  college  of  comparative  religion.  It  should  be  realized 
that  ignorance  and  prejudice  in  the  propagandist  are  as  great  obstacles  to 
the  spread  of  any  religion  as  the  same  qualities  in  those  whom  it  seeks  to 
win,  and  that  the  first  requisite  to  successful  missionary  work  is  a  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  truths  and  beauties  of  the  existing  religion,  that  they  may  be 
used  as  a  point  d’  appui  for  the  special  arguments  and  claims  of  that  with 
which  it  is  desired  to  replace  it. 

However,  whatever  may  be  the  motives  of  the  scientist,  the  truthseeker, 
and  the  propagandist,  they  must  all  use  the  same  methods  of  impartial 
research  ;  and  all  work  together,  even  though  it  be  in  spite  of  themselves, 
for  the  hastening  of  the  day  when  mutual  understanding  and  fraternal 
sympathy,  and  intelligent  appreciation,  as  wide  as  the  world,  shall  draw 
together  in  golden  bonds  the  whole  human  family. 

All  true  study  of  the  facts  of  nature  and  man  is  scientific  study;  all  true 
aspiration  toward  the  ideal  of  the  universe  is  religious  aspiration.  Into  this 
union  of  religious  science  all  men  can  enter — Catholics.  Protestants,  Jews, 
Mormons,  Mohammedans,  Hindus,  Buddhists,  Confucianists,  Jains,  Taoists, 
Shintoists,  Theosophists,  Spiritualists,  theists,  pantheists,  and  atheists, 
and  none  of  them  need  feel  out  of  place;  none  of  them  need  sacrifice  their 
favorite  tenets,  and  none  of  them  should  dare  to  deny  to  any  of  the  others 
a  perfect  right  to  stand  upon  the  same  platform  of  intelligent  and  impar¬ 
tial  inquiry  and  to  obtain  a  free  and  appreciative  audience  for  all  that  they 
can  say  on  their  own  behalf. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  about  the  union  of  science  and  religion; 
much  more  important  is  the  union  of  all  men  in  science  and  religion,  of 
which  that  most  remarkable  of  all  human  assemblies  which  this  building 
now  shelters  is  a  glorious  illustration. 

And  may  this  union  become  ever  closer  until,  under  the  sBgis  of  the  true 
brotherhood,  that  demands  no  surrender  of  cherished  beliefs,  but  only  an 
opening  of  the  mind  and  heart  upon  a  broader  horizon,  the  whole  race  of 
mankind  shall  conscientiously  and  lovingly  work  together  in  the  quest  or 
illustration  of  the  highest  truth  and  in  the  teaching  and  fulfillment  of  the 
supremest  duty. 


THE  ANCIENT  EGYPTIAN  RELIGION, 

J.  A.  S.  GRANT  (bey)  OF  CAIRO,  .EGYPT. 

Manetho,  an  ancient  Egyptian  priest  and  historian,  writing  in  Greek  a 
history  of  his  country  and  people  at  the  request  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus 
(280  B.  C.)  for  the  grand  library  at  Alexandria,  tells  us  that  the  history  of 
Egypt,  as  gathered  from  the  hieroglyphic  archives  in  the  temple  libraries, 
was  divided  into  a  mythical  period  and  a  historical  period.  These  periods 
were  also  subdivided  into  dynasties.  The  mythical  period  had  four  dynas¬ 
ties  and  the  historical  period  had  thirty,  down  to  Nectanebo  II.,  the  last 
Pharaoh  of  Egyptian  blood. 

As  the  ancient  Egyptian  religious  beliefs  have  their  foundation  in  the 
mythical  period,  I  shall  confine  myself  to  that  particular  division  of  the 
history,  leaving  out  only  the  prehistoric  dynasty  that  does  not  come  within 
the  scope  of  this  paper. 


262 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Here,  then,  is  Mai:ctho’s  way  of  putting  it: 

ANCIENT  EGYPTIAN  HISTORY. 

I.  THE  MTTHTCAIi  PERIOD. 

1st  Dynasty— A  Dynasty  of  Gods  (Elohim  in  Hebrew),  as  rulers,  probably 
over  nature  and  the  lower  creation. 

2d  Dynasty— A  Dynasty  of  Gods,  as  rulers  over  a  higher  creation,  as  Man. 
3d  Dynasty— A  Dynasty  of  Demi-Gods,  as  rulers  over  Man  as  a  race. 

4th  Dynasty— A  Dynasty  of  Prehistoric  Kings,  as  rulers  over  communi¬ 
ties  of  men. 

We  see  in  this  profane  history  of  Manetho  transitions  that  he  himself 
does  not  explain,  but  that  now  are  made  clear  by  the  latest  light  thrown  on 
the  religion  of  the  ancient  Egyptians.  Let  me  then  give  you  a  running 
commentary  on  the  above. 

The  first  dynasty,  that  lasted  a  great  many  Sothic  Cycles,  was  taken  up 
with  the  creation  of  the  world  under  the  Gods  (Elohim). 

The  second  dynasty  probably  became  so  through  some  great  change 
that  took  place  on  the  creation  of  man.  The  Gods  now  were  ruling  over 
while  at  the  same  time  they  had  free  intercourse  with  man. 

Here  Manetho’s  division  of  his  history  might  have  stopped,  and  if  so  we 
should  have  had  at  the  present  day  the  second  dynasty  of  the  mythical 
period  still  continuing,  i.  e.,  God  ruling  over  and  having  free  intercourse 
with  unfallen  man;  but  no,  it  was  destined  otherwise. 

It  appears,  from  some  cause  unrecorded  by  Manetho,  that  the  Gods 
were  obliged  to  withdraw  themselves  from  man  and  have  no  further  inter¬ 
course  with  him.  Man,  however,  being  naturally  religious,  was  ill  at  ease, 
owing  to  the  withdrawal  of  his  Gods.  And  the  Gods  had  pity  on  him,  so, 
as  he  could  no  more  raise  himself  to  the  level  of  the  Gods,  the  Gods  lowered 
themselves  by  partaking  of  his  nature,  and  thus  they  came  again  to  the 
earth  to  rule  over  and  have  friendly  intercourse  with  man. 

This  introduces  us  to  the  third  dynasty,  or  dynasty  of  Demi-Gods 
This  was  taught  to  the  people  thus:  The  Sky  was  deified  and  called  Nut,  a 
goddess,  while  the  Earth  was  deified  and  called  Seb,  a  god.  Seb  and  Nut 
now  appear  as  husband  and  wife,  and  have  a  large  family  of  sons  and 
daughters,  who  are  partly  terrestrial  and  partly  celestial,  sharing  the 
natures  of  father  and  mother.  This  is  the  family  of  Demi-Gods  that  intro¬ 
duces  the  third  dynasty  of  Manetho’s  mythical  period.  The  names  of  the 
more  prominent  among  them  are  Osiris  (male),  Isis  (female).  Set  (male), 
Nephthys  (female). 

This  part  of  the  myth  has  been  put  into  verse  by  a  Scottish  bard,  thus: 

A  new  relationship,  yet  old. 

In  ancient  story  hath  been  told: 

The  Bky’s  descent  to  meet  the  Earth, 

And  shower  its  blessings  on  each  hearth. 

Its  azure  hue  beams  on  its  face, 

.  While  o’er  the  earth  in  close  embrace 

It  bends  and  holds  with  loving  clasp 
The  rounded  globe  within  its  grasp. 

Could  we  discern  these  movements  made 
As  zephyrs  waft  o’er  hill  and  glade 
The  loving  whispers  sent  from  heaven, 

Of  peace  on  earth,  of  sins  forgiven; 

We  might  not  think  the  Egyptians  wrong 
Who  led  the  Sky  in  nuptial  song 
The  Earth  to  wed;  and  thus  began 
A  race,  at  once  both  God  and  Man 
(The  offspring  of  this  union  fair) 

On  Earth  to  dwell,  for  man  to  care. 

In  this  family  of  Demi-Gods,  Osiris  took  the  lead  and  ruled.  He  mar¬ 
ried  his  sister,  Iris,  but  we  do  not  read  of  their  having  any  children  during 
their  married  life.  Osiris  was  the  personification  of  eveaything  good.  He 
and  his  brothers  and  sisters  had  their  seat  of  government  at  Abydos,  in 
Upper  Egypt;  but  Osiris  was  always  going  on  journeys  to  do  his  people 
good,  and  more  especially  to  teach  them  agriculture.  They  were  a  happy 


Kind 
of  -! 
Evolu¬ 
tion. 


THE  ANCIENT  EGYPTIAN  RELIGION. 


263 


family  and  lived  in  paradise — peace  and  concord — until  undue  ambition  on 
the  part  of  Set  made  him  consjjire  against  his  brother  Osiris  and  kill  him. 
Set  now  becomes  the  personihcation  of  Satan,  or  the  evil  one,  and  usurped 
the  place  of  Osiris.  This  is  a  parallel  of  the  apocalyptic  rebellion  in  heaven 
and  the  rule  of  Satan  on  the  earth.  Isis  was  in  great  distress  and  wept 
over  the  dead  body  of  her  husband,  and  while  thus  engaged  she  became 
miraculously  pregnant  and  in  due  time  gave  birth  to  Horus,  who  was  des¬ 
tined  to  wage  war  against  Set  and  to  overcome  him.  Being  Demi-Gods, 
however,  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  could  be  annihilated;  so  Seb  came 
and  arbitrated  between  them,  and  decided  that  they  both  should  have  place 
and  power.  This  was  by  way  of  explaining  the  continuance  of  good  and 
evil  on  the  earth.  Although  Osiris  was  killed,  in  so  far  as  his  earthly  body 
was  concerned,  yet  he  appears  in  the  nether  world  as  judge  of  the  dead, 
and  Horus,  his  son,  is  represented  in  the  world  of  spirits  introducing  the 
justified  ones  to  his  father.  Here  Osiris  takes  the  place  of  the  Christian 
Messiah,  and  is  offered  up  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin. 

The  Osirian  myth  was  also  allegorically  explained  by  a  solar  myth. 
Osiris,  after  his  death,  became  “  the  sun  of  the  night,”  and  appeared  no 
more  upon  the  earth  in  his  own  pei'soD,  but  in  that  of  his  son  Horus,  who 
was  “the  sun  at  sunrise,”  as  the  dispeller  of  darkness — to  bring  light  and 
life  to  the  whole  world,  and  to  destroy  the  power  of  Set.  Osiris,  after  his 
death,  was  Ra,  the  sun  of  the  day.  Isis,  the  wife  of  Osiris,  was  the  moon 
goddess,  and  all  the  Pharaohs  were  deified  and  looked  upon  as  the  person¬ 
ification  of  Ra  upon  the  earth.  (Here  we  have  the  origin  of  the  divine 
right  of  kings.) 

The  belief  in  the  death  of  Osiris  on  account  of  sin  was  the  only  atoning 
sacrifice  in  the  Egyptian  religion.  All  the  other  sacrifices  were  sacrifices 
of  thanksgiving,  in  which  they  offered  to  the  Gods  flowers,  fruits,  meat,  and 
drink;  for  they  thought  the  gods  had  need  of  such  things,  as  the  Egyptians 
believed  spiritual  beings  lived  on  the  spiritual  essences  of  material  things. 

Besides  these  beliefs,  the  ancient  Egyptians  had  a  moral  code  in  which 
not  one  of  the  Christian  virtues  is  forgotten — piety,  charity,  sobriety,  gen¬ 
tleness,  self-command  in  word  and  action,  chastity,  the  protection  of  the 
weak,  benevolence  toward  the  needy,  deference  to  superiors,  respect  for 
property — in  its  minutest  details,  etc. 

Osiris,  Isis,  and  Horus,  i.  e.,  father,  mother,  and  son,  were  worshiped 
universally  as  a  triad;  and  Isis,  so  frequently  represented  with  Horus  as  a 
suckling  child  on  her  knee,  gave  origin  to  the  combination  of  the  Madonna 
and  Infant  on  her  knee  in  the  Christian  religion. 

This  worship  of  the  Madonna  was  a  cunning  device  to  gain  over  the 
pagans  to  Christianity,  who  saw  in  their  Isis  or  Ashtaroth,  as  the  case 
might  be.  (The  Ptolemies,  about  four  centuries  before  this,  adopted  a 
similar  trick  to  unife  the  Egyptians  and  Greeks  in  their  cultus,  and  when 
Egypt  came  under  the  sway  of  the  Romans  they  adopted  the  tactics  of  the 
Greeks.) 

Again,  the  ancient  Egyptians  believed  that  the  living  human  body  con¬ 
sisted  of  three  parts:  (I),  Sahoo,  the  fleshy,  substantial  body — the  mummi¬ 
fied  body;  (2),  Ka,  the  double.  It  was  the  exact  counterpart  of  the  sub¬ 
stantial  body,  only  it  was  spiritual  and  could  not  be  seen.  It  was  an  intel¬ 
ligence  that  permeated  all  through  the  body  and  guided  its  different  physi¬ 
cal  functions,  such  as  digestion,  etc.  It  corresponded  to  what  we  call  “  the 
physical  life.”  (3),  Ba.  The  Ba  corresponds  to  our  soul,  or,  rather,  spirit; 
that  part  of  our  nature  which  fits  us  for  union  with  God. 

When  the  Sahoo  died  the  Ka  and  the  Ba  continued  to  live,  but  separated 
from  each  other.  The  Ba,  after  the  death  of  the  body,  took  flight  from  this 
earth  to  go  to  the  judgment  hall  of  Osiris  in  Armenia,  there  to  be  judged  as 
to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body,  whether  they  had  been  good  or  bad.  The 
justified  soul  was  admitted  into  the  ])resenco  of  Osiris,  and  made  daily 


2G4 


THE  1>ARLIAMENT  OE' RELIGIONS. 


progress  in  the  celestial  life,  as  represented  by  different  heavenly  mansions, 
which  the  soul  entered  by  successive  gates,  if  it  could  pronounce  the  special 
prayers  necessary  for  opening  these  gates. 

There  were  still  obstacles  in  the  path,  but  these  were  easily  overcome 
by  the  soul  assuming  the  form  of  the  Deity.  And,  in  fact,  the  justified 
soul  is  always  called  “the  Osiris,’’  or  Ba-aa,  the  great  one,  i.  e.,  it  became 
assimilated  to  the  great  and  good  God.  The  Ba  was  generally  represented 
as  a  hawk  with  a  human  head  (the  hawk  was  the  emblem  of  Horus);  as  if 
the  seat  of  the  soul  was  in  the  head,  which  was  furnished  with  the  hawk’s 
body,  whereby  it  was  able  to  fly  away  from  the  earth  to  be  with  Horus. 

The  Ka,  which  means  double,  was  represented  by  two  human  arms  ele¬ 
vated  at  right  angles  at  the  elbows.  This  was  to  indicate  that  the 
spiritual  body  was  exactly  the  same  in  every  way  as  the  natural  body, 
just  as  one  arm  is  like  the  other,  only  it  could  not  be  seen. 

The  Ka  was  not  furnished  with  wings,  so  that  it  could  not  leave  the 
earth,  but  continued  to  live  where  it  used  to  live  before  it  was  disembodied, 
and  more  particularly  in  the  tomb,  where  it  could  rest  in  the  mummy  (it 
was  for  this  very  purpose  that  the  Egyptians  preserved  the  dead  body),  or 
in  the  portrait  statues  placed  for  it  in  the  antechamber  of  the  tomb.  The 
Egyptians  believed  that  the  Ka  could  rest  also  in  portrait  statues.  This 
must  have  been  a  great  consolation  to  the  friends  of  those  whose  bodies  had 
been  lost  at  sea  or  in  any  other  way  that  prevented  their  being  embalmed 
and  preserved.  The  Ka  continued  to  hunger  and  thirst,  to  be  subject  to 
fatigue,  etc.,  just  as  when  in  the  body,  and  it  had  to  live  on  the  spiritual 
essence  of  the  offerings  brought  to  it.  It  could  die  of  hunger,  etc.,  but  this 
meant  annihilation  for  the  Ka. 

There  is  some  indication  of  the  future  union  of  the  Ka  and  the  Ba,  for  we 
occasionally  find  the  Ba  visiting  the  mummy  in  the  tomb  where  the  Ka 
dwells,  and  again  we  have  a  divinity  called  Neheb-Kaoo,  which  simply 
means  the  joiner  of  Kas  (probably  to  Bas).  This  may  come  out  more  clearly 
after  further  research. 

There  were  two  grades  of  punishment  for  the  condemned  Ba:  The  more 
guilty  Ba  was  condemned  to  frightful  sufferings  and  tortures  and  devour¬ 
ing  fire  till  it  succumbed  and  was  ultimately  annihilated;  the  less  guilty  Ba 
was  put  into  some  unclean  animal  and  sent  back  to  the  earth  for  a  second 
probation. 

After  the  dead  body  was  embalmed  it  was  a  common  custom,  with  the 
Egyptians,  for  the  relatives  of  the  deceased  to  keep  the  mummy  for  even  a 
lengthened  period  in  the  house,  and  the  place  apportioned  to  it  was  the 
dining-hall,  where  it  served  as  a  constant  reminder  of  death.  And  at  their 
great  public  feasts  a  mummified  image  of  Osiris  was  handed  round  among 
the  guests,  not  only  to  remind  them  of  death,  but  to  indicate  that  the  con¬ 
templation  of  the  death  of  Osiris  would  benefit  them  in  the  midst  of  their 
feasting  and  hilarity. 

While  Osiris  and  Horus  are  represented  as  father  and  son,  they  are  yet 
really  one  and  the  same.  Osiris  was  “  the  sun  of  the  night,”  while  Horus 
was  “  the  sun  of  the  day.”  This  symbolism  simply  taught  different  phases 
of  the  same  deity  ;  for  the  sun  remains  the  same  sun  after  sunset  as  it  was 
before  sunset,  and  all  the  Egyptians  must  have  known  this.  You  may  get 
people  even  now-a-days  to  believe  in  the  coat  of  Treves,  the  Veronica,  the 
liquifying  of  St.  J  anuarius’  blood,  and  a  thousand  other  cunningly  devised 
fables,  that  do  not  lead  to  higher  beliefs,  but  rather  detract  from  such 
beliefs  when  they  exist.  The  ancient  Egyptians,  however,  although  accused 
of  animal  worship,  saw  in  these  animals  attributes  of  their  one  nameless 
God,  and  originally  their  apparent  adoration  of  an  animal  was,  in  reality, 
adoration  of  their  God  for  one  or  other  of  his  beneficent  attributes ;  and  the 
result  was  elevating,  as  the  history  of  the  early  dynasties  proves. 

Bunsen  says  that  the  animals  in  the  animal  worship  of  Egypt  were  at 


THE  ANCIENT  EGYPTIAN  RELIGION. 


265 


iuflt  mere  symbols,  but  became  by  the  inherent  curse  of  idolatry  real 
objects  of  worship.  Maspero  believes  that  the  religion  of  the  Egyptians,  at 
first  pure  and  spiritual,  became  grossly  material  in  its  later  developments, 
and  that  the  old  faith  degenerated. 

To  clothe  or  symbolize  a  spiritual  truth  is  evidently  a  very  dangerous 
proceeding,  as  we  learn  from  past  history.  The  ancient  Egyptians  figured 
the  attributes  of  their  one  God,  and  in  due  time  each  of  these  figures  was 
worshiped  as  a  separate  deity.  This  constituted  idolatry,  which  led  to  the 
degradation  of  the  Egyptians  and  disintegration  of  their  power.  The 
Elohim  of  the  Hebrews  was  exactly  the  same  as  the  gods  of  the  Egyptians, 
i.  e.,  a  unity  in  plurality  and  vice  versa,  and  God  with  many  attributes. 

The  one  God  of  the  Egyptians  was  nameless;  but  the  combination  of  all 
the  other  good  divinities  made  up  His  attributes,  which  were  simply  powers 
of  nature.  Renouf  says  that  in  the  Egyptian,  as  in  almost  all  known  relig¬ 
ions,  a  power  behind  all  the  powers  of  nature  was  recognized  and  was  fre¬ 
quently  mentioned  in  the  texts.  But  to  this  power  no  temple  was  ever 
raised.  “  He  was  never  graven  in  stone.  His  shrine  was  never  found  with 
painted  figures.  He  had  neither  ministrants  nor  offering,” 

The  Jehovah  of  the  Hebrews  would  correspond  to  the  Egyptian  Osiris. 
Jehovah  is  more  particularly  the  divine  ruler  of  the  Hebrews,  while  Osiris 
was  the  divine  ruler  more  particularly  over  Egypt  and  the  Egyptians,  hav¬ 
ing  his  seat  of  government  in  Egypt.  These  two  names  were  held  so  sacred 
that  they  were  never  pronounced,  and  in  the  ancient  Egyptian  religion  this 
superstition  was  carried  to  such  an  extent  that  sculptor  and  scribe  always 
spelled  the  name  Osiris  backwards,  i.  e.,  instead  of  “As-ari,”  made  it  “Ari-as.” 

We  don’t  know,  I  believe,  how  Jehovah  should  be  spelled  or  pro¬ 
nounced,  and  therefore  we  do  not  know  its  etymology;  but  some  scholars 
trace  it  through  the  Phoenician,  to  an  appellation  for  the  sun.  Now  Osiris 
was  a  solar  deity,  and  his  name,  “As-ari,”  means  “  the  enthroned  eye,”  no 
doubt  to  indicate  that  he  is  the  all-seeing  one,  just  as  the  sun  in  the 
heavens  throws  light  on  everything  and  rules  the  seasons  for  the  benefit  of 
man. 

Jehovah-Elohim  in  the  Hebrew  religion  would  be  Osiris-Ra  in  the 
Egyptian  mythology.  Elohim  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  in  the 
Hebrew  religion,  while  Ra,  in  Egyptian  mythology,  received  materials  from 
Phthah  to  create  the  world  with.  Ra  v\  as  the  creative  principle  of  Phthah. 
Phthah  was  the  originator  of  all  things,  but  he  worked  visibly  through  Ra, 
just  as,  in  the  case  of  the  Christian  religion,  God  created  all  things  through 
Jesus  Christ. 

“  The  search  for  knowledge  is  only  good  when  it  is  the  seeking  for  truth, 
and  truth  valuable  only  when  it  leads  to  duty,  right,  and  God.  Sleepless 
vigilance  is  the  price  of  liberty.  What  man  knows  of  God  is  from  Christ, 
who  was  able  to  reveal  the  one  to  the  other,  because  He  partook  of  the 
nature  of  each.  Christ’s  doctrine  of  a  Godhead  is  that  of  One  whose  unity 
is  not  the  unity  of  a  monad  but  of  an  organism.  That  God  could  be  God 
in  the  attributes  which  our  modern  consciousness  ascribes  to  him,i.  e.,  that 
He  could  be  ethical,  social,  and  paternal,  involves  the  necessity  of  His 
nature  containing  subject  and  object,  both  of  knowledge  and  feeling;  in 
other  words,  of  a  subdivision  of  His  essence  into  what  we  may  speak  of  as 
persons.” 

Summary:  In  the  ancient  Egyptian  religion,  therefore,  we  have  clearly 
depicted  to  us  an  unnamed  almighty  Deity,  who  is  uncreated  and  self -exist¬ 
ent.  He  is  at  first  ‘represented  by  a  battle-ax,  and  afterward  by  a  dwarf¬ 
ish,  embryonic-looking  human  figure,  and  as  such  he  supplied  materials 
(protolasm)  to  Ra,  the  sun  god,  to  create  the  world  with.  God  dwelt  with 
man  till  man  rebelled  against  Him.  A  god -man  (Osiris),  had  to  come  to 
the  earth  to  deliver  and  do  good  to  man.  He,  however,  was  sacrificed,  hav¬ 
ing  been  killed  by  the  Evil  Principle,  but  only  in  as  far  as  his  human  body 


266 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


was  concerned,  for  he  afterward  appeared  in  the  next  world  as  the  judge 
of  the  dead,  and  his  son  Horus,  who  came  from  his  father’s  dead  body, 
manifested  himself  on  the  earth  as  the  sun  at  sunrise  to  dispel  darkness 
and  destroy  the  works  of  the  wicked  one. 

The  ancient  Egyptian  hope,  both  for  time  and  for  eternity,  was  founded  on 
faith  in  the  Osirian  myth  and  conformity  to  the  code  of  morals  laid  down  in 
the  religious  books.  After  death  the  condemned  soul,  according  to  the  enor¬ 
mity  of  its  guilt,  was  allowed  a  second  probation  or  had  such  punishment 
inflicted  as  ultimately  to  end  in  annihilation;  the  justifled  soul  was  assimi¬ 
lated  into  Osiris,  dwelt  in  his  presence,  and  obeyed  his  commands,  being 
helped  by  angelic  servants  (ushabtioo)  in  carrying  on  the  mystic  husbandry. 
The  justifled  soul  had  to  take  part  in  the  daily  celestial  work,  and  had 
daily  to  acquire  more  knowledge  and  wisdom  to  help  it  in  its  progress 
through  the  mansions  of  the  blest. 

The  illustrations  for  this  paper  graphically  explain  the  influence  the 
ancient  Egyptian  religion  exerted  over  the  religions  that  came  in  contact 
with  it,  more  particularly  by  way  of  grafting  a  great  deal  of  its  symbolism 
on  those  religions;  and  many  of  our  biblical  expressions  are  word  for  word 
the  same  as  we  find  in  the  Egyptian  mythological  texts. 

The  evolution  of  the  emblem  now  used  to  represent  the  Christian  cross 
had  its  origin  in  ancient  Egyptian  symbols  The  fore  and  middle  fingers 
were  used  as  a  talisman  by  the  ancient  Egyptians  to  avert  the  evil  eye.  It 
was  grafted  on  to  the  Christian  religion  as  the  symbol  for  conferring  a 
divine  blessing.  The  winged  disk  of  the  sun  that  overshadowed  the  gate¬ 
ways  of  the  Egyptian  temples  and  that  represented  the  overruling  Provi¬ 
dence  was  called  by  the  Greeks  the  Agathodaemoh,  and  the  Messiah  is 
referred  to  in  the  Bible  as  the  Sun  of  Righteousness,  rising  with  healing  in 
His  wings. 

Besides  these  similarities  in  symbolism  between  the  Egyptian  mythology 
and  other  religions,  mention  might  also  be  made  of  the  sameness  in  plan  of 
an  Egyptian  temple  and  the  tabernacle  of  the  Israelites  and  temple  of 
Solomon.  There  is  also  a  singular  similarity  between  the  cherubim  and  the 
winged  Isis  and  Nephthys  protecting  Horus.  The  ostrich  egg  that  one 
meets  with  so  frequently  suspended  in  Oriental  places  of  worship  has  its 
origin  in  the  mundane  egg  that  Ra,  the  sun-god,  created  and  out  of  which 
the  world  came  when  it  was  hatched. 

The  Pharaoh  (who  was  always  deified),  like  the  Jewish  high-priest,  was 
the  only  one  admitted  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  (Adytum),  there  to  appear 
before  the  symbol  of  Deity  to  present  the  oblations  of  his  people;  for, 
be  it  remembered,  no  one  could  offer  an  oblation  to  the  Deity  but  through 
the  deified  King.  The  temple  processions  and  carrying  of  shrines,  with 
symbols  of  gods  in  them,  formed  a  conspicuous  part  of  the  ancient  Egyptian 
ritual.  Before  the  Pharaoh  entered  upon  a  warlike  campaign  the  image 
that  symbolized  the  warlike  attribute  of  the  Deity  was  carried  in  a  shrine 
at  the  head  of  a  grand  procession  of  priests  and  adherents  of  the  temple, 
and  the  people  bowed  the  head  as  it  passed  and  sent  up  a  prayer  for  a  bless¬ 
ing  on  the  -campaign.  The  “  immaculate  conception  ”  was  accepted  by  the 
ancient  Egyptians  without  a  dissenting  voice:  for  Isis  was  a  goddess,  and, 
therefore,  immaculate,  and  her  conception  of  Horus  was  miraculous. 

Many  of  the  Mohammedan  social  and  religious  customs  are  decidedly 
ancient  Egyptian  in  their  origin.  This  can  easily  be  accounted  for  from 
the  fact  that  the  Prophet  Mohammed  had  a  Koptic  (descended  from 
the  ancient  Egyptian)  scribe  (the  Prophet  himself  was  illiterate,  for  he 
could  neither  read  nor  write)  as  well  as  a  Koptic  wife,  who  must  have 
exerted  some  influence  over  him;  but  apart  from  this  we  must  not  forget 
that  after  the  Mohammedan  conquest  of  Egypt  a  large  proportion  of  the 
half-Chris tianized  Egyptians  were  compelled  (nolens  volens)  to  become 
Moslems,  and  as  there  was  no  change  of  heart,  they  still  clung  to  as  many 


GENESIS  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  CONFUCIANISM.  267 


of  their  religious  customs  and  superstitious  beliefs  as  they  dared  to,  and 
in  this  respect  the  Mohammedan  faith  is  very  elastic. 

Much  more  might  have  been  written  on  this  subject,  and  by  a  more 
competent  hand  than  mine,  but  sufficient,  I  hope,  has  been  brought  to 
light  to  show  the  importance  of  a  careful  study  of  the  dead  religions  that 
probably  had  a  revelation  from  God  as  their  basis,  for  we  believe  that  God 
never  left  Himself  without  a  witness. 


THE  GENESIS  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  CONFU¬ 
CIANISM. 

DE.  EENST  FABER  OF  SHANGHAI. 

He  said  that  he  did  not  expect  Chinese  scholars  to  accept  his 
exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  Confucius  without  scrutinizing 
the  reasons  which  lead  up  to  it.  The  first  part  of  Dr.  Faber’s 
address  was  devoted  to  the  period  of  Chinese  life  before  Con¬ 
fucius.  He  gave  a  historical  resume  of  the  birth  and  growth 
of  Confucianism,  and  after  touching  upon  the  different  schools 
he  treated  exhaustively  of  modern  Confucianism : 

In  order  to  show  the  greater  contrast  in  modern  China  and  its  Confu¬ 
cianism  compared  with  China  in  the  times  of  Confucius  ana  Mencius  and 
their  teachings,  it  seems  best  to  invite  both  Confucius  and  Mencius  to  a 
short  visit  in  the  Middle  Kingdom.  On  their  arrival  Mencius  began  to 
congratulate  his  great  master  on  the  success  of  his  sage  teachings,  but  Con¬ 
fucius  would  not  accept  congratulations  until  he  had  learned  the  cause  of 
the  success. 

He  found  that  the  spread  of  Confucianism  was  brought  about,  not  by 
the  peaceful  attraction  of  neighboring  states,  but  by  bloody  wars  and  sup¬ 
pression.  The  constitution  of  the  state  was  changed  and  ruins  were  every¬ 
where.  He  noticed  splendid  temples  dedicated  to  gods  he  had  never  heard 
of,  while  around  these  magnificent  homes  lived  people  who  were  poor  and 
famine-stricken,  or  who  spent  their  lives  opium-smoking  and  gambling.  He 
found  that  benevolent  institutions  were  mismanaged,  and  that  the  money 
which  belonged  to  the  poor  found  its  way  into  the  pockets  of  the  respecta¬ 
ble  managers  dressed  in  long  silk  robes. 

There  had  been  changes  in  dress  which  chilled  the  hearts  of  Confucius 
and  Mencius.  They  sighed  when  they  saw  women  with  distorted  feet  and 
men  wearing  queues.  As  they  wandered  along  they  found  that  sacrifices 
were  made  at  graves,  and  that  everyone  bowed  down  before  the  genii  of 
good  luck.  In  the  colleges  they  found  that  most  of  the  time  was  spent  in 
empty  routine  and  phraseology.  There  was  no  basis  for  the  formation  of 
character. 

Passing  by  a  large  bookstore  they  entered  and  looked  about  them  in 
surprise  at  the  thousands  of  books  on  the  shelves.  “  Alas !  ”  said  Con¬ 
fucius;  “  I  find  here  the  same  state  of  things  I  found  in  China  2,400  years 
ago.  The  very  thing  that  induced  me  to  clear  the  ancient  literature  of 
thousands  of  useless  works,  retaining  only  a  few,  filling  five  volumes, 
worthy  to  be  transmitted  to  after  ages.  Is  nothing  left  of  my  spirit  among 
the  myriads  of  scholars  professing  to  be  my  followers  ?  Why  do  they 
not  clear  away  the  heaps  of  rubbish  that  have  accumulated  during 
twenty  centuries  ?  They  should  transmit  the  essence  of  former  ages  to 


2G8 


THE  PARLIAMET^T  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  young  generation  as  an  inheritance  of  wisdom  which  they  have  put  into 
jjractice  and  so  increase.” 

Going  into  a  gentleman’s  house,  they  were  invited  to  take  chairs  and 
looked  in  vain  for  the  mat  spread  on  the  ground.  Tobacco  pipes  were 
handed  to  the  sages,  but  they  declined  to  smoke,  saying  that  the  ancients 
valued  pure  air  most  highly.  Seeing  many  arches  erected  in  honor  of 
famous  women,  they  wondered  that  the  fame  of  women  should  enter  the 
streets  and  be  proclaimed  on  highways.  “  The  rule  of  antiquity  is,”  said 
Confucius,  “  that  nothing  should  be  known  of  women  outside  the  female 
departments,  either  good  or  evil.”  Then  they  found  out  that  most  of  the 
arches  were  for  females  who  had  committed  suicide,  or  who  had  cut  a 
little  flesh  from  their  own  bodies,  from  the  arm  or  the  thigh,  as  medicine  for 
a  sick  parent.  Others  had  refused  marriage  to  nurse  their  old  parents. 
Arches  were  erected  to  a  few  who  had  reached  an  old  age,  and  to  a  very 
few  who  had  i)erformed  charitable  works. 

Neither  Confucius  nor  Mencius  raised  any  objection  to  these  arches, 
though  they  did  not  agree  to  some  of  the  reasons  given  for  their  erection. 
They  did  not  approve  of  the  imperial  sanction  of  the  Taoist  pope,  the  favors 
shown  to  Buddhism,  and  especially  to  the  Lamas  in  Pekin,  the  widespread 
superstition  of  spiritism,  the  worship  of  animals,  fortune-telling,  excesses 
and  abuses  in  ancestral  worship,  theatrical  performances,  dragon  festivals, 
idol  processions  and  displays  in  the  street,  infanticide,  prostitution,  retri¬ 
bution  made  a  prominent  move  in  morals,  codification  of  penal  law,  publi¬ 
cation  of  the  statutes  of  the  empire,  and  cessation  of  the  imperial  tours  of 
inspection. 

Then  they  noted  the  progress  of  the  West,  the  railroads,  the  steam 
engines,  and  steamers  of  immense  size  moving  on  quickly  even  against  wind 
and  tide.  “Oh,  my  little  children,”  said  Confucius,  “all  ye  who  honor  my 
name,  the  people  of  the  West  are  in  advance  of  you  as  the  ancients  were 
in  advance  of  the  rest  of  the  world.  Therefore,  learn  what  they  have 
good  and  correct  their  evil  by  what  you  have  better.  This  is  my  meaning 
of  the  great  principle  of  reciprocity.” 


THE  SOCIAL  OFFICE  OF  RELIGIOUS  FEELING, 

PKINCE  SERGE  WOLKONSKY  OF  RUSSIA. 

It  is  the  custom  at  the  congresses  that  whenever  a  speaker  appears  on 
the  stage  he  should  be  introduced  as  the  representative  either  of  some 
government,  or  some  nationality,  or  of  some  association,  or  of  some  institu¬ 
tion,  or  of  any  kind  of  collective  unity  that  absorbs  his  individuality,  and 
classifies  him  at  once  in  one  of  the  great  divisions  of  humanity. 

My  name  to-night  has  not  been  put  in  connection  with  any  of  these 
classifications  and  it  is  quite  natural  that  you  should  ask:  “What  does  he 
represent?  Does  he  represent  a  government?”  No,  for  I  think  that  no 
government  as  such  should  have  anything  to  do  with  the  questions  that 
are  going  to  be  treated  here,  nor  should  it  interfere  in  the  discussions.  Am 
I  a  representative  of  a  nation?  No  I  am  not.  Why  not?  I’ll  tell  you. 
Some  weeks  ago  I  had  the  honor  of  speaking  in  this  same  hall  on  some 
educational  subjects.  After  I  had  finished,  several  persons  came  to  me  to 
express  their  feelings  of  sympathy.  I  recollect  with  a  particular  thought 
of  thankfulness  the  good  faces  of  three  colored  men,  who  came  with  out¬ 
stretched  hands  and  said: 

“We  want  to  thank  you  because  we  ike  your  ideas  of  humanity  and  of 
internationality — we  like  them.” 

If  I  mention  the  fact  it  is  not  because  I  gather  any  selfish  satisfaction 
in  doing  so,  but  because  I  feel  happy  to  live  at  a  time  when  the  advance- 


THE  SOCIAL  OFFICE  OF  RELIGIOUS  FEELING. 


269 


ment  of  inventions  and  ideas  made  such  a  fact  possible  as  that  of  a  stranger’s 
coming  from  across  the  ocean  to  this  great  country  of  the  New  World  and 
being  greeted  as  a  brother  by  children  of  a  race  that  a  few  years  ago  was 
regarded  as  not  belonging  to  humanity.  I  feel  proud  to  live  in  such  times 
and  I  am  glad  to  owe  the  experience  to  America. 

But  that  same  evening  a  lady  came  to  me  with  expression  of  greatest 
astonishment,  and  said  she  was  so  much  surprised  to  hear  such  ideas  from 
a  Russian.  . 

“  Why  so  ?  ”  I  asked  her. 

“  Because  I  always  thought  these  ideas  were  American.” 

“American  ideas  ?  No,  madam;  these  ideas  are  as  little  American  as 
they  are  Russian.  They  are  human  ideas,  madam,  and  if  you  are  a  human 
creature  you  must  not  be  astonished — you  have  no  right  to  be  astonished — 
that  another  human  creature  spoke  to  you  a  language  that  you  would  have 
spoken  yourself.” 

No,  I  am  representative  of  no  nationality,  of  no  country.  I  love  my 
country;  I  would  not  stand  at  this  very  place,  I  would  not  speak  to  you  to¬ 
night  if  I  did  not;  but  our  individual  attachment  to  our  own  country  is  of 
no  good  if  it  does  not  give  to  us  an  impulse  to  some  wider  expansion,  if  it 
does  not  teach  us  to  respect  other  people’s  attachment  to  their  country,  and 
if  it  does  not  fill  our  heart  with  an  ardent  wish  that  everyone’s  country 
should  be  loved  by  everyone. 

Now  remains  a  last  question:  Am  I  representative  of  one  particular 
religion?  I  am  not,  for  if  I  were,  I  would  bring  here  words  of  division,  and 
no  other  words  but  words  of  union  should  resound  in  this  hall.  And  so  I 
introduce  myself  with  no  attributes,  considering  that  after  the  permission 
of  the  president  that  confers  on  a  man  the  right  of  appearing  on  this  stage, 
the  mere  fact  of  his  being  a  man — at  least  at  a  religious  congress — is  a 
sufficient  title  for  deserving  your  attention. 

Now,  we  must  extend  the  same  restrictions  to  the  subject  we  are  going 
to  treat.  First  of  all,  we  settle  the  point  that  we  are  not  going  to  speak  of 
any  particular  religion,  but  of  religious  feeling  in  general  independently  of 
its  object.  Secondly,  w^e  will  not  speak  of  the  origin  of  the  religious  feel¬ 
ing;  whether  it  is  inspired  from  heaven  or  it  is  the  natural  development  of 
our  human  faculties;  whether  it  is  a  special  gift  of  the  Creator  to  man  or 
the  result  of  a  long  process  of  evolution  that  has  its  beginning  in  the 
animal  instinct  of  self-preservation.  The  latter  theory  that  places  the 
beginning  of  religion  in  the  feeling  of  fear  seems  to  prevail  in  modern 
science  and  is  regarded  as  one  of  its  newest  conquests,  although  many  cen¬ 
turies  ago  the  Latin  poet  said  that  “  Primus  in  orbe  deos  fecit  timor.”  A 
remarkable  evolution,  indeed,  that  would  place  the  origin  of  religion  in  the 
trembling  body  of  a  frightened  mouse  and  the  end  of  it  on  the  summit  of 
Golgotha.  We  will  not  contest,  but  we  will  invite  those  who  were  clever 
enough  to  discover  and  prove  this  wonderful  process  of  evolution,  to  pay 
their  respect  and  gratitude  to  Him  who  made  such  a  process  of  evolution 
possible. 

Let  us  not  forget  for  once  that  eternal  question  of  origins.  Do  you 
judge  the  importance  of  a  river  by  the  narrowness  of  its  source?  Do  you 
reproach  the  flowers  with  the  putrifled  elements  which  nourish  their  roots? 
Now,  you  see  what  a  wrong  way  we  may  take  sometimes  in  investigating 
origins.  No,  let  us  judge  the  river  by  the  breadth  and  strength  of  its  full 
stream,  and  the  flower  by  the  beauty  of  its  colors  and  its  odor,  and  let  us 
not  go  back  nor  down  to  darkness  when  we  have  the  chance  of  living  in 
light.  Religious  feeling  is  a  thing  that  exists,  it  is  a  reality,  and  wherever 
it  may  come  from,  it  deserves  our  attention  and  our  highest  respect  as  the 
motor  of  the  greatest  acts  that  were  accomplished  by  humanity  in  the 
moral  domain. 

Two  objections  may  be  urged.  First,  the  human  sacrifices  of  ancient 


270 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


times  that  were  accomplished  under  prescriptions  of  religion.  To  this  we 
must  answer  that  religious  feeling,  as  everything  on  earth  requires  a  certain 
time  to  become  clear  and  lucid;  and  we  can  observe  that  the  mere  fact  of 
its  gradual  development  brings  up  by  and  by  a  rejection  and  condemnation 
of  those  violences  and  abuses  that  were  considered  incumbent  in  those  pre¬ 
historic  times  w’hen  everything  was  but  confusion  and  in  a  state  of  forma¬ 
tion.  The  same  religions  that  started  with  human  sacrifices  led  those  who 
followed  the  development  of  ideas  and  did  not  stick  to  the  elaboration  of 
rituals — to  highest  feelings  of  humanity  and  charity.  Socrates  and  Plato 
wrote  the  introduction  and  Seneca  the  first  volume  of  the  work  that  was 
continued  by  St.  Paul. 

The  second  objection  will  be  the  violences  accomplished  in  the  name  of 
Christianity.  Religious  feeling,  it  will  be  said,  produces  such  atrocities  as 
the  inquisition  and  other  persecutions  of  modern  and  even  present  times. 
Never,  never,  never!  Never  did  Christian  religion  inspire  a  persecution.  It 
did  inspire  those  who  were  persecuted,  but  not  those  who  did  persecute. 
What  is  it  that  in  a  persecution  is  the  product  of  religious  feeling?  Humil¬ 
ity,  indulgence,  pardon,  patience,  heroism,  martyrdom;  all  the  rest  that 
constitutes  the  active  elements  of  a  persecution  is  not  the  work  of  religion; 
martyrization,  torture,  cruelty,  intolerance,  are  the  work  of  politics;  it  is 
authority  that  chastises  insubordination,  and  the  fact  that  authorities 
throughout  history  have  been  often  sincerely  persuaded  that  they  acted 
“  ad  majorem  Dei  gloriam  ”  is  but  a  poor  excuse  for  them,  an  excuse  that  in 
itself  includes  a  crime. 

But  now  let  us  withdraw  the  question  of  religious  feeling  from  history 
and  politics,  and  let  us  examine  it  from  the  strictly  individual  point  of 
view.  Let  us  see  what  it  gives  to  a  man  in  his  intercourse  with  other  men, 
this  being  the  really  important  point,  for  we  think  that  only  in  considering 
the  single  individual  you  really  embrace  the  whole  humanity.  The  moment 
you  consider  a  collective  unity  of  several  or  many  individuals  you  exclude 
the  rest. 

It  is  that  very  desire  to  embrace  all  humanity  that  determined  us  in 
the  choice  of  our  theme.  In  fact,  what  other  feeling  on  earth  but  the 
religious  feeling  could  have  the  property  of  reuniting  all  men  on  a  common 
field  of  discussion  and  on  the»same  level  of  competence?  No  scientific,  no 
artistic,  no  political,  no  other  religious  subject  but  the  subject  we  selected; 
that  feeling  of  our  common  human  nothingness  in  presence  of  that  unknown 
but  existing  being  before  whom  we  are  all  equal ;  who  holds  us  under  the 
control  of  those  laws  of  nature  that  we  are  free  to  discover  and  to  study, 
but  can  not  transgress  without  succumbing  to  their  inexorable  changeless¬ 
ness,  and  who  regulates  our  acts  by  having  impressed  upon  each  of  us  the 
reflection  of  Himself  through  that  sensitive  instrument,  the  human  con¬ 
science.  If  we  appeal  to  one  creed  or  to  one  religion,  we  will  always  have 
either  a  limited  or  a  divided  audience,  but  if  we  appeal  to  the  human  con¬ 
science  no  walls  will  be  able  to  contain  our  listeners.  All  limits  and  divi¬ 
sions  must  fall  if  only  we  listen  to  our  conscience.  What  are  national  or 
political  or  religious  differences?  Are  they  worth  being  spoken  cf  before 
an  appeal  that  reunites  not  only  those  w^ho  believe  differently,  but  those 
who  believe  with  those  who  do  not  believe? 

This  is  the  great  significance  of  religious  feeling  I  wish  to  point  out  to 
you.  Not  the  more  or  less  certitude  it  gives  to  each  individual  of  his  own 
salvation  in  the  future,  but  the  softening  influence  it  must  have  on  the 
relations  of  man  to  man  in  the  present. 

Let  us  believe  in  our  equality;  let  lis  not  be ‘‘ astonished  ”  when  life 
once  in  a  while  gives  us  the  chance  of  experiencing  that  one  man  feels  like 
another  man.  Let  us  wmrk  for  unity  and  happiness,  obeying  our  conscience 
and  forgetting  that  such  things  exist  as  Catholic  or  Buddhist  or  Lutheran 
or  Mohammedan.  Let  every  one  keep  those  divisions  each  one  for  himself, 


THE  BUDDHISM  OF  SIAM, 


271 


and  not  classify  the  others;  if  some  one  does  not  classify  himself,  and  if  he 
^  does  not  care  to  be  classified  at  all,  then  let  him  alone.  You  wont  be 
able  to  erase  him  from  the  great  class  of  humanity  to  which  he  belongs  as 
well  as  you.  He  will  fulfill  his  human  duties  under  the  impulse  of  his  con¬ 
science  as  well  as  you,  and  perhaps  better,  and  if  a  future  exists  the  God 
in  whom  he  did  not  or  could  not  believe  will  give  him  the  portion  of  happi¬ 
ness  he  has  deserved  in  making  others  happy.  For  what  is  morality  after 
all?  It  is  to  live  so  that  the  God  who,  according  to  some  of  us, exists  in  one 
way,  according  to  some  others,  in  another  way,  who,  according  to  some 
others,  does  not  exist  at  all,  but  whom  we  all  desire  to  exist,  that  this  God 
should  be  satisfied  with  our  acts.  And  after  this,  as  the  poet  says: 


For  forms  of  faith  let  foolish  zealots  fight, 
He  can’t  be  wrong  whose  life  is  in  the  right. 


Some  years  ago  an  English  preacher  said  that  times  had  come  when  we 
should  not  any  more  ask  a  man,  “How  do  you  believe?”  but  “Do  you 
believe?”  Now,  we  think  times  have  come  when  we  must  neither  ask  a 
man:  “  How  do  you  believe?  ”  nor  “  Do  you  believe?  ”  but  “ Do  you  want  to 
believe?  ”  And  the  answer  will  be  the  most  unanimous  cheer  that  human¬ 
ity  has  ever  uttered. 

The  Spanish  writer,  Count  Castlar,  says  somewhere:  “Christianity, 
like  light,  has  many  colors.”  We  don’t  pretend  to  be  broader  than  Chris¬ 
tianity,  but  if  Christianity  is  broad  it  is  because  every  shadowing  of  the 
Christian  rainbow  teaches  us  that  humanity,  like  light,  has  many  colors, 
and,  pardon  me  the  joke  in  serious  matters,  in  this  country,  you  know,  you 
have  proved  that  humanity  had  many  “colors.” 

Yes,  Christianity  is  broad  because  it  teaches  us  to  accept  and  not  to 
exclude.  If  only  all  of  us  would  remember  this  principle  the  ridiculous 
word  of  “  religion  of  the  future  ”  would  disappear  once  and  forever.  Of 
course,  as  long  as  you  will  consider  that  religion  consists  in  forms  of  wor¬ 
shiping  that  secure  to  you  your  individual  salvation,  the  greatest  part  of 
humanity  will  declare  that  forms  are  worn  out,  and  that  we  need  a  new 
“religion  of  the  future.”  But  if  you  fill  yourself  with  the  idea  that  religion 
is  the  synthesis  of  your  beliefs  in  those  prescriptions  that  regulate  your 
acts  toward  other  men,  you  will  give  up  your  wanderings  in  search  of  new 
ways  of  individual  salvation,  and  you  will  find  vitality  and  strength  in  the 
certitude  that  we  need  no  other  way  but  the  one  shown  by  the  religion 
that  teaches  us  that  all  men  are  the  same  whatever  their  religion  may  be. 


THE  BUDDHISM  OF  SIAM. 

H.  II.  H.  PRINCE  CHANDRADIT  CHODHARHARN. 

Buddhism,  as  it  exists  in  Siam,  teaches  that  all  things  are  made  up 
from  the  Dharma,  a  Sanskrit  term  meaning  the  “  essence  of  nature.”  The 
Dharma  presents  the  three  following  phenomena,  which  generally  exist  in 
every  being  :  (1)  The  accomplishment  of  eternal  evolution  ;  (2)  sorrow  and 
suffering  according  to  human  ideas ;  (3)  a  separate  power,  uncontrollable 
by  the  desire  of  man,  and  not  belonging  to  man. 

The  Dharma  is  formed  of  two  essences,  one  known  as  matter,  the  other 
known  as  spirit.  These  essences  exist  for  eternity ;  they  are  without  begin¬ 
ning  and  without  end  ;  the  one  represents  the  world  and  the  corporeal 
parts  of  man,  and  the  other  the  mind  of  man.  The  three  phenomena  com¬ 
bined  are  the  factors  for  molding  forms  and  creating  sensations.  The 
waves  of  the  ocean  are  formed  but  of  water,  and  the  various  shapes  they 
take  are’  dependent  upon  the  degree  of  motion  in  the  water ;  in  similar 
manner  the  Dharma  represents  the  universe,  and  varies  according  to  the 


272 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


degree  of  evolution  accomplished  within  it.  Matter  is  called  in  the  Pal' 

“Rupa,”  and  spirit  “  Nama.”  Everything  in  the  universe  is  made  up  of 
Rupa  and  Nama,  or  matter  and  spirit,  as  already  stated.  The  difference 
between  all  material  things,  as  seen  outwardly,  depends  upon  the  degree  oi 
evolution  that  is  inherent  to  matter ;  and  the  difference  between  all  spirits 
depends  upon  the  degree  of  will,  which  is  the  evolution  of  spirit.  These 
differences,  however,  are  only  apparent ;  in  reality,  all  is  one  and  the  same 
essence,  merely  a  modification  of  the  one  great  eternal  truth,  Dharma. 

Man,  who  is  an  aggregate  of  Dharma,  is,  however,  unconscious  of  the 
fact,  because  his  will  either  receives  impressions  and  becomes  modified  by 
mere  visible  things,  or  because  his  spirit  has  become  identified  with  appear¬ 
ances,  such  as  man,  animal,  deva,  or  any  other  beings  that  are  also  but 
modified  spirits  and  matter.  Man  becomes,  therefore,  conscious  of  separate 
existence.  But  all  outward  forms,  man  himself  included,  are  made  to  live, 
or  to  last  for  a  short  space  of  time  only.  They  are  soon  to  be  destroyed 
and  re-created  again  and  again  by  an  eternal  evolution.  He  is  first  body 
and  sjjirit  but,  through  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  all  is  Dharma  and  of 
that  which  is  good  and  evil,  his  spirit  may  become  impressed  with  evil 
temptation.  Thus,  for  instance,  he  may  desire  certain  things  with  that 
force  peculiar  to  a  tiger,  whose  spirit  is  modified  by  craving  for  lust  and 
anger.  In  such  a  case  he  will  be  continually  adopting,  directly  or  indirectly, 
in  his  own  life,  the  wills  and  acts  of  that  tiger  and  thereby  is  himself  that 
animal  in  spirit  and  soul.  Yet  outwardly  he  appears  to  be  a  man,  and  is  as 
yet  unconscious  of  the  fact  that  his  spirit  has  become  endowed  with  the 
cruelties  of  the  tiger. 

If  this  state  continues  until  the  body  be  dissolved  or  changed  into  other 
matter,  be  dead,  as  we  say,  that  same  spirit  which  has  been  endowed  with 
the  cravings  of  lust  and  anger  of  a  tiger,  of  exactly  the  same  nature  and 
feelings  as  those  that  have  appeared  in  the  body  of  the  man  before  his 
death,  may  reappear  now  to  find  itself  in  the  body  of  a  tiger  suitable  to  its 
nature.  Thus,  so  long  as  man  is  ignorant  of  that  nature  of  Dharma  and 
fails  to  identify  that  nature,  he  continues  to  receive  different  impressions 
from  beings  around  him  in  this  universe,  thereby  sufferings,  pains,  sorrows, 
disappointments  of  all  kinds,  death. 

If,  however,  his  spirit  be  impressed  with  the  good  qualities  that  are 
found  in  a  superior  being,  such  as  the  deva,  for  instance,  by  adopting  in 
his  own  life  the  acts  and  wills  of  that  superior  being,  man  becomes  spirit¬ 
ually  that  superior  being  himself,  both  in  nature  and  soul,  even  while  in 
his  present  form.  When  death  puts  an  end  to  his  physical  body  a  spirit  of 
the  very  same  nature  and  quality  may  reappear  in  the  new  body  of  a  deva 
to  enjoy  a  life  of  happiness,  not  to  be  compared  to  anything  that  is  known 
in  this  world. 

However,  to  all  beings  alike,  whether  superior  or  inferior  to  ourselves, 
death  is  a  suffering.  It  is,  therefore,  undesirable  to  be  born  into  any  being 
that  is  a  modification  of  Dharma,  to  be  sooner  or  later,  again  and  again,  dis¬ 
solved  by  the  eternal  phenomenon  of  evolution.  The  only  means  by  which 
we  are  able  to  free  ourselves  from  sufferings  and  death  is  therefore  to  pos¬ 
sess  a  perfect  knowledge  of  Dharma,  and  to  realize  by  will  and  acts  that 
nature  only  obtainable  by  adhering  to  the  precepts  given  by  Lord  Buddha 
in  the  Four  Noble  Truths.  The  consciousness  of  self-being  is  a  delusion,  so 
that,  until  we  are  convinced  that  we  ourselves  and  whatever  belongs  to  our¬ 
selves  are  a  mere  nothingness,  until  we  have  lost  the  idea  or  impression  that 
we  are  men,  until  that  idea  be  completely  annihilated  and  we  have  become 
united  to  Dharma,  we  are  unable  to  reach  spiritually  the  state  of  Nirvana, 
and  that  is  only  obtained  when  the  bodies  dissolve  both  spiritually  and 
physically.  So  that  one  should  cease  all  petty  longing  for  personal  happi¬ 
ness  and  remember  that  one  life  is  as  hollow  as  the  other,  that  all  is  transi¬ 
tory  and  unreal. 


THE  DUDDHIS3I  OF  SIAM. 


273 


The  true  Buddhist  does  not  mar  the  purity  of  his  self-denial  by  lusting 
after  a  positive  happiness  which  he  himself  shall  enjoy  here  or  hereafter. 
Ignorance  of  Dharma  leads  to  sin,  which  leads  to  sorrow;  and  under  these 
conditions  of  existence  each  new  birth  leaves  man  ignorant  and  finite  still. 
What  is  to  be  hoped  for  is  the  absolute  repose  of  Nirvana,  the  extinction  of 
our  being  nothingness.  Allow  me  to  give  an  illustration:  A  piece  of  rope 
is  thrown  in  a  dark  road;  a  silly  man  passing  by  can  not  make  out  what  it 
is.  In  his  natural  ignorance  the  rope  appears  to  be  a  horrible  snake,  and 
immediately  creates  in  him  alarm,  fright,  and  suffering.  Soon  light  dwells 
upon  him;  he  now  realizes  tnat  what  he  took  to  be  a  snake  is  but  a  piece  of 
rope;  his  alarm  and  fright  are  suddenly  at  an  end — they  are  annihilated,  as 
it  were;  the  man  now  becomes  happy  and  free  from  the  suffering  he  has 
just  experienced  through  his  own  folly. 

It  is  precisely  the  same  with  ourselves,  our  lives,  our  deaths,  our  alarms, 
our  cries,  our  lamentations,  our  disappointments,  and  all  other  sufferings. 
They  are  created  by  our  own  ignorance  of  eternity,  of  the  knowledge  of 
Dharma  to  do  away  with  and  annihilate  all  of  them. 

I  shall  now  refer  to  the  Four  Noble  Truths  as  taught  by  our  Merciful 
and  Omniscient  Lord  Buddha;  they  point  out  the  path  that  leads  to  Nir¬ 
vana  or  to  the  desirable  extinction  of  self. 

The  First  Noble  Truth  is  suffering ;  it  arises  from  birth,  old  age,  illness, 
sorrow,  death,  separation,  and  from  what  is  loved,  association  with  what  is 
hateful,  and  in  short,  the  very  idea  of  self  in  spirit  and  matters  that  consti¬ 
tute  Dharma. 

The  Second  Noble  Truth  is  the  cause  of  suffering  'which  results  from 
ignorance,  creating  lust  for  objects  of  perishable  nature.  If  the  lust  be  for 
sensual  objects  it  is  called,  in  Pali>  KamaTanha-  If  it  be  for  super-sensual 
objects,  belonging  to  the  mind  but  still  possessing  a  form  in  the  mind,  it  is 
called  Bhava  Tanha.  If  the  lust  be  pure  for  super-sensual  objects  that 
belong  to  the  mind  but  are  devoid  of  all  form  whatever,  it  is  called  Wib- 
hava  Tanha. 

The  Third  Noble  Truth  is  the  extinction  of  sufferings,  which  is  brought 
about  by  the  cessation  of  the  three  kinds  of  lust,  together  with  their 
accompanying  evils,  which  all  result  directly  from  ignorance. 

The  Fourth  Noble  Truth  is  the  means  of  paths  that  lead  to  the  cessation 
of  lusts  and  other  evils.  This  Noble  Truth  is  divided  into  the  following 
eight  paths:  Right  understanding;  right  resolutions;  right  speech;  right 
acts;  right  way  of  earning  a  livelihood;  right  efforts;  right  meditation; 
right  state  of  mind.  A  few  words  of  explanation  on  these  paths  may  not 
be  found  out  of  place. 

By  right  understanding  is  meant  proper  comprehension,  especially  in 
regard  to  what  we  call  sufferings.  We  should  strive  to  learn  the  cause  of 
our  sufferings,  and  the  manner  to  alleviate  and  even  to  suppress  them.  Wo 
are  not  to  forget  that  we  are  in  this  world  to  suffer;  that  wherever  there  is 
pleasure  there  is  pain,  and  that,  after  all,  pain  and  pleasure  only  exist 
according  to  human  ideas. 

By  right  resolutions  is  meant  that  it  is  our  imperative  duty  to  act  kindly 
to  our  fellow-creatures.  We  are  to  bear  no  malice  against  anybody  and 
never  to  seek  revenge.  We  are  to  understand  that  in  reality  we  exist  in 
fiesh  and  blood  only  for  a  short  time,  and  that  happiness  and  sufferings  are 
transient  or  idealistic,  and  therefore  we  should  try  to  control  our  desires 
and  cravings  and  endeavor  to  be  good  and  kind  toward  our  fellow-creatures. 

By  right  speech  is  meant  that  we  are  always  to  speak  the  truth,  never 
to  incite  one’s  anger  toward  others,  but  always  to  speak  of  things  useful, 
and  never  use  harsh  words  destined  to  hurt  the  feelings  of  others. 

By  right  acts  is  meant  that  we  should  never  harm  our  fellow -creatures, 
neither  steal,  take  life,  nor  commit  adultery.  Temperance  and  celibacy  are 
also  enjoined. 


274 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


By  right  way  of  earning  a  livelihood  is  meant  that  we  are  always  to  be 
honest  and  never  to  use  wrongful  or  guilty  means  to  attain  an  end. 

By  right  efforts  is  meant  that  we  are  to  persevere  in  our  endeavors  to  do 
good,  and  to  mend  our  conduct  should  we  ever  have  strayed  from  the  path 
of  virtue. 

By  right  meditation  is  meant  that  we  should  always  look  upon  life  as 
being  temporary,  consider  our  existence  as  a  source  of  suffering,  and  there¬ 
fore  endeavor  always  to  calm  our  minds  that  may  be  excited  by  the  sense 
of  pleasure  or  pain. 

Right  state  of  mind  is  meant  that  we  should  be  firm  in  our  belief  and  be 
strictly  indifferent  both  to  the  sense  or  feeling  of  pleasure  and  pain. 

It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  enter  into  further  details  on  the  Pour 
Noble  Truths;  it  would  require  too  much  time.  T  will,  therefore,  merely 
summarize  their  meanings  and  say  that  sorrov/  and  sufferings  are  mainly 
due  to  ignorance,  which  creates  in  our  minds  lust,  anger,  and  other  evils. 
The  extermination  of  all  sorrow  and  suffering  and  of  all  happiness  is 
attained  by  the  eradication  of  ignorance  and  its  evil  consequences,  and  by 
replacing  it  with  cultivation,  knowledge,  contentment,  and  love. 

Now  comes  the  question,  what  is  good  and  what  is  evil?  Every  act,  speech, 
or  thought  derived  from  falsehood,  or  that  which  is  injurious  to  others  is  evil. 
Every  act,  speech,  or  thought  derived  from  truth  and  that  which  is  not 
injurious  to  others  is  good.  Buddhism  teaches  that  lust  prompts  avarice; 
anger  creates  animosity;  ignorance  produces  false  ideas.  These  are  called 
evils  because  they  cause  pain.  On  the  other  hand,  contentment  prompts 
charity;  love  creates  kindness;  knowledge  produces  progressive  ideas. 
These  are  called  good  because  they  give  pleasure. 

The  teachings  of  Buddhism  on  morals  are  numerous,  and  are  divided 
into  three  groups  of  advantages;  The  advantage  to  be  obtained  in  the 
present  life,  the  advantage  to  be  obtained  in  the  future  life,  and  the  advan¬ 
tage  to  be  obtained  in  all  eternity.  For  each  of  these  advantages  there  are 
recommended  numerous  paths  to  be  followed  by  those  who  aspire  to  any 
one  of  them.  I  will  only  quote  a  few  examples: 

To  those  who  aspire  to  advantages  in  the  present  life  Buddhism  recom¬ 
mends  intelligence,  economy,  expenditure  suitable  to  one’s  income,  and  asso¬ 
ciation  with  the  good. 

To  those  who  aspire  to  the  advantages  of  the  future  life  are  recommended 
charity,  kindness,  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong. 

To  those  who  wish  to  enjoy  the  everlasting  advantages  in  all  eternity  are 
recommended  purity^of  conduct,  of  mind,  and  of  knowledge. 

Allow  me  now  to  say  a  few  words  on  the  duties  of  man  toward  his  wife 
and  family  as  preached  by  the  Eord  Buddha  himself  to  the  lay  disciples  in 
different  discourses,  or  Suttas,  as  they  are  called  in  Pali.  They  belong  to 
the  group  of  advantages  of  present  life, 

A  good  man  is  characterized  by  seven  qualities.  He  should  not  be 
loaded  with  faults,  he  should  be  free  from  laziness,  he  should  not  boast  of  his 
knowledge,  he  should  be  truthful,  benevolent,  content,  and  should  aspire  to 
all  that  is  useful. 

A  husband  should  honor  his  wife,  never  insult  her,  never  displease  her, 
make  her  mistress  of  the  house,  and  provide  for  her.  On  her  part,  a  wife 
ought  to  be  cheerful  toward  him  when  he  works,  entertain  his  friends,  and 
care  for  his  dependents,  to  never  do  anything  he  does  not  wish,  to  take 
good  care  of  the  wealth  he  has  accumulated,  not  to  be  idle,  but  always 
cheerful  when  at  work  herself. 

Parents  in  old  age  expect  their  children  to  take  care  of  them,  to  do  all 
their  work  and  business,  to  maintain  the  household,  and,  after  death, 
to  do  honor  to  their  remains  by  being  charitable.  Parents  help  their 
children  by  preventing  them  from  doing  sinful  acts,  by  guiding  them  in 
the  path  of  virtue,  by  educating  them,  by  providing  them  with  husbands 
and  wives  suitable  to  them,  by  leaving  them  legacies. 


SERIOUS  STUDY  OF  ALL  RELIGIONS. 


275 


When  poverty,  accident,  or  misfortune  befalls  man,  the  Buddhist  is 
taught  to  bear  it  with  patience,  and  if  these  are  brought  on  by  himself  it 
is  his  duty  to  discover  their  causes  and  try,  if  possible,  to  remedy  them. 
If  the  causes,  however,  are  not  to  be  found  here  in  this  life  he  must 
account  for  them  by  the  wrongs  done  in  his  former  existence. 

Temperance  is  enjoined  upon  all  Buddhists  for  the  reason  that  the  habit 
of  using  intoxicating  things  tends  to  lower  the  mind  to  the  level  of  that  of 
an  idiot,  a  madman,  or  an  evil  spirit. 

These  are  some  of  the  doctrines  and  moralities  taught  by  Buddhism, 
which  I  hope  will  give  you  an  idea  of  the  scope  of  the  Lord  Buddha’s 
teachings.  In  closing  this  brief  paper,  I  earnestly  wish  you  all,  my  brother 
religionists,  the  enjoyment  of  long  life,  happiness,  and  prosperity. 


THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  A  SERIOUS  STUDY  OF  ALL 

RELIGIONS. 

MRS.  ELIZA  R.  SUNDERLAND,  PH.  D.,  OP  ANN  ARBOR,  MICH. 

My  thesis  bears  the  impress  of  the  19th  century — the  century  par  excel¬ 
lence  in  scientific  research  and  classification,  which  has  given  us  the  new 
lessons  of  the  telescope,  the  spectroscope,  and  stellar  photography;  the  new 
earth  of  geology,  chemistry,  mineralogy,  botany,  and  zoology,  and  the  new 
humanity  of  ethnology,  philology,  psychology,  and  hierology. 

But  the  19th  century  is  not  the  high  tide  of  that  medieval  renaissance 
which  aroused  the  mind  of  Europe  from  its  long  slumber,  hanging  in  its 
sky  a  banner  bearing  only  a  mighty  interrogation  point  with  the  words,  “By 
this  sign  conquer.”  Under  the  lead  of  this  banner  the  medieval  church 
was  challenged  to  give  reason  why  each  individual  soul  should  not  inquire 
and  decide  freely  for  itseTf  in  matters  of  religion,  and  the  Protestant 
Reformation  resulted.  The  old  established  monarchies  of  Europe  were 
asked  to  give  reason  why  the  many  should  live  and  toil  and  die  for  the  few, 
and  modern  republicanism  was  born. 

Earth  and  air  and  sea  were  asked  to  give  reason  why  man  should  not 
enter  into  his  birthright  of  ownership  of  all  physical  nature,  and  steam¬ 
ship  and  steam  car,  telegraph  and  telephone  came  as  title  deeds  to  man’s 
sovereignty. 

Onward  moves  the  victorious  banner,  and  collective  humanity  is  asked 
to  show  its  face  and  give  reason  why  it  is  black  and  brown  and  white  ;  to 
produce  its  languages  and  give  reasons  for  such  infinite  variety  ;  to  draw 
aside  the  curtain  from  its  holy  of  holies,  pronounce  its  most  sacred  names, 
recount  its  myths,  recite  its  mythologies,  explain  its  symbols,  describe  its 
rites,  sing  its  hymns,  pray  its  prayers,  and,  finally,  give  up  its  life  history  of 
origins  and  transformations.  Such  in  brief  is  the  work  of  the  19th  century. 

What  is  the  value  of  this  work?  I  am  asked  to  respond  only  for  one 
department  of  it,  namely — that  of  hierology,  or  the  comparative  study  of 
religions. 

What  is  the  value  and  importance  of  a  comparative  study  of  religions? 
What  lessons  has  it  to  teach?  I  may  answer,  first,  that  the  results  of  hie¬ 
rology  form  part  of  the  great  body  of  scientific  truth,  and  as  such  have  a 
recognized  scientific  value  as  helping  to  complete  a  knowledge  of  man  and 
his  environment;  and  I  shall  attempt  to  show  that  a  serious  study  by  an 
intelligent  public  of  the  great  mass  of  facts  already  gathered  concerning 
most  of  the  religions  of  the  world  will  prove  of  great  value  in  at  least  two 
directions — first,  as  a  means  of  general,  second,  as  a  means  of  religious 
culture.  Matthew  Arnold  defines  culture  as  “  the  acquainting  ourselves 
with  the  best  that  has  been  known  and  said  in  the  world,  and  thus  with 


276 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  history  of  the  human  spirit.”  This  is  a  19th  century  use  of  the  word. 

The  Romans  would  have  used  instead  “  humanitas,”  or,  with  an  English 
plural,  “  the  humanities,”  to  express  a  corresponding  thought.  The  school¬ 
men,  adopting  the  Latin  term,  limited  its  application  to  the  languages, 
literature,  history,  art,  and  archieology  of  Greece  and  Rome,  assuming  that 
thither  the  world  must  look  for  the  most  enlightening  and  humanizing 
influences,  and,  in  their  use  of  the  word,  contrasting  these  as  human  prod¬ 
ucts  with  “  divinity  ”  which  completed  the  circle  of  scholastic  knowledge. 
But  the  world  of  the  19th  century  is  larger  than  that  of  medieval 
Europe,  and  we  may  well  thank  Mr.  Arnold  for  a  new  word  suited  to  the 
new  times:  Culture — acquainting  ourselves  with  the  best  that  has  been 
known  and  said  in  the  world  and  thus  with  the  history  of  the  human  spirit. 
This  will  require  us  to  know  a  great  body  of  literature;  but  when  we 
inquire  for  the  best  we  shall  find  ourselves  confronted  by  a  vast  mass  of 
religious  literature.  Homer  was  a  great  religious  poet;  Hesiod  also.  The 
central  idea  in  all  the  great  dramas  of  ^sculus,  Sophocles,  and  Eurijjides 
was  religious,  and  no  one  need  hope  to  penetrate  beneath  the  surface  of 
any  of  these  who  has  not  a  sympathetic  acquaintance  with  the  religious 
ideas,  myths,  and  mythologies  of  the  Greeks.  Dante’s  “Divine  Comedy” 
and  Milton’s  “Paradise  Lost”  are  religious  poems,  to  read  which  intelli¬ 
gently  one  must  have  an  acquaintance  with  medieval  mythology  and  mod¬ 
ern  Protestant  theology.  “Faust  ”  is  a  religious  poem. 

Then  there  are  the  great  Bibles  of  the  world,  the  Christian  and  Jewish, 
the  Mohammedan  and  Zoroastrian,  the  Biahman  and  Buddhist,  and  the 
two  Chinese  sacred  books.  It  is  of  these  books  that  Emerson  sings: 

Out  of  the  heart  of  nature  rolled 
The  burden  of  the  Bible  old ; 

The  litanies  of  nations  came,  * 

Like  the  volcano’s  tongue  of  flame,  ■ 

Up  from  the  burning  core  below. 

The  canticles  of  love  and  woe.  • 

He  who  would  be  cultured  in  Matthew  Arnold’s  sense  of  being  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  the  human  spirit  must  know  these  books,  and  this 
means  a  patient,  careful  study  of  the  growth  and  development  of  rites, 
symbols,  myths  and  mythologies,  traditions,  creeds,  and  priestly  orders 
through  long  centuries  of  time,  from  far-away  primitive  nature  worship  up 
to  the  elaborate  ritual  and  developed  liturgy  which  demanded  the  written 
book. 

But  religion  is  a  living  power  and  not,  therefore,  to  be  confined  to  book 
or  creed  or  ritual.  All  these  religion  called  into  being,  and  it  is  itself,  there¬ 
fore,  greater  than  any  or  all  of  them.  So  far  from  being  confined  to  book 
and  creed  and  ritual,  religion  has  proved,  in  the  words  of  Dr.  C.  P.  Tiele, 
one  of  the  most  potent  factors  in  human  history;  it  has  founded  and  over¬ 
thrown  nations,  united  and  divided  empires;  has  sanctioned  the  most 
atrocious  deeds  and  the  most  cruel  customs;  has  inspired  beautiful  acts  of 
heroism,  self-renunciation,  and  devotion,  and  has  occasioned  the  most 
sanguinary  wars,  rebellions,  and  persecutions.  It  has  brought  freedom, 
happiness,  and  peace  to  nations,  and,  anon,  has  proved  a  partisan  of  tyranny, 
now  calling  into  existence  a  brilliant  civilization,  then  the  deadly  foe  to 
progress,  science,  and  art.  All  this  is  a  part  of  world  history,  and  the 
student  who  ignores  it  or  passes  over  lightly  the  religious  motive  underly¬ 
ing  it  is  thereby  obscuring  the  hidden  causes  which  alone  can  explain  the 
outer  facts  of  history. 

Again  the  human  spirit  has  ever  delighted  to  express  itself  in  art.  True 
culture,  therefore,  requires  a  knowledge  of  art.  But  to  know  the  world’s 
art  without  first  knowing  the  world’s  religions  would  be  to  read  Homer  in 
the  original  before  knowing  the  Greek  alphabet.  Why  the  vastness  and 
gloom  of  the  Egyptian  temples?  The  apjiroaches  to  them  through  long 


SERIOUS  STUDY  OF  ALL  RELIGIONS. 


277 


of  sphinxes?  What  mean  these  sphinxes  and  the  pyramids,  the  rock- 
,iPwn  temple-tombs  and  the  obelisks  of  ancient  Egyptian  art?  Why  the 
low,  earth-loving  Greek  temple,  with  all  its  beauty  and  adornment  external? 
What  is  the  central  thought  in  Greek  sculpture?  Why  does  the  medieval 
cathedral  climb  heavenward  itself,  with  its  massive  towers  and  turrets? 

What  is  the  meaning  of  the  tower  temples  of  ancient  Assyria  and 
Babylon  and  the  mosques  and  minarets  of  Western  Asia?  All  are  symbols 
of  religious  life,  and  are  blind  and  meaningless  without  an  understanding 
of  that  life.  Blot  out  the  architecture  and  sculpture  whose  motive  is 
strictly  religious,  and  how  great  a  blank  remains?  Painting  and  music, 
too,  have  been  the  handmaidens  of  religion,  and  can  not  be  mastered  in 
their  full  depths  of  meaning  save  by  one  who  knows  something  of  the  relig¬ 
ious  ideas  and  sentiments  which  gave  them  birth;  eloquence  has  found  its 
deepest  inspiration  in  sacred  themes;  and  philosophy  is  only  the  attempt 
of  the  intellect  to  formulate  what  the  heart  of  man  has  felt  after  and  felt. 

Let  a  student  set  himself  the  task  of  becoming  intelligent  concerning 
the  philosophic  speculations  of  the  world,  and  he  will  soon  find  that  among 
all  peoples  the  earliest  speculations  have  been  of  a  religious  nature,  and 
that  out  of  these  philosophy  arose.  If,  then,  he  would  understand  the 
development  of  philosophy,  he  must  begin  with  the  development  of  the 
religious  consciousness  in  its  beginnings  in  the  Indo-Germanic  race,  the 
Semitic  race,  and  in  Christianity.  Dr.  Pfleiderer  shows  in  his  “  Philosophy 
of  Religion  on  the  Basis  of  Its  History”: 

There  could  have  been  no  distinct  philosophy  of  religion  in  the  ancient  world, 
because  nowhere  did  religion  appear  as  anindependent  fact,  clearly  distinguished 
alike  from  politics,  art,  and  science.  This  condition  was  first  fulfilled  in  Chris¬ 
tianity.  But  no  philosophy  of  religion  was  possible  in  medieval  Christianity, 
because  independent  scientific  investigation  was  impossible.  All  thinking  was 
dominated  either  by  dogmatism  or  by  an  undefined  faith. 

If  the  germs  Of  a  philosophy  of  religion  may  be  found  in  the  theosophic 
mysticism  and  the  antischolastic  philosophy  of  the  renaissance,  its  real 
beginnings  are  to  be  found  not  earlier  than  the  18th  century.  But  what  a 
magnificent  array  of  names  in  the  two  and  a  quarter  centuries  since 
Spinoza  wrote  his  theologico-political  treatise  in  1670.  Spinoza,  Leibnitz, 
Lessing,  Kant,  Herder,  Goethe,  Fichte,  Schleiemacher,  Schelling,  Hegel, 
and,  if  we  would  follow  the  tendencies  of  philosophic  religious  thought  in 
the  present  day,  Fauerbach,  Comte,  Strauss,  Mill,  Spencer,  Matthew 
Arnold,  Herman  Schopenhauer,  Von  Habtman,  Lotze,  Edward  Caird,  John 
Caird,  and  Martineau.  No  student  who  aspires  to  an  acquaintance  with 
philosophy  can  afford  to  be  ignorant  of  these  thinkers  and  their  thoughts, 
but  to  follow  most  intelligently  the  thought  of  any  one  of  them,  he  will 
need  a  preliminary  acquaintance  with  hierology  through  the  careful,  pains¬ 
taking,  conscientious  work  in  the  study  of  different  religions,  as  has  been 
made  by  such  scholars  as  Max  Muller,  C.  P.  Tiele,  Knenan,  Ernest  Renan, 
Albert  Reville,  Professor  Robertson  Smith,  Renouf ,  La  Saussaye,  and  La 
Sayce. 

If  religious  thought  and  feeling  is  thus  bound  up  with  the  literature,  art, 
and  philosophy  of  the  world,  not  less  close  is  its  relation  to  the  language, 
social  and  political  institutions,  and  morals  of  humanity.  It  is  sacred 
names  quite  as  often  as  any  other  words  which  furnish  the  philologist  his 
links  in  the  chain  of  proofs  of  relationship  between  languages.  It  does  not 
need  a  Herbert  Spencer  to  point  out  that  political  institutions  and  offices 
are  frequently  related  to  religion  as  effect  to  cause;  the  king’s  touch  and 
the  doctrine  of  divine  right  of  kings  are  only  survivals  from  the  days  of  the 
medicine  man  and  heaven-born  chief. 

The  question  concerning  the  relations  of  religion  to  ethics  is  a  living  one 
in  modern  thought  circles.  One  class  of  thinkers  insists  that  ethics  is  all 
there  is  of  religion  that  can  be  known  or  can  be  of  value  to  man;  another 
that  ethics  if  lived  will  of  necessity  blossom  out  into  religion,  since  religion 


278 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


is  only  ethics  touched  with  emotion;  another  that  religion  and  ethics  are 
two  distinct  things  which  have  no  necessary  relation  to  each  other,  and 
still  others  who  maintain  that  there  is  no  high  and  persistent  moral  life 
possible  without  the  sanctions  of  religion,  and  no  high  and  worthy  religion 
possible  without  an  accompanying  high  morality;  that,  whatever  may  be 
true  in  low  conditions  of  civilization,  any  religion  adapted  to  high  civiliza¬ 
tions  must  be  ethical,  and  any  ethical  precepts  or  principles  which  are  to 
helpfully  control  men's  lives  must  be  rooted  in  faith.  A  wide  and  careful 
study  of  the  world’s  religions  ought  to  throw  light  upon  the  problem. 

C.  P.  Tiele,  from  his  study  in  this  field  concludes  that  though  differing 
greatly  among  themselves  in  all  other  ways,  all  religions,  even  the  oldest 
and  poorest,  must  have  shown  some  faint  traces  at  least  of  awakening 
moral  feeling.  From  an  early  period  moral  ideas  are  combined  with 
religious  doctrines,  and  the  old  mythologies  are  modified  in  them.  Ethical 
attributes  are  ascribed  to  the  gods,  especially  the  highest.  Later,  but  only 
in  the  higher  nature  religions,  ethical  as  well  as  intellectual  abstractions 
are  personified  and  worshiped  as  divine  beings.  If,  however,  the  ethical 
elements  acquire  the  upper  hand,  so  that  they  become  the  predominating 
principle,  then  the  nature  religion  dies  and  the  way  is  prepared  for  an 
ethical  religious  doctrine,  i.  e.,  a  doctrine  of  salvation. 

The  ethical  religions  include  all  the  great  historic  religions  and  are 
divided  into  national,  or  particularistic,  and  universalistic.  The  latter,  three 
in  number,  are  the  dominant  religions  in  the  world  to-day.  Of  these  Islam 
has  emphasized  the  religious  side — the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God, 
opposing  to  it  the  nothingness  of  man;  Buddhism  neglects  the  divine, 
preaching  the  salvation  of  man  from  the  miseries  of  existence  through 
the  power  of  his  own  self-renunciation.  Christianity,  in  its  Founder,  did  full 
justice  to  both  sides,  the  divine  and  the  human.  If  the  greatest  command¬ 
ment  was  love  to  God,  the  second,  love  to  man,  was  declared  like  unto  it. 

What  are  the  historic  facts  in  the  case?  Have  religion  and  morality  had 
a  contemporaneous  development  and  in  conjunction;  or  has  the  history  of 
the  two  run  on  distinct  and  divergent  lines?  Who  shall  answer  authori¬ 
tatively  save  the  student  of  the  history  of  religions?  Let  us  question  some 
such.  “  All  religions,  ”  says  C.  P.  Tiele,  “  are  either  race  religions  or  relig¬ 
ions  proceeding  from  an  individual  founder — the  former  are  nature  relig¬ 
ions,  the  latter  ethical  religions.  In  the  nature  religions  the  supreme  gods 
are  the  mighty  powers  of  nature  and,  though  there  are  great  mutual  differ¬ 
ences  between  them,  some  standing  on  a  much  higher  plane  than  others, 
the  oldest  and  poorest  must  have  shown  some  faint  traces,  at  least,  of 
awakening  moral  feeling.  In  some  a  constant  and  remarkable  progress  is 
also  to  be  noticed.  Gods  are  more  and  more  anthropomorphized,  rights 
humanized.  Prom  ah  early  period  moral  ideas  are  combined  with  religious 
doctrines  and  the  old  mythologies  are  modified  by  them.  Ethical  attributes 
are  ascribed  to  the  gods,  especially  to  the  highest.  Nay,  ethical  as  well  as 
intellectual  abstractions  are  personified  and  worshiped  as  divine  beings. 
But,  as  a  rule,  this  happens  only  in  the  most  advanced  stages  of  nature 
worship.  Nature  religions  can  for  a  long  time  bear  the  introduction  into 
their  mythologies  of  moral  as  well  as  msthetic,  scientific,  and  philosophical 
notions;  and  they  are  unable  to  shut  them  out,  for  if  they  did  so  they  would 
lose  their  hold  upon  the  leading  classes  among  the  more  civilized  nations. 

If,  however,  the  ethical  elements  acquire  the  upper  hand  so  that  they 
become  the  predominating  principle,  then  the  old  forms  break  in  twain  by 
the  too  heavy  burden  of  new  ideas,  and  the  old  rites  become  obsolete  as 
being  useless.  Then  nature  religion  mevitably  dies  of  inanition.  When 
this  culminating  point  has  been  reached,  the  way  is  prepared  for  the 
preaching  of  an  ethical  religious  doctrine. 

Ethical  religions  are  communities  brought  together,  not  by  a  common 
belief  in  national  traditions,  but  by  the  common  belief  in  a  doctrine  of 


SERIOUS  STUDY  OF  ALL  RELIGIONS. 


279 


salvation,  and  organized  with  the  aim  of  maintaining,  fostering,  propa¬ 
gating,  and  practicing  that  doctrine.  This  fundamental  doctrine  is  con¬ 
sidered  by  its  adherents  in  each  case  as  a  divine  revelation,  and  he  who 
revealed  it  an  inspired  prophet  or  son  of  God. 

These  ethical  religions  Tiele  divides  into  national,  or  particularistic,  and 
universalistic.  The  latter,  three  in  number,  are  the  dominant  religions  in 
the  world  to-day.  Of  these,  Islamism  has  emphasized  the  religious  side, 
the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God,  opposing  to  it  the  nothingness  of  man,  and 
has  thus  neglected  to  develop  morals.  Buddhism,  on  the  contrary,  neglects 
the  divine,  preaches  the  final  salvation  of  man  from  the  miseries  of  exist¬ 
ence  through'the  power  of  his  own  self-renunciation,  and,  as  it  was  atheistic 
in  its  origin,  it  soon  becomes  infected  by  the  most  fantastic  mythology  and 
the  most  childish  superstitions.  Christianity,  in  its  founder,  d’d  full  justice 
to  both  the  divine  and  human  sides ;  if  the  greatest  commandment  was  love 
to  God,  the  second  was  like  unto  it,  viz.,  love  to  man.  Such  is  a  brief 
resume  of  C.  P.  Tiele’s  account  of  the  mutual  historical  relations  of  ethics 
and  religion. 

Albert  Reville  devotes  a  chapter  of  his  “  Prolegomena  of  the  History  of 
Religions  ”  to  the  same  question.  He  finds  that  morality,  like  religion,  began 
very  low  down  to  rise  very  high;  that  with  morality,  as  with  religion,  we  must 
recognize  in  the  human  mind  a  spontaneous  disposition,  sui  generis,  arising 
from  its  natural  constitution,  destined  to  expand  in  the  school  of  expe¬ 
rience,  but  which  that  school  can  never  create. 

With  the  entrance  of  moral  prepossessions  into  religion,  life  beyond  the 
tomb  becomes  a  place  of  divine  rewards,  and  thus  originates  a  new  chapter 
of  religious  history.  Under  monotheism  the  connection  between  religion 
and  morality  becomes  still  closer.  Here  everything — the  physical  world, 
human  society,  human  personality — has  but  one  All-Powerful  Master.  Moral 
order  is  His  work  by  the  same  right  and  as  completely  as  physical  order. 
Obedience  to  the  moral  law  becomes,  then,  essentially  a  religious  duty. 
Consequently  the  religious  ideal  rises  and  becomes  purified  at  the  same 
time  as  the  moral  ideal.  We  may  even  say  that,  in  the  gospel,  religion  and 
morality  are  no  longer  easily  to  be  distinguished;  upon  the  basis  of  the 
monotheistic  principle  and  the  affinity  of  nature  between  man  and  God, 
the  religion  of  Jesus  moves  on  independently  of  dogma  and  of  rite,  consist¬ 
ing  essentially  of  strictly  moral  provisions  and  applications. 

“ Has  morality  gained  or  lost  by  this  close  alliance  with  religion?”  asks 
Reville,  and  answers:  “In  a  general  way  we  may  say  that  the  characteristic 
of  the  religious  sentiment,  when  it  is  associated  with  another  element  of 
human  life,  is  to  render  this  element  much  more  intense  and  more  power¬ 
ful.”  From  this  simple  observance  we  have  the  right  to  conclude  that  as  a 
general  rule  morality  gains  in  attractiveness,  in  power,  and  in  strength  by 
its  alliance  with  religion. 

True,  unenlightened  religion  has  sometimes  perverted  the  moral  sense 
and  reduced  morality  to  a  utilitarian  calculation.  Most  of  the  religions 
which  have  assigned  a  large  place  to  morality  have  foundered  on  the  rock 
of  asceticism,  especially  Brahmanism,  Buddhism,  and  the  Christianity  of  the 
middle  ages.  Religion  has  sometimes  failed  to  distinguish  between  moral¬ 
ity  and  ritual,  or  morality  and  occult  belief,  and  we  have  the  spectacle  of  a 
punctilious  observer  of  rites  considered  to  be  more  nearly  united  to  God, 
notwithstanding  terrible  violations  of  the  moral  law,  than  is  the  good  man 
who  fails  in  ritual  or  creed.  And  yet,  Reville  concludes  from  thedndividual 
point  of  view,  “the  question  which  the  spiritual  tribunal  of  each  of  us  is 
alone  qualified  to  decide  is,  whether  we  ought  not  to  congratulate  the  man 
who  derives  from  his  religious  convictions,  freed  from  narrowness,  from 
utilitarianism,  and  from  superstition,  the  source,  the  charm,  and  the  vigor 
of  his  moral  life.  Persuaded  that  for  most  men  the  alliance  between  relig¬ 
ion  and  morality  can  not  but  be  salutary,  I  must  pronounce  in  the  affirm¬ 
ative.” 


280 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


If  the  conclusions  of  all  students  of  hierology  shall  prove  in  harmony 
with  the  views  here  expressed  as  to  the  close  connection  in  origin  and  in 
his  lory  between  morality  and  religion,  a  connection  growing  closer  as  each 
rises  in  the  scale  of  worth,  until  we  tind  in  the  very  highest  the  two  indis¬ 
solubly  united,  may  we  not  conclude  a  wise  dictum  for  our  modern  life  to 
be  “  what  God  in  history  has  joined  together  let  not  man  in  practice  put 
asunder.”  Rather  let  him  who  would  lift  the  world  morally  avail  himself 
of  the  motor  power  of  religion,  him  who  would  erect  a  temple  of  religion 
see  to  it  that  its  foundations  are  laid  in  the  enduring  granite  of  character. 

I  come  now  to  the  second  division  of  my  subject,  namely,  the  value  of 
hierology  as  a  means  of  religious  culture.  What  is  religion?  Ask  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  an  ordinary  communicant  of  any  religious  order  and  the  answer 
will,  in  all  probability,  as  a  rule  emphasize  some  surface  characteristic. 

The  orthodox  Protestant  defines  it  as  a  creed,  the  Catholic  a  creed  plus 
a  ritual,  believe  the  doctrines  and  observe  the  sacraments;  the  Moham¬ 
medan  as  a  dogma;  the  Buddhist  as  an  ethical  system;  the  Brahman  as 
caste;  Confucianism  as  a  system  of  statecraft.  But  let  the  earnest  student 
ask  farther  for  the  real  meaning  in  the  worshiper  of  his  ritual,  creed, 
dogma,  ethics,  caste,  and  ethics-political,  and  he  will  find  each  system  to  be 
a  feeling  out  after  a  bond  of  union  between  the  human  and  the  divine;  each 
implies  a  mode  of  activity,  a  process  by  which  the  individual  spirit  strives  to 
bring  itself  into  harmonious  relations  with  the  highest  power,  will,  or  intel¬ 
ligence.  Each  is  of  value  in  just  so  far  as  it  is  able  to  inaugurate  some 
felt  relation  between  the  worshiper  and  the  super-human  powers  in  which 
he  believes.  In  the  language  of  philosophy  each  is  a  seeking  for  a  recon¬ 
ciliation  of  the  ego  and  the  non-ego. 

The  earnest  student  will  find  many  resemblances  between  all  these 
communions,  his  own  included.  They  all  started  from  the  same  simple 
germ;  they  have  all  had  a  life  history  which  can  be  traced,  which  is  in  a 
true  sense  a  development  and  whose  laws  can  be  formulated;  they  all  have 
sought  outward  expression  for  the  religious  yearning  and  have  all  found  it 
in  symbol,  rite,  myth,  tradition,  creed.  The  result  of  such  a  study  must  be 
to  reveal  man  to  himself  in  his  deepest  nature;  it  enables  the  individual  to 
trace  his  own  lineamentsnn  the  mirror,  and  see  himself  in  the  perspective 
of  humanity.  Prior  to  such  study,  religion  is  an  accident  of  time  and  place 
and  nationality;  a  particular  revelation  to  his  particular  nation  or  age, 
which  might  have  been  withheld  from  him  and  his,  as  it  was  withheld  from 
the  rest  of  the  world,  but  for  the  distinguishing  favor  of  the  Divine  Sover¬ 
eign  of  the  universe  in  choosing  out  one  favored  people  and  sending  to  that 
one  a  special  revelation  of  His  will. 

After  such  study  religion  is  an  attribute  of  humanity,  as  reason  and 
language  and  tool-making  are;  needing  only  a  human  being  placed  in  a  phys¬ 
ical  universe  which  dominates  his  own  physical  life,  which  cribs  and  cabins 
him  by  its  inexorable  laws,  and,  lo!  defying  those  laws  he  steps  out  into 
the  infinite  world  of  faith,  of  hope,  of  aspiration,  of  God.  The  petty  dis¬ 
tinctions  of  savage,  barbarian,  civilized,  and  enlightened  sink  into  the 
background.  He  is  a  man,  and  by  virtue  of  his  manhood,  his  human 
nature,  he  vrorships  and  aspires.  A  comparative  study  of  religions  furnish 
the  only  basis  for  estimating  the  relative  worth  of  any  religion. 

Many  of  you  saw  and  perhaps  shared  the  smile  and  exclamation  of 
incredulous  amusement  over  the  paragraph  which  went  the  rounds  of  the 
papers,  some  months  ago,  to  the  effect  that  the  Mohammedans  w^ere  pre¬ 
paring  to  send  missionaries  and  establish  a  Mohammedan  mission  in  New 
York  City.  But  why  the  smile  and  exclamation?  Because  of  our  sense  of 
the  superiority  of  our  own  form  of  religious  faith.  Yet  Christianity  has 
utterly  failed  to  control  the  vice  of  drunkenness.  Chicago  to-day  is  dom¬ 
inated  by  the  saloons.  Nor  is  it  alone  in  this  respect.  Christian  lands 
everywhere  are  dotted  with  poor-houses,  asylums,  jails,  penitentiaries, 


SERIOUS  STUDY  OF  ALL  RELIGIONS. 


281 


reformatories,  built  to  try  to  remedy  evils,  uine- tenths  of  which  were 
caused,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  drink-habit  which  Christendom  fails  to 
control  and  is  powerless  to  uproot.  But  Mohammedanism  does  control  it 
in  Oriental  lands.  Says  Isaac  Taylor:  “Mohammedanism  stands  in  fierce 
opposition  to  gambling;  a  gambler’s  testimony  is  invalid  in  law.”  And  fur¬ 
ther  :  “  Islam  is  the  most  powerful  total  abstinence  association  in  the 

world.”  This  testimony  is  confirmed  by  other  writers  and  by  illustration. 
If  it  can  do  so  on  the  Western  Continent  as  well,  then  what  better  thing 
could  happen  to  New  York  or  to  Chicago,  even,  than  the  establishment  of 
some  vigorous  Mohammedan  missions?  And  for  the  best  good  of  Chicago 
it  might  be  well  that  Mayor  Harrison  instruct  the  police  that  they  are  not 
to  be  arrested  for  obstructing  the  highway  if  they  should  venture  to  preach 
their  temperance  gospel  in  the  saloon  quarters  of  the  city. 

But  if  a  study  of  all  religions  is  the  only  road  to  a  true  definition  of  relig¬ 
ion  and  the  classification  of  religions,  it  is  quite  as  necessary  to  the  intelli¬ 
gent  comprehension  of  any  one  religion.  Goethe  declared  long  ago  that  he 
who  knows  but  one  language  knows  none,  and  Max  Muller  applies  the 
adage  to  religion.  A  very  little  thought  will  show  the  truth  of  the  applica¬ 
tion  in  either  case.  On  the  old-time  supposition  that  religion  and  lan¬ 
guage  alike  came  down  ready-formed  from  heaven,  a  divine  gift  or  revela¬ 
tion  to  man,  this  would  not  be  true.  Complete  in  itself,  with  no  earthly 
relationships,  why  should  it  need  anything  but  itself  for  its  comprehension. 
But  modern  scientific  inquiry  soon  dispels  any  such  theories  of  the  origin 
of  language  and  religion  alike.  If  the  absolute  origin  of  each  is  lost  in  pre¬ 
historic  shadows,  the  light  of  history  shows  each  as  a  gradual  evolution  or 
development  whose  laws  of  development  can  to  some  extent  be  traced, 
whose  history  can  be,  partially  at  least,  deciphered.  But  if  an  evolution,  a 
development,  then  are  both  religion  and  language  in  the  chain  of  cause  and 
effect,  and  no  single  link  of  that  chain  can  by  any  possibility  be  compre¬ 
hended  alone  and  out  of  relation  to  the  link  preceding  and  following. 

Allow  me  to  illustrate  this  proposition  at  some  length.  I  am  a  Chris¬ 
tian.  I  want  to  know  the  nature,  meaning,  and  import  of  the  Christian 
religion.  I  find  myself  in  the  midst  of  a  great  army  of  sects  all  calling 
themselves  Christians.  I  must  either  admit  the  claim  of  all,  or  I  must 
prove  that  only  one  has  right  to  the  name,  and  to  do  either  rationally  I 
must  become  acquainted  with  all.  But  they  absolutely  contradict  each 
other,  and  some  of  them,  at  least,  the  original  records  of  Christianity  in 
both  their  creed  and  ritual. 

Here  is  one  sect  that  holds  to  the  unity  of  God,  here  another  that  con¬ 
tends  earnestly  for  a  Trinity;  here  one  that  worships  at  high  altars  with 
burning  candles,  processions  of  robed  priests,  elevation  of  the  host,  holy 
water;  adoration  of  the  Virgin  Mother,  and  humble  confessional,  all  in 
stately  cathedrals  with  stained  glass  windows,  pealing  organ,  and  surpliced 
choir;  there  another  which  deems  that  Christianity  is  foreign  to  all  such 
ritual,  and  whose  worship  consists  in  waiting  quietly  for  an  hour  within  the 
four  bare  walls  of  the  Quaker  meeting-house  to  see  if  the  inner  voice  hath 
aught  of  message  from  the  great  enlightening  spirit. 

How  account  for  such  differences  when  all  claim  a  common  source?  Only 
by  tracing  back  the  stream  of  Christian  history  to  its  source,  and  following 
each  tributary  to  its  source,  thus,  if  possible,  to  discover  the  origin  of  ele¬ 
ments  so  dissimilar.  Seriously  entered  upon  the  quest,  we  discover  here  a 
stream  of  infiuence  from  ancient  Egypt,  “  through  Greece  and  Home  bring¬ 
ing  to  Roman  Catholic  Christendom,”  so  says  Tiele,  the  germs  of  the  wor¬ 
ship  of  the  Virgin,  the  doctrine  of  the  immaculate  conception  and  the  type 
of  its  theocracy. 

Another  tributary  brings  in  a  stream  of  Neo-Platonism,  with  its  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Word  or  Logos,  there  a  stream  of  Graeco-Roman  mythology, 
with  a  deifying  tendency  so  strongly  developed  that  it  will  fall  in  adoration 


282 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


equally  before  a  Roman  emperor  or  a  Paul  and  Cephas,  whose  deeds  seem 
marvelous.  Another  stream  from  imperial  Rome  brings  its  gift  of  hierarch- 
ichal  organization,  and  here  a  tributary  comes  in  from  the  German  forests, 
bringing  the  festivals  of  the  sun  god  and  the  egg  god  of  the  newly  develop¬ 
ing  life  of  spring.  Christianity  cannot  banish  these  festivals;  too  long  have 
they  held  place  in  the  religious  conciousness  of  the  people.  She  can,  how¬ 
ever,  and  does  adopt  and  baptize  them,  and  we  have  the  gorgeous  Catholic 
festivals  of  Christmas  and  Easter. 

Christianity  itself  sends  its  roots  back  into  Judaism,  hence,  to  know  it 
really  in  its  deepest  nature  we  must  apply  to  it  the  laws  of  heredity,  i.  e., 
we  must  study  Judaism.  Judaism  has  its  sacred  book  and  our  task  will 
be  easy,  so  we  think.  But  a  very  little  unbiased  study  will  show  us  that 
Judaism  is  not  one,  but  many.  There  is  the  Judaism  which  talks  freely  of 
angels  and  devils  and  the  future  life,  happiness,  or  misery,  and  there  is  the 
earlier  Mosaism,  which  knows  nothing  of  angels  or  devils  and  of  no  future 
life,  save  that  qf  sheol,  in  which,  as  David  declares,  there  is  no  service  of 
God  possible.  Would  we  understand  this  difference,  we  must  note  a  tribu¬ 
tary  stream  flowing  in  from  Babylonia,  and  if  we  will  trace  this  to  its 
source  we  shall  find  its  fountain  head  in  the  Persian  dualism  of  Ormudz 
and  Ahriman,  the  god  of  light  and  the  god  of  darkness,  with  their  attend¬ 
ant  angels.  Only  after  the  Babylonish  captivity  do  we  find  in  Judaism, 
angels  and  a  hierarchy  of  devils. 

Pass  back  through  the  Jewish  sacred  books  and  strange  things  will  meet 
us.  Here  a  “  Thus  saith  the  Lord  ”  to  Joshua,  “  Slay  all  the  Canaanites, 
men,  women,  and  helpless  children,  I  suffer  not  one  to  live.”  “  Sell  the 
animal  that  has  died  of  itself  to  the  stranger  within  your  gate,  but  not  to 
those  of  your  own  flesh  and  blood.”  The  Lord  comes  to  dine  with  Abraham 
under  the  oak  at  Mamre  on  his  way  down  to  Sodom  to  see  if  the  reports  of 
its  great  wickedness  be  true,  and  discusses  his  plans  with  his  host.  Naaman 
must  carry  home  with  him  loads  of  Palistinian  earth  if  he  would  build  an 
altar  to  the  God  of  the  Hebrews  whose  prophet  has  cured  his  leprosy. 

The  Lord  guides  the  Israelites  through  the  wilderness  by  a  pillar  of  fire 
by  night  and  of  smoke  by  day,  lives  in  the  ark  and  in  it  goes  before  the 
Israelites  into  battle,  is  captured  in  the  ark  and  punishes  the  Philistines 
till  they  send  him  back  to  his  people.  The  Lord  makes  a  covenant  with 
Abraham,  and  it  is  confirmed  according  to  divine  command  by  Abraham 
slaying  and  dividing  animals  and  the  Lord  passing  between  the  parts,  thus 
affirming  his  share  in  the  covenant. 

Is  this  the  same  God  of  whom  Jesus  taught?  This  the  religion  out  of 
which  sprang  Christianity?  How,  then,  account  for  the  immense  distance 
between  the  two?  To  do  this  we  must  trace  the  early  Hebrew  religion  to 
its  source  and  then  follow  the  stream  to  the  rise  of  Christianity,  seeking 
earnestly  for  the  causes  of  the  transformation.  What  was  early  Hebrew 
religion?  A  branch  of  the  great  Semitic  family  of  religions.  What  was 
the  religion  of  the  Semites  and  who  were  Semites?  These  questions  have 
been  answered  in  an  exhaustive  and  scholarly  manner,  so  far  as  he  goes,  by 
Professor  Robertson  Smith  in  the  volume  entitled,  The  Religion  of  the 
Semites,”  a  volume  to  which  no  student  of  the  Old  Testament,  who  wishes 
to  understand  that  rich  treasury  of  Oriental  and  ancient  sacred  literature, 
can  afford  not  to  give  a  serious  study. 

The  Semites  occupied  all  the  lands  of  Western  Asia  from  the  Tigro- 
Euphrates  valley  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  They  included  the  Arabs, 
Hebrews,  and  Phoenicians,  the  Aramaeans,  Babylonians,  and  Assyrians.  A 
comparative  study  of  the  religions  of  all  these  peoples  has  convinced 
scholars  that  all  were  developments  from  a  common  primitive  source,  the 
early  religion  of  the  Semites.  This  religion  was  first  nature  worship  of  the 
personified  heavenly  bodies,  especially  the  sun  and  moon  god.  Among  the 
Arabs  this  early  religion  developed  into  animistic  polydaemonism,  and 


SERIOUS  STUDY  OF  ALL  RELIGIONS. 


283 


never  rises  much  higher  than  this;  but  among  the  Mesopotamian  Semites 
the  nature  beings  rise  above  nature  and  rule  it,  and  one  among  them  rises 
above  all  the  others  as  the  head  of  an  unlimited  theocracy. 

If  magic  and  augury  remained  prominent  constituents  of  their  cere¬ 
monial  religion,  they  practiced  besides  a  real  worship  and  gave  utterance  to 
a  vivid  sense  of  sin,  a  deep  feeling  of  man’s  dependence,  even  of  his  nothing¬ 
ness  before  God,  in  prayers  and  hymns  hardly  less  fervent  than  those  of  the 
pious  souls  of  Israel.  Among  the  Western  Semites,  the  Aramaeans, 
Canaanites,  Phoenicians,  seemed  to  have  Jsojourned  in  Mesopotamia  before 
moving  Westward,  and  they  brought  with  them  the  names  of  the  early 
Mesopotamian  Semitic  gods,  with  the  cruel  and  unchaste  worship  of  a 
non-Semitic  people,  the  Akkadians,  which  henceforth  distinguished  them 
from  the  other  Semites.  Prom  the  Akkadians,  too,  was  probably  derived 
the  consecration  of  the  seventh  day  as  a  Sabbath  or  day  of  rest,  afterward 
shared  by  the  Hebrews. 

The  last  of  the  Semitic  peoples,  the  Hebrews,  seem  to  be  more  closely 
related  to  the  Arabs  than  to  the  Northern  or  Eastern  Semites.  They 
entered  and  gradually  conquered  most  of  Canaan  during  the  13th  century, 
B.  C.,  bringing  with  them  a  religion  of  extreme  simplicity,  though  not 
monotheistic,  and  not  differing  greatly  in  character  from  that  of  the  Arabs. 
Their  ancient  national  god  bore  the  name  El-Shaddai,  but  his  worship  had 
given  place  under  their  great  leader,  Moses,  to  a  new  cult,  the  worship  of 
Yahveh.  the  dreadful  and  stern  god  of  thunder,  who  first  appeared  to 
Moses  at  the  bush  under  the  name  “  I  am  that  I  am,”  worshiped  accord¬ 
ing  to  a  new  fundamental  religious  and  moral  law,  the  so-called  Ten  Words. 
Were  this  name  and  this  law  indigenous  to  Arabia  or  a  special  revelation, 
de  novo,  to  Moses?  But  whence  had  Moses  the  moral  culture  adequate  to 
the  comprehension  and  appropriation  of  a  moral  system  so  far  in  advance 
of  anything  which  we  find  among  other  early  Semites?  Nineteenth  cen¬ 
tury  research  has  discovered  an  equally  high  moral  code  in  Egypt,  and  the 
very  name  “  Nukpu  Nuk,”  I  am  that  I  am,”  is  found  among  old  Egyptian 
inscriptions. 

Whatever  its  origin,  this  new  religion  the  Hebrews  did  not  abandon  to 
their  new  home,  although  they  placed  their  national  god,  Yahveh,  by  the 
side  of  the  deity  of  the  country,  whom  they  called  briefly  “  the  Baal,”  and 
whom  most  of  them  worshiped  together  with  Ashera,  the  goddess  of 
fertility.  After  they  had  left  their  wandering  life  and  settled  down  to  agri¬ 
culture,  Yaveh,  however,  as  the  god  of  the  conquerors,  was  commonly  placed 
above  the  others,  though  his  stern  character  was  softened  by  that  of  the 
gentler  Baal.  Well  for  Israel  and  well  for  the  world  that  these  two  concep¬ 
tions  of  deity  came  together  in  J udea  twelve  centuries  before  Christ.  If 
the  worship  of  the  jealous  god  Yahveh  made  the  Jew  stern  and  uncompro¬ 
mising  it  also  girded  him  with  a  high  moral  sense  whose  legitimate  outcome 
was  Israel’s  great  prophets,  while  the  fierceness  itself,  as  gradually  trans¬ 
formed  by  the  gentler  Baal  conception  of  deity,  gives  us  the  final  outcome, 
the  holy  God  who  can  not  look  upon  sin  with  the  least  degree  of  allowance, 
and  yet  pitieth  the  sinner  even  as  a  father  jiitieth  his  children.  If  any  have 
been  perplexed  over  a  religion  of  love,  such  as  Christianity  claims  to  be, 
proving  a  religion  of  bloody  wars,  persecutions,  inquisitions,  martyrdoms, 
mayhap  its  Hebrew  origin  may  throw  light  upon  the  mystery.  Jesus’ 
thought  of  a  God,  a  Father,  could  not  wholly  displace  at  once  the  old 
Hebrew  Yahveh,  the  jealous  god. 

All  the  Semitic  religions,  while  differing  among  themselves  in  the  names 
and  certain  characteristics  of  their  deities,  had  much  in  common.  Their 
gods  were  all  tribal  or  national  gods,  limited  to  particular  countries, 
choosing  for  themselves  special  dwelling  places,  which  thus  became  holy 
places,  usually  by  celebrated  trees  or  living  water,  the  tree,  rock,  or  water 
often  coming  to  be  regarded  not  simply  as  the  abode,  but  as,  in  some  sense, 


284 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  divine  embodiment  or  representative  of  the  god,  and  hence  these  places 
were  chosen  as  sanctuaries  and  places  of  worship;  though  the  Northern 
Semitic  worshiped  on  hills  also,  the  worship  consisting,  during  the  nomadic 
period,  in  sacrifices  of  animals  sacred  alike  to  the  god  and  his  worshipers, 
because  sharing  the  common  life  of  both,  and  to  some  extent  of  human  sac¬ 
rifices  as  well.  The  skin  of  the  animal  sacrificed  is  the  oldest  form,  saj^s 
Robertson-Smith,  of  a  sacred  garment  appropriate  to  the  performance  of 
holy  function,  and  was  the  origin  of  the  expression,  “  robe  of  righteous¬ 
ness.”  Is  this  the  far-away  origin  of  the  scarlet  robe  of  office? 

All  life,  whether  the  life  of  man  or  beast,  within  the  limits  of  the  tribe  was 
sacred,  being  held  in  common  with  the  tribal  god,  who  was  the  progenitor 
of  the  whole  tribal  life;  hence,  no  life  could  be  taken,  save  in  sacrifice  to 
the  god,  without  calling  down  the  wrath  of  the  god.  Sacrifices  thus  became 
tribal  feasts,  shared  between  the  god  and  his  worshipers,  the  god  receiving 
the  blood  poured  upon  this  altar,  the  worshipers  eating  the  fiesh  in  a  joyful 
tribal  feast. 

Here,  then,  was  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  religion.  It  was  not  mono¬ 
theistic,  but  what  scholars  designated  as  henotheistic,  a  belief  in  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  many  gods,  though  worshiping  only  the  national  god.  Thus  a  man 
was  born  into  his  religion  as  he  was  born  into  his  tribe,  and  he  could  only 
change  his  religion  by  changing  his  tribe.  This  explains  Ruth’s  impas¬ 
sioned  words  to  Naomi,  “Thy  people  shall  be  my  people  and  thy  god  my 
god,”  This  idea  of  the  tribal  god,  who  is  a  friend  to  his  own  people,  but  an 
enemy  to  all  others,  added  to  the  belief  in  the  inviolability  of  all  life  save 
when  offered  in  sacrifice,  explains  the  decree  that  an  animal  dying  of  itself 
might  not  be  eaten  by  a  tribesman,  but  might  be  sold  to  a  stranger.  A 
tribal  god,  too,  might  rightfully  enough  order  the  slaughter  of  the  men, 
women,  and  children  of  another  tribe  whose  god  had  proved  too  weak  to 
defend  them.  Life  was  sacred  only  because  shared  with  the  god,  and  this 
sharing  was  limited  to  the  tribe. 

The  Hebrew  people  moved  onward  and  upward  from  this  early  Semitic 
stage  and  have  left  invaluable  landmarks  of  their  progress  in  their  sacred 
books.  The  story  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  tells  of  the  time  when  human 
sacrifices  were  outgrown.  Perhaps  circumcision  does  the  same.  The  story 
of  Cain  and  Abel  dates  from  the  time  when  agriculture  was  beginning  to 
take  the  place  of  the  old  nomadic  shepherd  life.  The  men  of  the  new  call¬ 
ing  were  still  worshipers  of  the  old  gods,  and  would  gladly  share  with  them 
what  they  had  to  give — the  fruits  of  the  earth.  But  the  dingers  to  the  old 
life  could  see  nothing  sacred  in  this  new  thing,  and  were  sure  that  only  the 
old  could  be  well  pleasing  to  their  god. 

The  god  who  dined  with  Abraham  under  the  Terebinth  tree  at  Mamre 
was  the  early  tribal  god,  El-Shaddai.  Naaman  was  cured  of  his  leprosy 
because  the  Jordan  was  sacred  to  the  deity.  It  was  the  thunder  god,  Yah- 
veh,  whom  the  people  worshiped  on  Sinai,  and  who  still  bore  traces  of  the 
earlier  sun  god,  as  he  guided  the  people  in  a  pillar  of  fire.  The  ark  is  a 
remnant  of  fetichism,  i.  e.,  a  means  of  putting  the  deity  under  control  of 
his  worshipers.  They  can  compel  his  presence  on  the  battle-field  by  carry¬ 
ing  the  ark  thither,  and  if  the  ark  is  captured  the  god  is  captured  also. 

A  powerful  element  in  the  development  upward  of  Mosaism  was  proph¬ 
ecy.  The  8th  century  prophets  had  moved  far  on  beyond  the  whole 
sacrificial  system  when,  as  spokesman  for  the  Lord,  Isaiah  exclaims:  “I 
am  tired  of  your  burnt  sacrifices  and  your  oblations.  What  doth  the  Lord 
require  of  thee  but  to  do  justly,  love  mercy,  and  walk  humbly  with  thy 
God.”  Jesus  condemns  the  whole  theory  of  holy  places  when  he  declares: 
“Neither  in  this  holy  mountain  nor  yet  in  Jerusalem  shall  men  think  to 
worship  God  most  acceptably.”  God  is  a  spirit  unlimited  by  time  or  place, 
and  they  who  would  worship  acceptably  must  worship  in  spirit  and  in 
truth. 


SERIOUS  STUDY  OF  ALL  RELIGIONS. 


285 


How  long  the  journey  from  the  early  tribal  sacrificial,  magical,  unmoral, 
fetich,  holy  place,  human  sacrifice  worship  of  the  early  Semites,  including 
the  Hebrews,  to  the  universal  fatherhood  and  brotherhood  religion  of  the 
sermon  on  the  mount  and  the  golden  rule,  only  those  can  understand  who 
are  willing  to  give  serious  study  not  to  the  latter  alone,  but  to  the  former 
as  well.  To  such  earnest  students  there  will  probably  come  another  rev¬ 
elation,  namely,  that  there  is  need  of  no  miracle  to  account  for  this 
religious  transformation  more  than  for  the  physical  transformation  from 
the  frozen  snows  of  December  to  the  palpitating  life  of  June.  They  are 
both  all  miracle  or  none.  The  great  infinite  life  and  love  was  hidden  alike 
in  the  winter  clod  and  the  human  sacrifice.  Given  the  necessary  condi¬ 
tions  and  the  frozen  clod  has  “  climbed  to  a  soul  in  grass  and  flower,”  the 
tribal  god  and  the  tribal  blood  bond  are  seen  in  their  real  character  as  the 
universal  God  Fatherhood  and  man  brotherhood.  What  the  necessary 
conditions  were  only  those  shall  know  who  are  ready  to  read  God's  thoughts 
after  Him  in  the  patient  researches  of  scientific  investigation. 

What  is  to  be  the  future  of  the  religion  which  has  had  so  long  and 
varied  a  history,  from  far-away  Akkad  even  to  this  center  of  the  Western 
hemisphere,  and  from  twenty  centuries  before  Christ  to  this  last  decade  of 
the  19th  century  after  Christ? 

One  contribution  made  by  the  Hebrew  to  the  Christian  Scriptures 
demands  special  notice,  because  it  occupies  so  central  a  place  in  the  devel¬ 
opment  of  the  Christian  system.  I  refer  to  the  record  of  a  first  man, 
Adam,  a  Garden  of  Eden,  a  fall,  an  utter  depravity  resulting,  and  ending  in 
a  universal  flood;  a  re-beginning  and  another  fall  and  confounding  of  speech 
at  Babel.  The  founder  of  Christianity  never  refers  to  these  events,  and 
the  gospels  are  silent  concerning  them.  Paul  first  alludes  to  them,  but  in 
his  hands  and  those  of  his  successors  they  have  become  central  in  the  the¬ 
ology  of  Christendom.  Whence  came  this  record  of  these  real  or  supposed 
events?  Genesis  is  silent  concerning  their  origin.  The  antiquary  delving 
among  the  ruins  of  ancient  Chaldea  finds  almost  the  identical  record  of 
the  same  series  of  events  upon  clay  tablets  which  are  referred  to  an  Akka¬ 
dian  people,  the  founders  of  the  earliest  civilization  of  the  Tigro-Euphrates 
valley,  a  people  not  Semitic,  but  Turanian,  related,  therefore,  to  the  great 
Turanian  peoples  represented  by  the  Chinese,  Japanese,  and  Fins. 

We  started  out  to  make  an  exhaustive  study  of  Christianity,  an  Aryan 
religion  if  named  from  its  adherents;  Semitic  from  its  origin,  we  found  it 
receiving  tributary  streams  from  three  Aryan  sources,  namely,  Alexandrian 
Neo-Platonism,  Pagan  Rome,  and  Teutonic  Germany;  its  roots  were  nurtured 
in  Semitic  Hebrew  soil,  which  had  been  enriched  from  Semitic  Assyria, 
Aryan  Persia,  Turanian  Akkadia,  and  Hamitic  Egypt. 

Its  parent  was  Judaism,  a  national  religion,  limited  by  the  boundaries 
of  one  nation.  It  is  itself  a  universal  religion,  having  transcended  all 
national  boundaries.  How  was  this  transformation  effected?  For  answer 
go  to  Kuenan’s  masterly  handling  of  the  subject,  “National  Religions  and 
Universal  Religions.”  If  our  study  has  been  wide,  we  have  learned  that 
religions,  like  languages,  have  a  life  history  of  birth,  development,  trans¬ 
formation,  death,  following  certain  definite  laws.  Moreover,  the  law  of  life 
for  all  organisms  is  the  same,  and  may,  perhaps,  be  formulated  as  the 
power  of  adjustment  to  environment;  the  greater  the  adjustibility  the 
greater  the  vitality. 

But  this  means  capacity  to  change.  “  That  which  is  no  longer  suscep¬ 
tible  of  change,”  says  Kuenan,  “  may  continue  to  exist,  but  it  has  ceased  to 
live.  And  religion  must  live,  must  enter  into  new  combinations  and  bear 
fresh  fruit  if  it  is  to  answer  to  its  destiny,  if  refusing  to  crystallize  into  for¬ 
mulae  and  usages  it  is  to  work  like  the  leaven,  is  to  console,  to  inspire,  and 
to  strengthen.”  Has  Christianity  this  vital  power?  “  Yes,”  again  answers 
Kuenan,  and  quotes  approvingly  a  saying  of  Richard  Rothe;  “  Christianity 


280 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


is  the  most  mutable  of  all  things.  That  is  its  special  glory.”  And  why 
should  this  not  be  so?  Christianity  has  gathered  contributions  from  many 
lands  and  woven  them  into  one  ideal  large  enough  to  include  all  peoples, 
tender  enough  to  comfort  all,  lofty  enough  to  inspire  all — the  ideal  of  a 
universal  human  brotherhood  bound  together  under  a  common  divine 
fatherhood. 


RELIGIONS  OF  THE  WORLD. 

Mgr.  C.  D.  D’Harlez  read  an  interesting  paper  on  “  The  Com¬ 
parative  Study  of  the  World’s  Religions.” 

It  is  not  without  profound  emotion  that  I  address  myself  to  an  assem¬ 
blage  of  men,  the  most  distinguished,  come  together  from  all  parts  of  the 
world  and  who,  despite  essential  divergencies  of  opinion,  are  nevertheless 
united  in  this  vast  edifice,  pursuing  one  purpose,  animated  with  one 
thought,  the  most  noble  that  may  occupy  the  human  mind,  the  seeking  out 
of  religious  truth.  I  have  under  my  eyes  this  unprecedented  spectacle, 
until  now  unheard  of,  of  disciples  of  Kong-fu-tse,  of  Buddha,  of  Brahma, 
of  Ahura  Majda,  of  Arah,  of  Zoroaster,  of  Mohammed,  of  Naka-nusi,  of 
Laotze,  not  less  than  those  of  Moses  and  of  the  divine  Christ,  gathered 
together,  not  to  engage  in  the  struggle  of  hostility,  of  animosity,  sources  of 
sorrow  and  griefs,  but  to  hold  up  before  the  eyes  of  the  world  the  beliefs 
which  they  profess  and  which  they  have  received  from  their  fathers  and 
their  religion. 

Religion!  Word  sublime.  Full  of  harmony  to  the  ear  of  man,  penetrat¬ 
ing  on  through  the  depths  of  his  heart  and  stirring  into  vibration  its  pro- 
foundest  chords. 

How  goodly  the  title  of  our  programme — World’s  Parliament  of  Religions 
How  true  the  thought  put  forth  by  one  who  took  part  in  its  production. 
“  Comparison,  not  controversy,  will  best  serve  the  most  wholesome  and 
therefore  the  most  divine  truth.”  Parliament!  It  is  in  such  an  assembly 
that  the  most  weighty  interests  of  humanity  are  discussed,  that  their  most 
accredited  representatives  come  to  set  forth  what  they  believe  to  be  most 
favorable  to  their  development,  to  their  legitimate  satisfaction.  Butin  this 
Parliament  of  Religions  it  is  not  the  world  that  is  the  question,  but  heaven 
— the  final  happiness  of  man. 

Let  me  speak  of  the  importance  of  a  serious  study  of  all  systems  of 
religion.  But  first  let  us  ask  if  it  is  useful,  if  it  is  good,  to  give  one’s  self  to 
this  study.  This  is  in  effect  the  question  which  in  Europe  men  of  faith  put  to 
themselves  when  this  new  branch  suddenly  sprouted  forth  from  the  trunk 
of  the  tree  of  science.  At  first  it  inspired  only  repugnance,  or  at  least  great 
distrust,  and  this  was  not  without  reason.  The  opinions,  the  designs  of 
those  who  made  themselves  itc  promoters  inspired  very  legitimate  sus¬ 
picions.  It  was  evident  that  the  end  pursued  was  to  confound  all  religions 
as  works  of  human  invention,  to  put  them  all  upon  a  common  level,  in  order 
to  bring  them  all  into  common  contempt. 

The  comparative  history  of  religions  in  the  minds  of  their  originators 
was  to  be  an  exposition  of  all  the  vicissitudes  of  human  thought,  imagina¬ 
tion,  and  to  say  the  real  word — folly.  It  was  to  be  Darwinism,  evolution 
applied  to  religious  conditions  that  were  generally  held  as  coming  from  God. 
JSaturally,  then,  a  large  number  of  the  enlightened  faithful,  some  of  them 
eminent  minds,  saw  only  evil  and  danger  in  the  new  science.  Others, 
clearer  of  sight,  better  informed  on  prevailing  ideas,  on  the  needs  of  the 
situation,  convinced,  besides,  that  a  divine  work  can  not  perish,  and  that 
providence  disposes  of  things  for  the  greater  good  of  humanity,  welcomed 
without  reserve  this  new  child  of  science  and  by  their  example,  as  by  their 


RELIGIONS  OF  THE  WORLD. 


287 


words,  drew  with  them  into  this  new  field  of  research  even  the  hesitating 
and  trembling.  They  thought  besides,  that  no  field  of  science  should  or 
could  be  interdicted  to  men  of  faith  without  placing  them  and  their  belief 
in  a  state  of  inferiority  the  most  fatal,  and  that  to  abandon  any  one  of  them 
whatever  would  be  to  hand  it  over  to  the  spirit  of  system  and  to  all  sorts 
of  errors.  They  judged  that  any  science,  seriously  controlled  in  its  methods, 
can  only  concur  in  bringing  about  the  triumph  of  the  truth,  and  that 
eternal  truth  must  come  forth,  victorious  from  every  scientific  discussion, 
unless  its  defenders,  from  a  fear  and  mistrust  injurious  alike  for  it  and  its 
divine  author,  abandon  it  and  desert  its  cause. 

To-day  the  most  timid  Christian,  be  he  ever  so  little  in  touch  with  the 
circumstances  of  the  times,  no  longer  dreads  in  the  least  the  chimerical 
monsters  pictured  to  his  imagination  at  the  dawn  of  these  new  studies,  and 
follows,  with  as  much  interest  as  he  formerly  feared,  the  discoveries  which 
the  savants  lay  before  him.  What  study  to-day  excites  more  attention  and 
interest  than  the  comparative  study  of  religions?  What  object  more  pre¬ 
occupies  the  mind  of  men  than  the  one  contained  in  that  magic  word  ? 

Religion  !  In  Christian  countries — and  this  qualification  embraces  the 
whole  of  Europe,  with  the  exception  of  Turkey,  and  all  of  America — three 
classes  of  men  may  be  distinguished  by  their  dispositions  and  attitudes 
toward  religious  questions.  Some  possess  the  truth  descended  from  on 
high,  study  it,  search  into  its  depths  with  love  and  respect ;  others,  at  the 
very  opposite  pole,  animated  by  I  do  not  know  what  spirit,  wage  against  it 
an  incessant  warfare,  and  do  their  utmost  tostifie  it ;  others,  in  fine,  ranged 
between  these  two  extremes,  plunged  into  doubt,  ask  themselves  thank¬ 
lessly  what  there  is  in  these  truths,  which  they  see  on  the  one  hand  exalted 
with  enthusiasm,  and  on  the  other  attacked  with  fury.  In  no  way  formed 
by  education  to  submit  their  intelligence  to  dogmas  which  they  can  not 
understand,  nor  to  regulate  their  conduct  by  inflexible  moral  precepts, 
hearing,  however,  within  them  a  voice  which  calls  upon  them  to  rise  above 
themselves,  they  are  cast  about  upon  the  sea  of  doubt  and  anguish,  in  vain 
demanding  of  the  earth  the  bond  to  cure  the  evil  from  which  their  hearts 
suffer. 

Yes,  this  voice  whispers  to  their  ears  the  most  redoubtable  problems 
that  ever  man  proposed.  Whence  comes  he?  Who  has  placed  him  upon 
rhis  earth?  Whither  does  he  go?  What  is  his  end?  What  must  he  do  to 
secure  it?  Immense  horizons  of  happiness  or  of  misery  open  out  before 
him.  How  manage  to  avoid  the  one  and  reach  the  other? 

Long  did  men  seek  to  stifle  the  whispered  murmurings  of  con¬ 
science.  It  has  triumphed  over  all  resistance.  To-day,  more  than 
ever,  as  it  has  been  so  energetically  said,  “Man  is  homesick  for  the 
Divine.”  The  Divine!  The  •  unbeliever  has  sought  to  drive  it  out 
through  every  pass.  It  has  come  back  more  triumphant  than  ever.  So 
to-day  souls  not  enlightened  by  the  divine  light  feel  an  indefinable  uneasi¬ 
ness  such  as  that  experienced  by  the  aeronaut  in  the  superterrestrial  region 
of  rarified  atmosphere,  such  as  that  of  the  heart  when  air  and  blood  fail. 
Those  who  confide  themselves  to  earthly  pursuits  feel  even  in  the  midst  of 
success  that  something  is  still  wanting — that  is,  whatever  they  say  and 
whatever  they  do  man  has  not  only  a  body  to  nourish  and  an  intelligence  to 
cultivate  and  develop,  but  he  has,  I  emphatically  affirm,  a  soul  to  satisfy. 
This  soul,  too,  is  in  incessant  travail,  in  continual  evolution  toward  the  light 
and  the  truth.  As  long  as  she  has  not  received  all  light  and  conquered  all 
truth,  so  long  will  she  torment  man. 

Those  aspirations,  those  indefinable  states  of  the  soul  in  the  presence  of 
the  dreaded  unknown,  to-day  so  common  in  our  midst,  are,  without  doubt, 
not  unknown  in  the  regions  of  Asia  and  Africa.  There,  too,  rationalism, 
agnosticism,  imported  from  Europe,  has  made  its  inroads.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  such  incertitude  is  not  entirely  new.  Twenty-five  centuries 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


298 

ago  the  Viclist  poet  proposed  the  very  problems  which  to-day  perplex 
the  unbeliever,  as  we  see  in  the  celebrated  hymn,  thought  to  be  addressed 
to  a  god,  Ka,  the  fruit  of  the  imagination  of  interpreters  since  this  word, 
Ka,  was  merely  an  interrogative  used  by  the  singer  of  the  Ganges  in 
asking  what  hand  had  laid  the  foundation  of  the  world,  upon  whom 
depended  life  and  death,  who  upheld  the  earth  and  the  stars,  etc.,  ques¬ 
tions  to  which  the  poet  could  give  only  this  reply,  sad  avowal  of  impo¬ 
tence:  Kavais  Ko  Viveda.  “Sacred  Chanters,  who  knows.” 

We  see  from  these  short  extracts  to  what  a  height  the  reformer  of  Evan 
had  already  raised  himself,  and  how  his  eye  had  already  caught  a  glimpse 
of  many  of  the  mysteries  of  the  metaphysical  and  moral  world;  how  besides 
his  soul  was  agitated  and  troubled,  looking  up  to  that  heaven  which  sent 
him  no  light.  At  the  other  extremity  of  the  world  the  greatest  philosopher 
that  China  has  produced,  or  rather  the  greatest  moralist,  whose  lessons  she 
has  preserved,  Kong-fu-tze,  or  as  we  call  him,  Confucius,  was  bearing 
witness  to  the  impotence  of  the  mind  of  man  to  penetrate  the  secrets  of 
heaven.  To  the  question  which  his  disciples  proposed  as  to  the  condition 
of  the  soul  on  leaving  this  world,  he  replied  by  this  despairing  evasion:  “We 
*  do  not  even  know  life;  how  can  we  know  death?  ”  How  many  souls  at  all 
times  and  in  all  parts  of  the  world  have  been  tortured  by  the  same  per¬ 
plexities.  What  age  has  ever  counted  more  than  ours? 

It  has  been  said  with  incontestible  truth  that  history  is  the  great  teacher 
of  peoples  and  of  kings;  religious  principles  the  most  assured  can  not  guide 
us  in  all  the  acts  of  national  life,  many  of  which  lie  beyond  religious  con¬ 
trol.  But  history  is  not  composed  of  a  series  of  facts  succeeding  one 
another  at  hazard.  It  is  the  work,  direct  or  indirect,  of  God,  and  according 
to  the  divine  purpose  ought  certainly  to  serve  for  the  instruction  of  human¬ 
ity.  Now  among  all  the  matters  of  which  history  treats,  is  there  a  single 
one  which,  I  will  not  say  surpasses,  but  equals,  yes,  even  approaches,  by  the 
elevation  of  its  object  and  the  importance  of  its  results  the  history  of  relig¬ 
ious  opinions  and  precepts  along  through  the  ages? 

If  then  the  facts  of  the  earthly  temporal  life  of  humanity  teach  it  lessons 
which  it  ought  to  store  by  with  care  in  order  to  profit  by  them  and  direct 
its  actions,  what  fruits  will  it  not  have  to  gather  in  from  the  happenings  of 
its  supernatural  and  immortal  life?  What  dangers  it  will  escape,  remem¬ 
bering  the  faults  and  errors  of  former  generations  whose  fatal  consequences 
have  been  evils  innumerable! 

Does  not  man  there  learn  only  to  resist  that  fever  of  ambition,  source 
of  so  many  innovations,  useless  or  hurtful  to  the  peace  of  the  world,  that 
pride  which  thinks  to  have  found  the  solution  of  problems  the  most 
abstruse,  the  key  to  unlock  the  very  heavens,  if  I  may  so  speak,  and  which 
burns  to  propagate  mere  fruits  of  the  imagination  at  the  risk  of  seeing  the 
world  ablaze,  does  not  man,  I  say,  reach  but  this  one  conclusion,  that  the 
fruits  of  our  studies  ought  to  be  held  at  just  so  much  value  as  they  are 
prolific  in  beneficial  results. 

Besides,  nothing  is  more  proper  to  enlarge  the  intellectual  horizon,  to 
give  to  every  matter  a  just  appreciation,  which  cuts  off  irreflective  enthu¬ 
siasm  as  well  as  unjustifiable  prejudices.  It  teaches  not  to  attribute  to 
one’s  self  the  monopoly  of  what  others  equally  possess  and  thus  to  employ 
argument  whose  recognized  fallacy  injures  enormously  the  cause  one  would 
defend.  From  history,  too,  each  one  requires  a  more  reasonable  and  scien¬ 
tific  knowledge  of  his  own  belief. 

What  unlimited  horizons  these  studies  unfold  before  our  eyes!  Where 
better  learn  to  know  the  nature  of  the  human  mind,  its  powers  and  their 
limitations,  its  weaknesses,  with  their  varied  causes,  than  inthisgreat  book 
of  the  history  of  religions?  What  could  better  unveil  to  the  eyes  of  the  man 
of  faith  the  action  of  that  providence  which  leads  him  in  the  midst  of  con¬ 
tinual  agitations  and  disposes  of  what  he  has  proposed,  the  power  of  the 


RELIGIONS  OF  THE  WORLD. 


289 


arm  invisible  and  invincible,  which  chastises  him  for  hia  faults  by  his  own 
mistakes  and  lifts  him  up,  saves  him  from  the  perils  which  he  has  brought 
upon  himself  when  he  recognizes  his  weakness  and  his  frailty? 

Problem  admirable  and  fearful,  this  providental  commission  of  the 
strangest  intellectual  adorations!  What  a  spectacle,  that  of  man  plunging 
into  an  abyss  of  error  and  misery  because  he  has  wished  to  march  alone  to 
the  conquest  of  truths  beyond  his  reach! 

When  we  see  a  whole  people  prostrating  themselves  before  the  statue  of 
a  monarch  whose  mortal  remains  will  be  soon  under  ground,  the  prey  of  the 
worms  or  enveloping  with  the  fumes  of  their  incense,  honoring  with  their 
homages  the  figure  of  a  low  animal  which  has  to  attract  notice  only  its 
brutal  instincts,  its  strength,  and  cruelty,  who  would  not  implore  of  heaven 
delivering  light  to  save  humanity  from  degradation  so  profound  and  so 
entirely  debasing? 

True,  it  is  often  most  difficult  to  follow  the  designs  of  providence  in  their 
execution  throughout  the  ages,  but  it  is  not  always  impossible  to  divine,  to 
guess  at  the  secret.  Have  not  the  excesses  of  Greco-Roman  polytheism, 
for  example,  been  committed  in  order  to  lead  man  to  a  clearer  and  more 
rational  belief?  Its  shameless  immorality  to  make  him  desire  a  higher  life? 

It  is  evident,  on  the  other  hand,  that  in  this  kind  of  appreciation  it  is 
necessary  to  take  special  count  of  civilized  peoples,  of  those  whose  intelli¬ 
gence  has  attained  a  certain  degree  of  development,  and  only  very  little  of 
those  unfortunate  tribes  which  have  hardly  anything  more  of  man  than 
the  bodily  form.  I  come  then  to  consider  the  important  side  of  the  study 
of  religion,  that  is  to  say,  the  results  it  has  to  the  present  day  produced, 
and  what  it  is  called  upon  to  produce  in  the  future. 

How  many  points  cleared  up  in  a  few  years,  thanks  to  the  control  exer¬ 
cised  upon  the  first  explorers  in  this  field  by  those  who  came  after  them, 
and  who  had  no  ready-made  system  to  defend!  This  is  specially  true  for 
two  concepts,  upon  which  we  shall  principally  dwell,  the  nature  of  religion 
and  its  origin.  What  is  it  that  has  not  been  said  upon  these  great  ques¬ 
tions?  It  has,  in  fact,  been  demonstrated  that  religion  is  not  a  creation  of 
the  mind  of  man,  still  less  of  a  wandering  imagination  deceived  by  phan¬ 
toms,  but  that  it  is  a  principle  which  imposes  itself  upon  him  everywhere 
and  always  and  in  spite  of  himself,  which  comes  back  again  violently  into 
life  at  the  moment  it  was  thought  to  be  stifled,  which,  try  as  one  may  to 
cast  it  off  from  him,  enters  again  as  it  were,  into  man  by  his  every  pore. 

There  is  no  people  without  a  religion,  how  low  soever  it  may  be  in  the 
scale  of  civilization.  If  there  be  any  in  whom  the  religious  idea  seems 
extinct,  though  this  can  not  be  certainly  shown,  it  is  because  their  intelli¬ 
gence  has  come  to  that  degree  of  degradation  in  which  it  has  no  longer 
anything  human  save  the  capacity  of  being  lifted  to  something  higher. 
The  explanations  that  have  been  offered  of  the  religious  sentiment  inborn 
in  man  might  be  qualified  as  “  truly  curious  and  amusing,  were  it  not  a 
question  of  matters  so  grave.” 

For  some  it  is  unreflecting  instinct.  Be  it  so;  but  wherever  came  this 
instinct?  Doubtless  from  nature  And  nature,  what  is  it?  It  is  reality, 
as  we  have  said.  True  instinct  does  not  deceive.  For  others,  religion 
arises  from  the  need  man  experiences  of  relationship  with  superior  beings. 
Correct  again,  but  how  has  man  conceived  the  notion  of  being  superior  to 
himself  if  there  are  none,  and  whence  arises  that  neutral  need  which  his 
heart  feels,  if  it  has  its  roots  in  nothing,  a  nonentity.  Ex  nihilo  nihil,  from 
nothing,  nothing  comes.  Shall  I  speak  of  the  “  celestial  harmony  which 
charms  the  soul  and  lifts  it  into  an  ideal  world,”  of  “  those  visions  which 
float  through  the  imagination  of  man,”  and  of  other  like  fancies?  No,  it 
would  be  to  waste  inconsiderately  the  time  of  my  honored  hearers  too 
precious  to  be  taken  up  by  such  trifles.  Let  us  merely  note  this  fact  fully 
attested  to-day.  Religious  sentiments  and  concepts  are  innate  in  man. 


290 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


They  enter  into  the  constitution  of  his  nature,  which  itself  comes  from  its 
author  and  master;  they  impose  themselves  as  a  duty  upon  man,  as  the 
declaration  oE  universal  conscience  attests.  The  idea  of  a  being  superior 
to  humanity,  its  master,  comes  from  the  very  depths  of  human  nature,  and 
is  rendered  sensible  to  the  intellect  by  the  spectacle  of  the  universe.  No 
reasonable  mind  can  suppose  that  this  vast  world  has  of  itself  created  or 
formed  itself.  This  is  so  true  that  men  of  science,  the  most  hostile  to 
religion,  the  moment  they  perceive  some  evidence  of  design  upon  a  stone, 
however  deeply  imbedded  in  the  earth,  themselves  proclaim  that  man  has 
passed  here. 

“  It  is  fear  that  hath  made  the  gods,”  said  a  Latin  poet,  already  2,000 
years  ago.  No,  say  others,  it  is  a  mere  tendency  to  attribute  a  soul  to  what¬ 
ever  moves  itself.  You  are  mistaken,  says  a  third,  it  is  reverence  for 
deceased  ancestors  which  caused  their  descendants  yet  remaining  upon 
earth  to  regard  them  as  superior  beings.  You  are  all  astray,  exclaims  a 
fourth  voice,  a  religion  does  not  arise  from  any  one  or  other  of  these  or 
like  causes  in  particular,  but  from  all  taken  together.  Fear,  joy,  illusions, 
nocturnal  visions,  the  movements  of  the  stars,  etc.,  have  all  contributed 
something,  each  its  own  part. 

It  is  not  our  task  to  set  forth  these  different  opinions,  still  less  to  criticise 
them.  We  can  not,  however,  pass  in  silence,  till  of  late  universally  in  vogue 
in  the  free-thinking  camp,  a  system  whose  foundations  historical  studies 
have  uprooted.  I  speak  of  the  theory  which  has  borrowed  its  process  from 
the  Darwinian  system  of  evolution,  the  system  of  perxjetual  progress.  If 
you  would  believe  its  authors  and  defenders  primitive  humanity  have  no 
religious  sentiment,  not  the  least  notion  that  raised  it  above  material 
nature.  But,  feeling  in  himself  a  living  principle,  man  attributed  the 
same  to  whatever  moved  about  him,  and  thence  arose  fetichism  and  ani¬ 
mism. 

After  the  first  stage  of  fetichism  and  animism  man  would  have  con¬ 
sidered  separately  the  living  principles  of  the  beings  to  which  he  had  attrib¬ 
uted  it,  and  this  separation  would  have  given  rise  to  the  belief  in  spirits. 
These  spirits,  growing  upon  the  popular  imagination,  would  have  become 
gods,  to  whom,  ultimately,  after  the  fashion  of  earthly  empires,  they  would 
have  given  a  head.  These  gods  would  have  at  first  been  exclusively 
national,  then  a  universal  empire  would  have  been  imagined,  and  national 
religions  would  have  at  length  ended  as  a  last  effort  of  the  human  mind  in 
universal  religions. 

Here,  indeed,  we  have  an  edifice  wonderfully  planned  and  perfectly  con¬ 
structed.  This  would  appear  still  more  plainly  were  we  to  describe  in  detail 
all  its  parts.  Unfortunately  one  thing  is  wanting— one  thing  only,  but 
essential — ^that  is,  a  little  grain  of  truth.  Not  only  is  the  whole  of  it  the 
fruit  of  hypothesis  without  foundation  in  facts,  but  religious  studies  have 
demonstrated  all  and  each  of  its  details  to  be  false. 

The  examples  of  Egypt,  of  India,  and  of  China,  especially,  have  demon¬ 
strated  that  monotheism  real,  though  imjjerfect,  preceded  the  luxuriant 
mythologies  whose  development  astonishes,  but  is  only  too  easily  explained. 
In  Egypt  the  divinity  was  represented  by  the  sun;  the  different  phases  of 
the  great  luminary  were  personified  and  deified.  In  the  most  ancient  por¬ 
tion  of  Aryan  India  the  personality  of  Garuna,  with  his  immutable 
laws,  soars  above  the  figures  of  India  and  the  other  divas  who  have  in  great 
part  dethroned  him,  just  as  the  Jupiter  of  Greece  supplanted  the  more 
ancient  Pelagian  Ouranas.  Among  these  two  last  people,  it  is  true,  mon¬ 
otheism  is  at  its  lowest  degree,  but  in  China,  on  the  contrary,  it  shows  itself 
much  less  imperfect  than  elsewhere  and  even  with  relative  purity.  Shang-ti 
is  almost  the  god  of  the  spiritualist  philosophy.  These  facts,  we  may  easily 
conceive,  are  exceeding  embarrassing  for  the  adherent  of  the  evolutionary 
theory,  but  they  worm  out  of  the  difficulty  in  a  manner  that  provokes  both 


RELIGIONS  OF  THE  WORLD. 


291 


sadness  and  a  smile.  The  thesis  of  national  divinities  everywhere  preced¬ 
ing  the  universal  divinities  is  not  more  solidly  grounded.  For  neither 
Varuna,  nor  Brahma,  nor  Shanj-ti,  nor  Tengri  ever  saw  their  power  lim¬ 
ited  by  their  devotees  to  a  single  country.  The  theory  that  fear  or  ances¬ 
tral  worship  gave  birth  to  the  gods  received  in  China  the  most  formal  con¬ 
tradiction.  In  fact,  at  the  very  first  appearance  of  this  great  empire  upon 
the  scene  of  history  the  supreme  deity  was  already  considered  as  the  father, 
the  mother,  not  only  of  the  faithful  but  of  the  entire  human  race,  and  the 
first  to  receive  worship  among  the  dead  were  not  departed  relatives,  but 
kings  and  ministers,  benefactors  of  the  people.  That  it  is  gratitude  which 
has  inspired  this  worship  is  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Chinese  ritual. 

It  remains  for  us  to  say  a  few  words  about  these  conditions.  The  first 
is  clearly  that  enunciated  in  our  programme.  These  studies  ought  to  be 
serious  and  strictly  scientific.  They  should  be  based  upon  strict  logic  and 
a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  original  sources.  Too  long  have  would-be 
adepts  been  given  over  to  fantastic  speculations,  everywhere  seeking  an 
apology  for  either  faith  or  incredulity.  Too  long  have  they  limited  them¬ 
selves  to  superficial  views,  to  summary  glimpses,  dwelling  with  complacency 
upon  whatever  might  favor  a  pet  system.  Or  else  they  have  been  content 
with  documents  of  second  hand,  whose  authors  themselves  had  but  an 
imperfect  knowledge  of  who  they  pretended  to  treat  as  masters. 

We  may  easily  understand  that  in  order  to  be  able  to  choose  among 
them  all,  and  to  distinguish  the  sources,  it  is  necessary  to  know  thoroughly 
the  language  and  the  history,  both  political  and  literary,  of  the  people 
whose  religions  one  would  investigate  and  expose.  It  is  unnecessary  to  be 
a  specialist  and  a  specialist  competent  in  this  special  matter.  It  is  only 
when  the  work  of  such  authorized  and  impartial  specialist  has  been  done 
the  others  will  be  able  to  draw  from  the  waters  which  they  have  collected. 
How  many  errors  fatal  to  true  science  have  been  propagated  by  men  too 
prone  to  generalize! 

This  leads  us  to  consider  the  second  condition  for  the  serious  study  of 
the  comparative  history  of  religion.  It  is  the  necessity  of  penetrating 
oneself  with  the  spirit  of  the  people  who  form  the  object  of  particular 
research.  It  is  necessary,  as  it  were,  to  think  with  their  minds  and  to  see 
with  their  eyes,  making  entire  abstraction  of  one’s  own  ideas,  under  pain  of 
seeing  everything  in  a  false  light,  as  one  sees  nature  through  a  colored 
glass,  and  of  forming  of  foreign  rehgious  ideas  the  most  erroneous  and 
often  even  the  most  unjust. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


SIXTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  16th. 


SACRED  SCRIPTURES  OF  THE  WORLD. 

Promptly  at  10  o’clock  Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows  led  the  way 
to  the  platform,  and  as  an  opening  song  the  first  hymn  in  the 

printed  programme  was  sung  : 

All  ye  nations  praise  the  Lord, 

All  ye  lands  your  voices  raise. 

The  people  of  many  religions  joined  in  the  common  hymn  of 
praise.  After  a  few  moments  of  silent  prayer,  Bishop  Keane 
led  in  repeating  aloud  the  Lord’s  Prayer.  It  was  evident  that 
the  interest  in  the  great  Parliament  of  Religions  was  rapidly 
gaining  a  world- wide  notoriety.  After  the  opening  exercises. 
Dr.  Barrows  read  a  cablegram  from  the  Brahmo-Somaj  of  Cal¬ 
cutta,  sending  cordial  greetings  and  wishing  the  Parliament 
godspeed.  The  message  was  received  with  ringing  cheers, 
much  to  the  gratification  of  the  Hindus  present.  “It  delights 
my  heart,”  said  Mr.  Mozoomdar,  “to  see  the  spontaneous 
response  which  my  fellow-believers  have  sent  this  vast  distance. 
I  feel  now  more  than  I  ever  felt  that  India  and  America  are  as 
one  in  the  spirit  of  the  God  of  all  nations.”  In  the  midst  of  an 
outburst  of  applause,  the  speaker  sat  down,  overcome  with 
emotion. 

THE  TRUTHFULNESS  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 

CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS  OF  NEW  YORK. 

He  was  introduced  by  Dr.  Barrows  as  “  one  whose  learning, 
whose  courage,  whose  faithfulness  to  his  convictions  have 

given  him  a  high  place  in  the  church  universal.” 

292 


TRUTHFULNESS  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 


293 


The  time  allotted  for  a  paper  like  this  is  so  short  that  I  can  only  treat 
the  subject  very  cursorily  and  with  many  gaps,  which  every  one  of  you  will 
probably  notice.  All  the  great  historic  religions  have  sacred  books  which 
are  regarded  as  the  inspired  word  of  God.  Prominent  among  those  sacred 
books  are  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Christian  church.  The  history  of  the 
Christian  church  shows  that  it  is  the  intrinsic  excellence  of  these  Holy 
Scriptures  which  has  given  them  the  control  of  so  large  a  portion  of  our 
whole  race.  With  a  few  exceptions  the  Christian  religion  was  not  extended 
by  force  of  arms  or  by  the  arts  of  statesmanship,  but  by  the  holy  lives  and 
faithful  teaching  of  self-sacrificing  men  and  women,  who  had  firm  faith  in 
the  truthfulness  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  were  able  to  convince  men  in 
all  parts  of  the  world  that  they  are  faithful  guides  to  God  and  salvation. 

We  may  now  say  confidentially  to  all  men:  “  All  the  sacred  books  of  the 
world  are  now  accessible  to  you;  study  them;  compare  them;  recognize  all 
that  is  good  and  noble  and  true  in  them  all  and  tabulate  results,  and  you 
will  be  convinced  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
are  true,  holy,  and  divine.”  When  we  have  gone  searchingly  through  all 
the  books  of  other  religions  we  will  find  that  they  are  as  torches  of  various 
sizes  and  brilliance  lighting  up  the  darkness  of  the  night,  but  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  like  the  sun  shining  in  the 
heavens  and  lighting  up  the  whole  world. 

We  are  living  in  a  scientific  age,  which  demands  that  every  traditional 
statement  shall  be  tested.  Science  explores  the  earth  in  its  height  and 
breadth  in  search  of  truth;  it  explores  the  heavens  in  order  to  solve  the  mys¬ 
teries  of  the  universe;  it  investigates  all  the  monuments  of  history,  whether 
of  stone  or  of  metal,  and  that  man  must  be  lacking  in  intelligence,  or  in 
observation  at  least,  who  imagines  that  the  sacred  books  of  the  Christian 
religion  or  the  institution  of  the  Christian  church  shall  escape  the  criti¬ 
cism  of  this  age.  It  will  not  do  to  oppose  science  with  religion  or  criticism 
with  faith. 

Criticism  makes  it  evident  that  the  faith  which  shrinks  from  criticism 
is  a  faith  so  weak  and  uncertain  that  it  excites  suspicion  as  to  its  life  and 
reality.  Science  goes  on  confident  that  every  form  of  religion  which  resists 
this  criticism  will  ere  long  crumble  into  dust.  All  departments  of  human 
investigation  sooner  or  later  come  in  contact  with  the  Christian  Scriptures; 
all  find  something  that  accords  with  them  or  conflicts  with  them,  and  the 
question  forces  itself  upon  us:  Can  we  maintain  the  truthfulness  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  in  the  face  of  modern  science?  We  are  obliged  to  admit 
that  there  are  scientific  errors  in  the  Bible  —  errors  of  astronomy,  geology, 
zoology,  botany,  and  anthropology.  In  all  these  respects  there  is  no  evi¬ 
dence  that  the  authors  of  the  scriptures  had  any  other  knowledge  than  that 
possessed  by  their  contemporaries.  Their  statements  are  such  as  indicate 
ordinary  observation  of  the  phenomena  of  life.  They  had  not  that  insight, 
that  grasp  of  conception  and  power  of  expression  in  these  matters  such  as 
they  exhibited  when  writing  concerning  matters  of  religion. 

If  it  was  not  the  intent  of  God  to  give  to  the  ancient  world  the  scientific 
knowledge  of  our  l9th  century,  why  should  anyone  suppose  that  the 
Divine  Spirit  influenced  them  in  relation  to  any  such  matters  as  science? 
Why  should  they  be  kept  from  misstatements,  misconceptions,  and  errors  in 
such  respects?  The  Divine  Spirit  wished  to  use  them  as  religious  teachers, 
and  so  long  as  they  made  no  mistakes  in  that  respect  they  were  trustworthy 
and  reliable,  even  if  they  erred  in  such  matters  as  come  in  contact  with 
modern  science.  There  are  historical  mistakes  in  the  Bible,  mistakes  of 
chronology  and  geography,  discrepancies,  and  inconsistencies  which  can 
not  be  removed  by  any  proper  method  of  interpretation.  There  are  such 
errors  as  we  are  apt  to  find  in  modern  history.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  the  writers  of  the  scriptures  received  any  of  their  history  by  revelation 
from  God.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Divine  Spirit  corrected  these 
narratives. 


294 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  purpose  of  the  sacred  writers  was  to  give  us  the  history  of  God’s 
redemptive  workings.  This  made  it  necessary  that  there  should  be  no 
essential  errors  in  the  redemptive  facts  and  agencies,  but  did  not  make  it 
necessary  that  there  should  be  no  mistakes  in  places,  dates,  and  persons,  so 
long  as  these  did  not  change  the  redemptive  lessons  or  redemptive  facts. 
None  of  the  mistakes  which  have  been  discovered  disturb  the  religious  les¬ 
sons  of  the  Biblical  history,  and  those  lessons  are  the  only  ones  whose 
truthfulness  we  are  concerned  to  defend.  Higher  criticism  recognizes 
faults  of  grammar,  of  rhetoric,  and  logic  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  script¬ 
ures,  but  errors  in  these  formal  things  do  not  mar  the  truthfulness  of  the 
religious  instruction  itself.  Higher  criticism  shows  that  most  of  the  books 
were  composed  by  unknown  authors;  that  they  passed  through  the  hands 
of  a  considerable  number  of  unknown  editors.  In  this  process  of  editing, 
arranging,  subtraction,  and  reconstruction,  extending  througn  so  many 
centuries,  what  evidence  have  we  that  these  unknown  editors  were  kept 
from  error  in  all  their  work? 

They  were  guided  by  the  Divine  Spirit  In  their  comprehension  and 
expression  of  the  divine  instruction,  but,  judging  also  from  their  work,  it 
seems  most  probable  that  they  were  not  guided  by  the  Divine  Spirit  in 
grammar,  rhetoric,  logic,  expression,  arrangement  of  material,  or  general 
editorial  work.  They  were  left  to  those  errors  which  even  the  most  faithful 
and  scrupulous  of  writers  will  sometimes  make.  The  science  which 
approaches  the  Bible  from  without  and  the  science  which  studies  it  from 
within  agree  as  to  the  essential  facts  of  the  case.  Now,  can  the  truthful¬ 
ness  of  scripture  be  maintained  by  those  who  recognize  these  errors?  There 
is  no  reason  why  the  substantial  truthfulness  of  the  Bible  shall  not  be  con¬ 
sistent  with  circumstantial  errors.  God  did  not  speak  Himself  in  the  Bible 
except  a  few  words  recorded  here  and  there;  He  spoke  in  much  greater 
portions  of  the  Old  Testament  through  the  voices  and  pens  of  the  human 
authors  of  the  scriptures.  Did  the  human  minds  and  pens  always  deliver 
the  inerrant  word? 

Even  if  all  writers  possessed  of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  merely  passive  in 
the  hands  of  God,  the  question  is  can  the  human  voice  and  pen  express 
truth  of  the  infinite  God?  How  can  an  imperfect  word,  an  imperfect 
sentence  express  the  divine  truth?  It  is  evident  that  the  writers  of  the 
Bible  were  not,  as  a  rule,  in  an  ecstatic  state.  The  Holy  Spirit  suggested  to 
them  the  divine  truths  they  were  to  teach.  They  received  them  by  intui¬ 
tion,  and  framed  them  in  imagination  and  fancy.  Then,  if  the  divine  truth 
passed  through  the  conception  and  imagination  of  the  human  mind,  did 
the  human  mind  receive  it  fully  without  any  fault  or  shadow  of  error?  Did 
the  human  mind  add  anything  to  it  or  color  it?  Was  it  delivered  in  its 
entirety  exactly  as  it  was  received?  How  can  we  be  sure  of  this  when  we 
see  the  same  doctrine  in  such  a  variety  of  forms,  all  partial  and  all 
inadequate? 

All  that  we  can  claim  is  inspiration  and  accuracy  for  that  which  sug¬ 
gests  the  religious  lessons  to  be  imparted.  God  is  true.  He  is  the  truth. 
He  can  not  lie;  He  can  not  mislead  nor  deceive  His  creatures.  But  the  ques¬ 
tion  arises:  When  the  infinite  God  speaks  to  finite  man,  must  he  speak 
words  which  are  not  error?  This  depends  not  only  upon  God’s  speaking, 
but  on  man’s  hearing,  and  also  of  the  means  of  communication  between 
God  and  man.  It  is  necessary  to  show  the  capacity  of  man  to  receive  the 
word  before  we  can  be  sure  that  he  transmitted  it  correctly.  The  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  does  not  carry  with  it  inerrancy  in  every  par¬ 
ticular;  it  was  sufficient  if  the  divine  truth  was  given  with  such  clearness 
as  to  guide  men  aright  in  religious  life. 

The  errors  of  Holy  Scriptures  are  not  errors  of  falsehood  or  deceit,  but 
of  ignorance,  inadvertence,  partial  and  inadequate  knowledge,  and  of  inca¬ 
pacity  to  express  the  whole  truth  of  God  which  belonged  to  man  as  man. 


TRUTHFULNESS  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 


295 


Just  as  light  is  seen  not  in  its  pure  and  clouded  state,  but  in  the  beautiful 
colors  of  the  spectrum,  so  it  is  that  the  truth  of  God,  its  revelation  and 
communication  to  man,  met  with  such  obstacles  in  human  nature.  Men 
are  capable  of  receiving  it  only  in  its  diverse  operations,  and  diverse  man¬ 
ners  as  it  comes  to  them  through  the  diverse  temperaments  and  points  of 
view  of  the  Biblical  writers.  The  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a  religion 
which  includes  some  things  hard  to  reconcile  in  an  inerrant  revelation. 
The  sacrifice  of  Jephtha’s  daughter,  the  command  of  Abraham  to  offer  up 
his  son  as  a  burnt  offering,  and  other  incidents  seem  unsuited  to  divine 
revelation.  The  New  Testament  taught  that  sacrifices  must  be  of  broken, 
contrite  hearts  and  humble  and  cheerful  spirits.  What  pleasure  could 
God  take  in  smoking  altars?  How  could  the  true  God  prescribe  such 
puerilties? 

We  can  only  say  that  God  was  training  Israel  to  the  meaning  of  the 
higher  sacrifices.  The  offering  up  of  children  and  domestic  animals  was 
part  of  a  preparatory  discipline.  But  it  was  provisional  and  temporal  dis¬ 
cipline.  It  was  the  form  necessary  then  to  clothe  the  divine  law  of  sacri¬ 
fice  in  the  early  stages  of  revelation.  They  were  the  object  lessons  by 
which  the  children  of  the  ancient  world  could  be  trained  to  understand 
the  inerrable  law  of  sacrifice  for  man.  St.  Paul  calls  them  the  weak  and 
beggarly  rudiments,  the  shadow  of  the  things  to  come. 

We  can  not  defend  the  morals  of  the  Old  Testament  at  all  points. 
Nowhere  in  the  Old  Testament  was  polygamy  or  slavery  condemned.  The 
time  had  not  come  in  the  history  of  the  world  when  they  could  be  con¬ 
demned.  Is  God  to  be  held  responsible  for  these  twin  relics  of  barbarism 
because  He  did  not  condemn,  but,  on  the  contrary,  recognized  them  and 
restrained  them  in  the  early  stages  of  his  revelation?  The  patriarchs  are 
not  truthful.  Their  age  seems  to  have  had  little  comprehension  of  the 
principles  of  truth,  yet  Abraham  was  faithful  to  God,  and  so  faithful  under 
temptation  and  trial  that  he  became  the  father  of  the  faithful  and  from 
that  point  of  view,  the  friend  of  God.  David  was  a  sinner,  a  very  wicked 
sinner,  but  he  was  a  very  penitent  sinner,  and  showed  such  a  devout  at¬ 
tachment  to  the  worship  of  God  that  his  sins,  though  many,  were  all  for¬ 
given  h  im,  and  his  life  as  a  v/hole  exhibits  such  generosity,  courage,  human 
affection,  and  such  heroism  and  patience  under  suffering,  and  such  self- 
restraint  under  magnificent  prosperity,  such  nobility  and  grandeur  of  char¬ 
acter  altogether,  that  we  must  admire  him  and  love  him  as  one  of  the  best 
of  men,  and  we  are  not  surprised  that  the  heart  of  the  infinite  God  went 
out  to  him.  Many  of  the  stories  of  revenge  in  the  Old  Testament  stand 
out  in  glaring  contrast  to  the  picture  of  Jesus  Christ  praying  for  His  ene¬ 
mies,  and  it  is  the  story  of  Christ  that  lifts  us  into  a  different  ethical  air 
from  any  of  the  Old  Testament. 

We  can  not  regard  these  thirds  in  the  Old  Testament  as  inerrable,  in  the 
light  of  the  moral  character  of  Christ  and  the  moral  character  of  God  as  he 
reveals  it.  And  yet  we  may  well  understand  that  the  Old  Testament  times 
were  not  ripe  for  the  higher  revelation  of  his  will  such  as  would  guide  his 
people  in  the  right  direction,  with  as  steady  and  rapid  a  pace  as  they  were 
capable  of  making.  Jesus  Christ  teaches  the  true  principle.  You  may 
judge  the  ethics  of  the  Old  Testament  when  he  repealed  the  Mosaic  laws 
of  divorce.  He  said:  “Moses,  your  hardness  of  heart  suffers  you  to  put 
away  your  wives,  but  from  the  beginning  it  hath  not  been  so.”  In  other 
words  Mosaic  law  of  divorce  was  not  in  accord  with  the  original  institution 
of  marriage,  nor  with  the  mind  and  will  of  the  holy  God. 

God  revealed  Himself  partially  to  the  people  of  the  Old  Testament  in  a 
way  sufficient  for  their  purposes  of  preparatory  discipline,  which  revelation 
was  to  disappear  forever  when  it  had  accomplished  its  purpose.  The  laws 
of  the  Old  Testament  have  all  been  cast  down  by  the  Christian  church, 
with  the  single  exception  of  ten  laws;  and  with  reference  to  the  fourth  of 


29G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


these  Jesus  Christ  says:  “The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man 
for  the  Sabbath.”  The  doctrine  of  the  creation  is  set  forth  in  a  great  vari¬ 
ety  of  beautiful  poetical  representations,  which  give  in  the  aggregate  a 
grand  conception  of  the  creation,  a  fuller  conception  than  the  ordinary 
doctrine  drawn  from  an  interpretation  of  the  first  and  second  chapters  of 
Genesis.  I  grant  He  was  conceived  as  the  Father  of  the  nations  and  of  the 
kings.  But  as  our  Father,  made  known  to  us  as  Jesus  Christ,  He  was  not 
known  to  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  The  profound  depth  of  sympa¬ 
thy  of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ  was  not  yet  manifested. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  was  not  yet  revealed.  But  there  is  a 
difference  in  God’s  revelation  in  these  other  successive  layers  of  the  Old 
Testament  writing,  which  is  like  the  march  of  an  invincible  army.  It  is 
true  there  are  times  when  there  are  expressions  of  the  jealousy  of  God  and 
a  cruel  disregard  of  human  sufferings,  all  of  which  betrayed  the  inade¬ 
quacy  of  ancient  Israel  to  understand  their  God,  the  errancy  of  their 
conceptions.  We  all  know  that  the  true  God  whom  we  all  love  and  wor¬ 
ship  does  not  agree  with  these  ancient  conceptions.  The  truthfulness  of 
the  teachings  of  the  Doctrine  of  God  is  not  destroyed  by  occasional  inac¬ 
curacies  among  the  teachings. 

The  doctrine  of  man  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a  noble  doctrine.  Unity 
of  brotherhood  of  the  race,  in  origin  and  destiny,  is  established  in  the  Old 
Testament  as  nowhere  else.  The  origin  and  development  of  sin  find  a 
response  in  the  experience  of  mankind.  The  ideal  of  righteousness,  and  the 
original  plan  of  God  for  man.  His  ultimate  destiny  for  man  is  held  up  as  a 
banner  over  the  heads  of  the  people.  Surely  these  are  inspirations — they 
are  faithful,  they  are  divine.  But  there  are,  doubtless,  expressions  of 
faulty  psychology,  and  occasional  exaggerations  of  mere  external  forms  in 
ceremonial  worship ;  but  these  do  not  mar,  but  rather  serve  to  enhance 
our  estimate  of  their  value  for  all  of  that  in  the  scriptures  which  binds 
our  race  to  all  that  is  good  in  the  history  of  the  past,  created  and  given  by 
holy  God  for  the  welfare  of  humanity. 

The  scheme  of  redemption  is  so  vast,  so  comprehensive,  so  far-reaching, 
that  the  Christian  church  has  even  thus  far  failed  to  fully  comprehend  it. 
All  evil  is  to  be  banished.  There  is  to  come  in  a  reign  of  universal  peace. 
There  is  to  be  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  and  a  new  Jerusalem,  from 
which  the  wicked  will  be  excluded.  Such  ideals  of  redemption  are  divine 
ideals,  which  the  human  race  has  not  yet  attained,  and  which  we  can  only 
partially  and  inadequately  comprehend.  If,  in  the  course  of  training  for 
these  ideals  of  redemption  for  God’s  people,  they  have  made  mistakes,  it  is 
quite  sure  that  forgiveness  of  sins  was  appropriated  without  any  ex|)lana- 
tion  of  its  grounds. 

The  sacrifices  of  the  new  were  unknown  in  the  Old  Testament,  It  is  the 
mercy  of  God  which  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  There  is  a  lack  of  apprecia¬ 
tion  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  richness  of  faith.  It  was  Jesus  Christ 
who  first  gave  faith  its  unique  place  in  the  order  of  salvation:  The  doctrine 
of  holy  love,  the  doctrine  of  the  future  life,  and  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  Thus  in  every  department  of  doctrine  the  Old  Testament  has  only 
advanced  through  the  centuries.  The  several  periods  of  Biblical  literature, 
of  unfolding  of  the  doctrines  prejjared  the  way  for  a  full  revelation  in  the 
New  Testament.  That  revelation  looked  only  at  the  end,  the  highest 
ideals,  that  w^hat  would  be  accomplished  in  the  last  century  of  human  time; 
that  would  be  a  revelation  for  all  men,  but  it  would  be  of  no  use  to  any 
other  century  but  the  last. 

But  man  must  be  prepared  for  the  present  as  well  as  for  the  future. 
Man  must  have  something  for  every  century  of'human  history,  a  revelation 
for  the  barbarian  as  well  as  for  the  Greek,  the  Gentile  as  well  as  the  Jew, 
the  dark-minded  African  as  well  as  the  open-minded  European,  the  South 
Sea  Islander  as  well  as  the  Asiatic,  the  child  as  well  as  the  man.  It  is  just 


GREATNESS  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  MOSES. 


297 


in  this  respect  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  New  Testament  are  so  per¬ 
manent  and  have  in  them  religious  instruction  for  the  world.  They  were 
designed  for  the  training  of  Israel  in  every  stage  of  their  development,  and 
so  they  will  train  all  minds  in  every  stage  of  their  development. 

It  does  no  harm  to  the  advanced  student  to  look  back  upon  the  unedu¬ 
cated  years  of  his  youthful  days.  It  does  not  harm  the  Christian  to  see 
the  many  imperfections,  crudities,  and  errors  of  the  more  elementary 
instructions  of  the  Old  Testament.  Nor  does  it  destroy  his  faith  of  the 
truthfulness  of  the  divine  word  because  it  has  passed  through  human 
hands.  The  infallible  will  has  all  the  time  been  at  work  using  the  imper¬ 
fect  medium,  training  them  to  their  utmost  capacity,  to  get  man  to  raise 
them,  to  advance  them  in  the  true  religion.  The  great  books  are  always 
pointing  forward  and  upward.  They  are  always  extending  in  all  directions. 
They  are  now,  as  they  always  have  been,  true  and  faithful  guides  to  God 
and  all  the  highest.  They  are  now,  as  they  always  have  been,  trust¬ 
worthy  and  reliable  in  their  religious  instruction.  They  are  now,  as  they 
always  have  been,  altogether  truthful  in  their  testimony  to  the  heart  and 
experience  of  mankind. 


THE  GREATNESS  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  MOSES. 

RABBI  GOTTHEIL  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Last  Monday  morning  it  was  the  day  of  our  church  new  year,  a  festival 
of  great  solemnity  with  us.  About  this  very  hour  of  the  day  I  and  my 
brethren,  over  the  face  of  the  earth,  read  this  prayer  : 

Our  God  and  God  of  our  fathers,  reign  Thou  over  the  whole  world  in  Thy  glory, 
and  be  exalted  in  Thy  Majesty  over  the  whole  earth  and  shine  forth  in  the  excel¬ 
lence  of  Thy  supreme  power  overall  the  inhabitants  of  the  terrestrial  world,' and 
may  everything  which  has  been  made  be  sensible  that  Thou  hast  made' it,  and 
everything  formed  understand  that  Thou  hast  formed  it,  and  all  who  have  breath 
in  their  nostrils  know  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  reigneth  and  His  supreme  power 
ruleth  over  all.  And  thus  also  extend  the  fear  of  Thee,  O  Lord  our  God,  over  all 
Thy  works  and  the  dread  of  Thee  over  all  that  'I'hou  hast  created,  so  that  all  Thy 
works  may  fear  Thee  and  all  creatures  bow  down  before  Thee,  so  that  they  all 
may  form  one  bond  to  do  Thy  will  with  an  upright  heart,  for  we  know,  O  Lord  our 
God,  that  the  dominion  is  Thine,  that  strengtli  is  in  Thy  hand,  that  might  is  in 
Thy  right  hand,  and  that  Thy  name  is  to  be  reverenced  over  all  the  earth. 

Just  at  that  moment  this  great  Parliament  of  Religions  was  opened, 
and  we  could  not  but  point  to  this  great  manifestation  as  a  sign  that  our 
prayers  and  our  sufferings  and  our  labors  have  not  been  in  vain — that  to 
this  free  country  it  was  given  to  show  that  the  Word  of  God  is  true,  and 
that  not  one  of  His  promises  can  fall  to  the  ground. 

Now  I  am  to  speak  on  the  greatness  of  Moses.  I  believe  that  is  the 
most  striking  testimony,  that  he  always  remains  Moses,  the  man  of  God, 
the  legislator;  and  that  he  so  instructed  his  people  and  so  infused  his  own 
spirit  into  their  constitution  that  never,  at  no  time  and  under  no  provoca¬ 
tion,  was  the  attempt  made  in  the  Jewish  Church  to  raise  him  above  his 
simple  humanity.  Although  they  have  proved  their  fidelity  to  him — their 
belief  in  his  law  by  every  possible  testimony  that  can  be  applied — yet  he 
was  Moses,  the  servant  of  God,  until  the  highest  praise  bestowed  upon 
him,  which,  I  may  say,  is  the  canon  of  the  Jewish  Church  in  regard  to  the 
legislator,  is  taken  from  the  pages  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  where  it  is 
said:  “Never  was  in  Israel  a  prophet  like  unto  him,  and  beyond  Israel 
where  shall  we  look  for  his  equal?  ” 

Brethren,  I  am  not  speaking  in  the  narrow  spirit  of  rivalry;  far  be  that 
from  ray  theme.  Veneration  for  Moses  has  not  yet  hindered  me  to  see,  to 
admire,  and  to  learn  from  other  masters — the  sun  has  lost  nothing  of  his 
glory  since  we  know  that  he  is  not  the  center  of  the  universe,  and  that  in 
other  fields  of  the  infinite  space  there  are  like  suns  unto  him.  What  sbrdl 


298 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


hinder  me  to  learn  from  the  masters  which  you  honor?  I  can  well  under¬ 
stand.  I  can  honor  the  man  that  said:  “  All  must  decrease  that  Christ 
may  increase.”  But  no  true  Christ  ever  said:  “All  must  decrease  that  I 
may  increase  ”  And  I  remember  the  fine  saying  ascribed  to  Buddha:  “  I 
forbid  you,”  said  he  to  his  disciples;  “I  forbid  you  to  believe  anything 
simply  because  I  said  it.” 

Where  shall  we  find  one  that  combines  in  his  personality  so  many  great¬ 
nesses  as  Moses,  if  I  may  s  iy  so?  He  was  the  liberator  of  his  people,  but 
he  spurned  crowns  and  scepters,  and  did  not,  as  many  others  after  him  did, 
put  a  new  yoke  on  the  neck  from  which  he  had  taken  the  old  one.  To  every 
lover  of  the  American  Constitution  that  man  must  be  a  political  saint.  And 
his  republic  was  not  of  short  duration.  It  lasted  through  all  the  storms 
of  barbaric  wars  and  revolutions — hundreds  of  years,  down  to  the  day  of 
Samuel,  that  all-stout-hearted  republican  who  could  endure  no  kings. 
That  man  that  saw  so  clearly  what  royal  work  would  do;  that  man  who  is 
so  wrongly  judged  by  our  Sunday-school  moralities,  he  fought  with  his  last 
breath  for  the  independence  of  his  people,  and  when  the  king  they  had 
chosen  showed  that  he  was  not  the  right  man  he  spared  him  not  and 
looked  for  one  that  should  be  worthy  to  rule  his  people. 

But  the  republic  he  founded  stands  unique  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
for  it  was  altogether  based  upon  an  idea — the  idea  of  the  unity  of  God  and 
the  righteousness  of  His  will.  Think  of  it!  Among  a  nation  escaped  from 
bondage  too  degraded  even  to  be  led  to  war,  that  needed  the  education,  the 
hammering,  as  it  were,  into  a  people  for  forty  years,  to  be  among  them 
with  the  sublimest  truth  that  the  human  mind  ever  can  conceive  and  to 
say  of  them:  “Though  you  are  now  benighted  and  enslaved,  any  truth 
that  I  know  is  not  too  good  for  you  nor  any  child  of  God.”  Whence  did  the 
man  derive  that  inspiration?  If  from  the  Almighty,  then  may  we  not  say 
there  arose  not  another  like  him?  And  can  we  wonder  that  when  he  came 
down  from  the  mountain  the  light  that  shone  from  his  face  was  too  much 
for  the  eyes  of  the  people  and  he  had  to  cover  it. 

Did  he  learn  that  grand  idea  from  Egypt?  We  know  that  he  was  learned 
in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,  but  if  he  learned  anything  he  learned 
there  how  not  to  do  it.  For  so  complete  is  the  contrast  between  Egyptian 
conception  of  state  and  the  Mosaic.  All  honor  to  that  nation  of  torch  bear¬ 
ers  of  antiquity!  And  here  we  now  recover  the  whole  literature  of  that 
people,  and  there  has  not  been  found  a  single  sentence  yet  that  could  be 
given  to  mankind  as  a  guide  in  their  perplexities.  And  not  a  name  has 
come  down  to  us  that  was  borne  by  one  who  labored  for  mankind.  As  a 
teacher  of  morality  why  need  I  praise  him?  As  a  teacher  of  statecraft  in 
the  highest  and  best  sense,  who  surpassed  him?  The  great  wonder  is  that 
that  man  speaks  the  language  of  to-day.  The  problems  which  we  have  not 
yet  succeeded  in  solving  were  already  present  to  his  mind,  and  he  founded 
a  nation  in  which  the  difference  between  the  poor  and  the  rich  was  almost 
abolished.  The  laborer  was  not  only  worthy  but  sure  of  his  hire.  No  aris¬ 
tocrat  could  rule  over  his  subjects  and  no  priesthood  could  ever  assume  the 
government  which,  alas!  according  to  history,  means  the  oppression  of  the 
nation.  How  did  that  man  of  that  vast  mind,  how  did  he  combine  all  these 
great  talents?  And  yet  that  man,  how  tender  his  heart  was!  Why,  friends, 
it  is  a  thousand  pities  that  you  can  not  hear  the  deep  sorrow,  the  sadness 
that  is  to  be  heard  in  his  original  words.  When  an  overzealous  disciple 
came  to  him  and  told  him  that  they  were  prophesying  in  his  name,  and 
they  said:  “  Hinder  them,  master,  hinder  them.  Why,  if  they  prophesy 
what  will  become  of  thine  own  authority?  ”  I  fancy  I  see  his  venerable  head 
sink  upon  his  breast  and  he  saying:  “Indeed  art  thou  zealous  forme? 
Would  that  all  the  peojjle  of  God  were  i)rophets  and  that  God  gave  His 
spirit  to  them.” 

Follow  that  man  to  the  top  of  the  mountain,  where  he  is  alone.  See  the 


GREATNESS  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  MOSES. 


299 


man  who  could  stretch  forth  an  iron  hand  when  it  was  necessary,  stretched 
on  the  face  of  the  earth  arid  seeking  forgiveness  for  his  people,  and  when 
his  prayer  was  not  answered,  “  O,  if  Thou  wilt  not  forgive  my  people  then 
blot  me  out  of  the  book  that  Thou  hast  written.”  So  tender!  And  another 
instance:  Before  his  death  he,  as  you  know,  admonished  the  people  in 
words  that  are  immortal.  After  forty  years  of  such  labor  as  he  had 
expended  he  admits  that  his  people  have  learned  almost  nothing,  and  I 
must  quote  Emerson,  who  says:  ‘Tt  is  in  the  nature  of  great  men  that  they 
should  be  misunderstood.”  But  with  the  tenderness,  with  the  thoughtful¬ 
ness  of  a  father  he  did  not  scold  his  people  before  the  shadow  death  fell 
upon  him.  Why,  he  says  not  “  you  are  ignorant,”  “  you  are  hard  hearted,” 
“you  are  blind,”  “you  are  stubborn.”  Listen!  “But  God  has  not  yet,  my 
dear  people,  given  you  a  heart  to  understand,  nor  eyes  to  see  nor  ears  to 
hear.”  Do  you  hear  that  tenderness  in  these  words?  “  God  has  not  given 
you  the  light  you  need.” 

They  say  that  that  man  was  not  a  man  at  all,  but  it  is  the  simple 
creation  of  the  nation’s  fancy.  Glorious  fancy!  We  should  worship  him, 
for  where  has  the  nation’s  love  and  veneration  ever  produced  a  picture  like 
it?  It  appears  to  me  as  if  it  had  been  painted  in  three  great  panels.  The 
first  period,  the  period  of  storm  and  stress,  where  he  undertook  the  delivery 
of  his  people,  but  God  was  not  in  it  and  so  he  failed.  And  then  the  second 
period  of  retirement,  of  solitude,  of  self  absorption,  of  preparation  for  the 
great  path;  then  the  final  picture  shows  us  the  man  of  action,  the  man  of 
energy,  the  man  of  insight,  and  the  picture  closes  with  the  words,  “  No 
man  knows  his  grave  to  this  day.  ”  Lonely  he  was  in  life,  lonely  he  was  in 
death;  but  though  no  man  knows  his  grave  all  the  world  knows  his  life. 

Here,  briefly,  I  will  say  something,  as  part  of  my  duty,  on  his  influence. 
I  can  not  circumscribe  it.  I  know  not  where  it  ends.  Every  Christian 
church  on  earth  and  every  mosque  is  his  monument.  Peace  is  the  founda¬ 
tion  stone,  the  historic  foundation  stone  on  which  they  all  rest,  and  that 
cross  over  the  church  on  which  the  man  is  hung,  which  to  the  Christian  is 
the  symbol  of  Deity  itself,  where  he  said  that  he  must  die  so  that  the  law 
of  Moses  be  fulfilled.  And  the  Arabians’  great  master,  Mahomet,  why  he  is 
overflowing  in  praise  when  the  son  of  Amram  comes  to  his  mind.  Five 
hundred  millions  at  least  acknowledge  him  their  master.  Five  hun¬ 
dred  millions  more  will  bow  to  his  name.  I  know  not  what  human 
society  can  be  or  become  and  allow  that  name  to  be  forgotten. 

Are  his  doctrines  to  be  abolished?  For  two  centuries,  the  first  two 
centuries  of  the  Christian  church,  no  other  Bible  was  known  but  the  Old 
Testament,  and  to-day  in  every  synagogue  and  temple,  and  on  every  day 
and  occasion  of  prayer,  when  his  own  followers  come  to  the  sacred  shrine, 
the  whole  mystery  hidden,  there  is  the  law  of  Moses.  And  they  take  it  in 
their  hands,  and,  oh,  how  often  I  have  seen  in  my  youth  that  scroll  bedewed 
with  the  tears  of  the  poor  suffering  Jew,  and  they  lift  it  up  again  and  say, 
“  This  is  the  law  that  Moses  laid  before  the  people  of  Israel.”  It  is  done 
so  at  this  very  moment,  at  this  very  hour  of  our  Sabbath,  and  I  thank  God 
from  my  whole  heart,  and  I  feel  inclined  almost  to  say,  “  Now  let  thy  serv¬ 
ant  go,”  that  from  the  Jewish  synagogue  I  could  come  here,  among  you 
followers  of  other  masters,  disciples  of  other  teachers,  pilgrims  from  many 
lands;  that  I  could  stand  up  in  your  midst,  and,  feeling  that  your  heart, 
and  your  soul,  and  your  sympathy  are  with  me,  simply  repeating  “  This  is 
the  law  that  Moses  has  laid  before  us  Israelites.” 


300 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


CHRISTrANITY  AS  INTERPRETED  BY  LITERATURE 

EEV.  THEODOEE  T.  MUNGEE  OF  NEW  HAVEN. 

The  paper  was  read  by  Dr.  Barrows. 

When  Christianity  appeared  in  the  world  it  might  have  been  regarded 
in  two  ways:  As  a  force  requiring  embodiment — something  through  which 
it  could  work — or  as  a  spirit  seeking  to  inform  everything  with  which  it 
should  come  in  contact. 

It  was  both — a  force  and  a  spirit,  the  objective  and  subjective  of  one 
energy  whose  end  was  to  subdue  all  things  to  its  own  likeness.  It  was 
inevitable  that  Christianity  as  a  conquering  energy  should  lay  hold  of  the 
strong  things  in  the  world  and  use  them  for  itself.  It  was  inevitable  also 
that  as  a  spirit  it  should  work,  spiritlike,  from  within,  secretly  penetrating 
into  all  things  open  to  it,  transforming  them  by  its  mysterious  alchemy  into 
forces  like  itself,  drawing  under  and  within  itself  governments,  art,  learning, 
science,  literature,  and  whatever  else  enters  into  society  as  shaping  and 
directing  energy. 

I  am  to  speak  of  Christianity  as  interpreted  by  literature,  or,  more 
accurately,  upon  the  way  in  which  Christianity  has  infused  itself  into 
literature  and  used  it  for  itself,  making  it  a  medium  by  which  it  conveys 
itself  to  the  world. 

We  should  never  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  Christianity  has  its  roots  in 
a  full  and  varied  literature.  It  was  a  literature  rich  and  profound  in  all 
departments  except  philosophy.  The  Jew  was  too  primitive  and  simple- 
minded  as  a  thinker  to  analyze  his  thought  or  his  nature ;  but  in  history, 
in  ethics,  in  imaginative  fiction,  and  in  certain  forms  of  poetry  his  literature 
well  endures  comparison  with  any  that  can  be  named. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  Christ  left  no  book,  and  that  He  did  not  con¬ 
template  one ;  and  so  men  go  searching  around  for  the  seat  of  authority, 
locating  it  now  in  an  infallible  church,  and  now  in  Christian  consciousness, 
and  now  in  traditions  and  institutions  ;  and,  not  finding  any  or  all  of  these 
sufficient,  they  turn  on  the  bookless  Christ,  and,  as  it  were,  in  defiance  of 
Him,  put  together  some  biographical  sketches  and  sundry  epistles  and 
formally  declare  them  to  be  the  divinely  constituted  seat  of  authority. 

Christ  indeed  left  no  book,  but  He  was  not  therefore  a  bookless  Christ, 
His  revelation  was  not  so  absolute  as  to  cut  Him  off  from  the  literature  of 
the  past,  as  something  upon  which  He  stood,  nor  from  that  ot  the  future, 
as  something  which  might  embody  Him.  It  is  often  made  an  object  of 
study  to  find  Christ  in  the  Old  Testament;  it  were  a  more  profitable  study 
to  find  the  Old  Testament  in  Christ.  His  first  discourse  begins  with  a  quo¬ 
tation  from  it,  and  He  dies  with  its  words  upon  His  lips. 

It  is  not  necessary,  and  it  would  not  be  wholly  true,  to  say  that  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  gave  shape  and  direction  to  Christ  He  was  too  unique, 
too  original,  too  full  of  direct  inspiration  and  vision  to  justify  such  an  asser¬ 
tion;  but  He  stood  upon  them  not  as  an  authoritative  guide  in  religion,  but 
as  illustrative  of  truth,  as  valuable  for  their  inspiring  quality,  and  as  full  of 
signs  of  more  truth,  and  fuller  grace.  His  relation  to  them — using  modern 
phrases — was  literary  and  critical;  He  emphasized.  He  selected  and  passed 
over,  taking  what  He  liked,  and  leaving  what  did  not  suit  His  purpose. 
They  served  to  develop  His  consciousness  as  the  Messiah,  but  they  did  not 
govern  or  determine  that  consciousness.  We  can  not  think  of  Christ  apart 
from  this  literature  It  is  not  more  true  to  say  that  it  was  full  of  Him  than 
that  He  was  full  of  it. 

Such  being  the  case,  we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  Christ  will  go  on 
invesing  Himself  in  literature;  that  Christianity  will  robe  itself  in 
great  poems  and  masterpieces  of  composition  as  various  at  least  as  those 
of  Judaism  and  as  much  greater  .as  the  new  faith  is  greater  than  the  old. 


CHRISTIANITY  AS  INTERPRETED  BY  LITERATURE.  301 


As  inspiration  it  demands  expression,  and  the  expression  will  take  on  the 
forms  of  the  art  it  encounters  and  use  it  as  its  medium.  But,  of  itself, 
inspiration  calls  for  the  rhythmic  flow  and  measured  cadence,  even  as  the 
worlds  are  divinely  built  upon  harmony  and  move  in  orbits  that  “still  sing 
to  the  young-eyed  cherubim.” 

It  was  inevitable  that  a  system  so  full  of  divine  passion  should  call  out 
a  full  stream  of  lyric  poetry;  that  a  system  involving  the  mysteries  of  the 
universe  and  great  cosmic  processes  should  clothe  them  in  subtle  dramas 
and  majestic  epics;  that  a  system  so  profoundly  involving  the  nature  of 
man  should  produce  philosophy;  that  a  religion  based  on  ethics  should 
evoke  treatises  on  human  society;  that  a  religion  so  closely  related  to  daily 
life  should  call  out  the  various  forms  of  literature  that  discuss  and  depict 
life. 

Enough  of  Christ’s  words  are  recorded  to  admit  of  classifying  Him  in 
respect  to  literature.  I  speak  to  such  as  will  understand  me  when  I  say 
that  Christ  is  to  be  put  among  the  poets — not  the  singers  of  rhymes  nor  the 
builders  of  epics,  but  those  who  see  into  the  heart  of  things  and  feel  the 
breath  of  the  Spirit  —  such  are  the  poets.  It  matters  not  in  what  form 
Christ  spoke,  He  was  yet  a  poet.  Every  sentence  will  bear  the  test.  Put 
the  microscope  over  them  and  see  how  perfect  they  are  in  structure.  Lay 
your  ear  to  them  and  hear  how  faultless  is  their  note.  Catch  their  spirit 
and  feel  how  true  they  are  to  the  inner  meaning  of  life,  how  full  of  God, 
how  keyed  to  eternity  and  its  eternal  hymn  of  truth  and  love. 

The  first  literary  products  of  Christianity,  apart  from  those  of  its  founder, 
were  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  It  is  difficult  at  present  so  to  separate  them 
from  the  veneration  in  which  they  are  held  as  to  look  at  them  in  a  free  and 
critical  way.  A  prevailing  dogma  of  inspiration  shuts  us  out  from  both 
their  meaning  and  their  excellence  as  compositions.  They  are  not  treatises, 
but  letters  —  one  mind  pouring  itself  out  to  others  in  a  most  human  way 
for  high  ends.  What  freedom,  the  current  flowing  here  and  there,  as  the 
mood  sways  the  main  purpose,  now  pressing  steadily  on  between  the  banks, 
now  overflowing  them,  going  off  and  coming  back,  sometimes  forgetting  to 
return;  careless,  but  always  noble;  delicate,  but  always  firm  and  massive; 
imaginative,  but  always  natural;  original,  full  of  resource,  giving  off  the 
overflow  of  his  thought  and  still  leaving  the  fountain  full;  often  prosaic 
and  homely,  but  as  often  eloquent  and  overwhelming  in  power;  a  rough, 
hearty,  and  careless  writer,  but  who  ever  wrote  better  or  to  better  purpose? 

I  hasten  to  name  Dante,  “  the  spokesman  of  ten  silent  centuries,”  as 
Carlyle  called  him — the  first  if  not  the  greatest  name  in  Christian  literature. 

The  Divine  Comedy  regarded  superficially  is  medieval,  but  at  the  bot¬ 
tom  it  is  of  all  ages.  It  has  for  an  apparent  motive  Order  of  the  Roman 
Church,  but  by  the  very  law  of  inspiration,  which  may  be  defined  to  be 
that  which  leads  an  author  unconsciously  to  transcend  his  purpose,  Dante 
condemned  as  a  poet  what  he  would  have  built  up  as  a  son  of  the  church. 
He  meant  to  be  constructive;  he  was  revolutionary.  By  portraying  the 
ideal  he  revealed  the  hopelessness  of  the  actual  church.  He  was  full  of 
errancy — political,  ecclesiastical,  theological — all  easily  separable  from  the 
poet  and  the  poem,  but  at  bottom  he  was  thoroughly  true  and  profoundly 
Christian.  He  is  to  be  regarded  as  one  called  of  God  to  say  to  his  age  and 
to  the  world  what  had  great  need  of  being  said. 

Dante’s  inspiration  consists  largely  in  the  absoluteness  of  his  ethical 
and  spiritual  perceptions,  and  as  such  they  are  essentially  Christian.  Greek 
in  his  formal  treatment  of  penalty,  he  goes  beyond  the  Greek  and  is  dis¬ 
tinctly  Christian  in  his  conception  of  God  and  of  sin.  In  the  purgatory  and 
Paradise  he  enters  a  world  unknown  outside  of  Christian  thought.  In  the 
Greek  tragedies  mistake  is  equivalent  to  sin  and  crime,  and  it  led  to  the 
same  doom,  but  the  Inferno  (with  a  few  exceptions  made  in  the  interest  of 
the  church)  contains  only  sinners. 


302 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  strong  point  in  Dante  is  that  he  ingrafted  into  literature  the  pur¬ 
gatorial  charrcter  of  sin— I  do  not  say  the  dogma  of  purgatory.  Whatever 
Protestant  theology  has  done*with  this  truth,  Protestant  literature  has  pre¬ 
served  it,  and,  next  to  love,  made  it  the  leading  factor  in  its  chief  imagi¬ 
native  works.  Sin  and  its  reaction,  pain  eating  away  the  sin,  purity  and 
wisdom  through  the  suffering  of  sin,  sin  and  its  disclosure  through  con¬ 
science — what  else  do  we  find  in  the  great  masterpieces  of  fiction  and 
poetry,  not,  indeed,  with  slavish  uniformity,  but  as  a  dominant  thought. 
Hawthorne  wrote  of  nothing  else;  it  gives  eternal  freshness  to  his  pages. 
It  runs  like  a  golden  thread  through  the  works  of  George  Eliot  and  makes 
them  other  than  they  seem.  The  root  idea  of  this  conception  of  sin  is 
humanity — the  chief  theme  of  modern  literature  as  it  is  of  Christianity; 
and  it  is  the  one  because  it  is  the  other.  This  conception  pervades  liter¬ 
ature  because  Christianity  imparted  it. 

In  Dante  it  was  settled  that  henceforth  Christianity  should  have  litera¬ 
ture  for  a  mouthpiece.  As  the  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation  prepared 
the  field — one  bringing  back  learning  and  the  other  liberty— Christianity 
began  to  vest  itself  in  literary  forms.  We  must  look  for  Christianity  in 
literature,  not  as  though  listening  to  one  singer  after  another,  but  rather 
to  the  whole  choir.  The  Fifth  Symphony  can  not  be  rendered  by  a  violin 
or  trumpet,  but  only  by  the  whole  orchestra. 

The  range  is  wide  and  long.  It  reaches  from  Dante  to  Whittier;  from 
Shakespeare  to  Burns  and  Browning;  from  Spenser  to  Longfellow  and 
Lowell;  from  Cowper  to  Shelley  and  Wordsworth;  from  Milton  to  Matthew 
Arnold;  from  Bunyan  to  Hawthorne  and  Victor  Hugo  and  Tolstoi;  from 
Thomas  a  Kempis  and  Pascal  to  Kant  and  Jonathan  Edwards  and  Lessing 
and  Schliermacher  and  Coleridge  and  Maurice  and  Martineau  and  Robert¬ 
son  and  Fairbairns;  from  Jeremy  Taylor  and  South  and  Barrow  and  the 
Cambridge  Platonists  to  Emerson  and  Amiel  and  Carlyle;  from  Bacon  to 
Lotze;  from  Addison  and  Johnson  to  Goethe  and  Scott  and  Thackeray  and 
Dickens  and  George  Eliot. 

Christianity  is  a  wide  thing  and  nothing  that  is  human  is  akin  to  it;  nor 
is  it  possible  that  any  product  of  a  single  mind  can  more  than  hint  at  that 
which  comprises  the  whole  order  and  movement  of  the  world.  Christ  is 
more  than  a  Judean  slain  on  Calvary:  Christ  is  humanity  as  it  is  evolving 
under  the  power  and  grace  of  God,  and  any  book  touched  by  the  inspiration 
of  this  fact  belongs  to  Christian  literature.  Take  the  plays  of  Shakespeare; 
there  is  hardly  anything  in  them  that  is  obviously  Christian.  Still  they 
are  Christian  because  they  are  so  thoroughly  on  the  side  of  humanity. 
How  full  of  freedom;  what  a  sense  of  man  as  a  responsible  agent;  what 
conscience  and  truth  and  honor;  what  charity  and  mercy  and  justice;  what 
reverence  for  man  and  how  well  clothed  is  he  in  the  human  virtues,  and 
what  a  strong,  hopeful  spirit  despite  the  agnostic  note  heard  now  and  then, 
but  amply  redeemed  and  counteracted  by  the  general  tenor. 

Something  of  the  same  sort  might  be  said  of  Goethe.  Goethe  is  to  be 
regarded  as  one  in  whom  Christianity  won  a  victory,  and  he  rendered  it  the 
weightiest  service  by  checking  two  powerful  influences  which,  however 
corrective  and  within  limits  useful,  were  pressing  unduly  upon  the  faith 
and  even  threatening  its  existence — the  infldelity  of  Voltaire  and  the 
naturalism  of  Rousseau.  Goethe  set  his  hard  German  sense  and  loftier 
inspiration  against  these  poisoning  and  undermining  influences,  insisting 
on  reverence,  and  asserting  a  doctrine  of  nature  that  embraced  will  and 
spirit  and  made  them  the  sources  of  conduct.  Goethe  also  rendered 
Christianity  an  inestimable  service  in  destroying  the  medieval  conception 
of  the  world  as  a  piece  of  mechanism  and  of  God  as  an  “  external  world- 
architect” — conceptions  that  had  come  in  through  the  Latin  theology,  or 
rather  had  been  fostered  by  it. 

The  Christian  value  of  an  author  is  not  to  be  determined  by  the  fullness 


CHR-STIANITY  AS  INTERPRETED  BY  LITERATURE.  303 


of  his  Christian  assertion.  There  is,  of  course,  immense  value  in  the  great, 
positive,  full-statured  believers  like  Dante,  and  Bacon,  and  Milton,  and 
Browning.  But  Christianity  is  all  the  while  in  need  of  two  things— correc¬ 
tion  of  its  mistakes  and  perversions,  and  development  in  the  direction  of 
its  universality.  None  can  do  these  two  things  so  well  as  those  who  are 
partially  outsiders.  An  earnest  skeptic  is  often  the  best  man  to  find  the 
obscured  path  of  faith. 

But  if  a  doubter  is  often  a  good  teacher  and  critic  of  Christianity,  much 
more  is  it  true  that  it  is  often  developed  and  carried  along  its  proper 
lines,  not  more  by  those  who  are  within  than  by  those  who  stand  on  the 
boundary  and  cover  both  sides.  Milton,  though  a  great  scholar  of  Chris¬ 
tian  ethics  in  his  prose  writings,  did  nothing  to  enlarge  the  domain  of 
Christian  belief  or  to  better  theological  thinking  in  an  age  when  it  sadly 
needed  improvement,  but  Goethe  taught  Christianity  to  think  scientifically, 
and  prepared  the  way  for  it  to  include  modern  science.  So  of  Shelley  and 
Matthew  Arnold,  and  Emerson  and  the  group  of  Germans  represented  by 
Lessing  and  Herder,  authors  who  with  their  Hellenistic  tendencies  repre¬ 
sent  a  phase  of  thought  and  life  which  undoubtedly  is  to'  be  brought 
within  the  infolding  scope  of  Christianity;  and  no  one  can  do  it  so  well  as 
those  modern  Greeks. 

No  one  illustrates  this  point  better  than  Matthew  Arnold.  He  has  not 
a  very  lovely  look  with  his  bishop-baiting  and  rough  handling  of  dissent, 
but  there  is  something  worthier  and  broader  in  the  man;  as  is  shown  in  the 
fact  that  the  subject  of  his  best  sonnet,  “East  London,”  was  a  dissenting 
preacher. 

Like  others  of  this  class  of  teachers,  he  calls  attention  to  overborne  or 
undeveloped  truth.  There  is  no  doubt  the  church  has  relied  too  exclu¬ 
sively  upon  the  miracles;  Arnold  reminds  it  that  the  substance  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  does  not  consist  of  miracles.  It  had  come  to  worship  the  Bible  as  a 
fetich,  and  to  fill  it  with  all  sorts  of  magical  meanings  and  forced  dogmas, 
the  false  and  nearly  fatal  fruit  of  the  Reformation.  Arnold  dealt  the 
superstition  a  heavy  blow  that  undoubtedly  strained  the  faith  of  many,  but 
it  is  with  such  violence  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  brought  in.  When 
God  lets  loose  a  thinker  in  the  world  there  is  always  a  good  deal  of  destruc¬ 
tion.  Such  teachers  must  be  watched  while  they  are  listened  to.  We  our¬ 
selves  must  be  critics  when  we  read  a  critic. 

In  tracing  our  subject  historically ’it  is  interesting  to  note  a  certain 
progress  or  order  of  development,  especially  in  the  poets,  in  the  treatment 
of  Christianity  at  the  hands  of  literature. 

In  Chaucer  and  Shakespeare  we  have  a  broad,  ethical  conception  of  it, 
free  both  from  dogma  and  ecclesiasticism.  The  former  mildly  rebuked  the 
evils  and  follies  of  the  church,  but  stood  for  the  plain  and  simple  virtues, 
and  gave  a  picture  of  a  parish  minister  which  no  modern  conception  has 
superseded.  The  latter  denied  nothing,  asserted  nothing  concerning  either 
church  or  dogma,  keeping  in  the  higher  region  of  life,  but  it  was  life  per¬ 
meated  with  the  humanity  and  freedom  of  Christianity.  Milton  more  than 
half  defeated  his  magnificent  genius  by  weighing  it  with  a  mechanical 
theology. 

The  later  poets  seldom  forego  their  birthright  of  spiritual  vision.  Cowper 
verged  in  the  same  direction,  but  saved  himself  by  the  humanity  he  wove 
into  his  verse  —  a  clear  and  almost  new  note  in  the  world’s  music.  But  the 
poets  who  followed  him,  closing  up  the  last  century  and  covering  the  first 
of  this,  served  Christianity  chiefly  by  protesting  against  the  theology  in 
which  it  was  ensnared.  The  service  rendered  to  the  faith  by  such  poets 
as  Burns  and  Byron  and  Shelley  and  William  Blake  is  very  great.  It  is  no 
longer  in  order  to  apologize  for  lines  which  all  wish  had  not  been  written. 
It  were  more  in  order  to  require  apology  from  the  theology  which  called 
out  the  satire  of  Burns,  and  from  the  ecclesiasticism  that  provoked  the 
young  Shelley  even  to  atheism;  the  poet  was  not  the  real  atheist. 


304 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


If  Christianity  is  a  s])irit  that  seeks  to  inform  everything  with  which  it 
comes  in  contact,  the  process  has  that  clear  and  growing  illustration  in  the 
poets  of  the  century.  In  one  way  or  another-  some  in  negative,  but  more 
in  positive  ways — they  have  striven  to  enthrone  love  in  man  and  for  man  as 
the  supreme  law,  and  they  have  found  this  law  in  God,  who  works  in  right¬ 
eousness  for  its  fulfillment.  The  roll  might  be  called  from  Wordsworth  and 
Coleridge  down  to  Whittier,  and  but  few  would  need  to  be  counted  out. 

The  marked  examples  are  Tennyson  and  Browning,  and  of  the  two  I 
think  Tennyson  is  the  clearer.  Speaking  roughly,  and  taking  his  work  as 
a  whole,  I  regard  it  as  more  thoroughly  informed  with  Christianity  than 
that  of  any  other  master  in  literature.  I  do  not  forget  the  overwhelming 
positiveness  of  Browning,  whose  faith  is  the  very  evidence  of  things  unseen 
and  whose  hope  is  like  a  contagion.  It  is  this  very  positiveness  that  removes 
him  a  little  way  from  us;  it  is  high  and  we  can  not  quite  attain  to  it. 
Tennyson,  on  the  contrary,  speaks  on  the  level  of  our  finite  hearts,  believes 
and  doubts  with  us,  debates  the  problems  of  faith  with  us,  and  such  victo¬ 
ries  as  he  wins  are  also  ours.  Browning  leaves  us  behind  as  he  storms  his 
way  into  the  heaven  of  his  unclouded  hojje,  but  Tennyson  stays  with  us  in 
a  world  which,  being  such  as  it  is,  is  never  without  a  shadow.  The 
more  clearly  we  see  the  eternal  the  more  deeply  are  we  enshrouded  in  the 
finite. 

The  most  interesting  fact  in  connection  with  our  subject  is  the  thorough 
discussion  Christianity  is  now  undergoing  in  literature,  and  Tennyson  is 
the  undoubted  leader  in  the  debate.  It  is  not  only  in  the  highest  form  of 
literary  art,  but  it  is  based  on  the  latest  and  fullest  science.  He  turns 
evolution  into  faith  and  makes  it  the  ground  of  hope. 

It  is  not  in  the  “In  Memoriam,”  however,  but  in  the  “Idyls”  that  we  have 
his  fullest  explication  of  Christianity.  These  Idyls  are  sermons  or  treatises; 
they  deal  with  all  sins,  faults,  graces,  virtues,  character  in  all  its  phases, 
and  forms,  and  processes  put  under  a  conception  of  Christ,  which  nineteen 
centuries  have  evolved  plus  the  insight  of  the  poet. 

The  value  of  these  restatements  o£  Christianity,  especially  by  the  poets, 
is  beyond  estimate.  They  are  the  real  defenders  of  the  faith,  the  prophets 
and  priests  whose  succession  never  fails.  Leslie  Stephen  writes  an  enticing 
plea  for  agnosticism,  and  seems  to  sweep  the  universe  clean  of  faith  and 
God;  we  read  Tennyson’s  “Higher  Pantheism,”  “The  Two  Voices,”  “In 
Memoriam,”  or  Browning’s  “  Saul,”  “  Death  in  the  Desert,”  or  Wordsworth’s 
“  Odes  on  Immortality  aijd  Duty,”  or  Whittier’s  “  My  Psalm,”  and  the  plea 
for  agnosticism  fades  out.  In  some  way  it  seems  truer  and  better  to  believe. 

Such  prophets  never  cease,  though  their  coming  is  uncertain.  In  the 
years  just  gone  three  have  “lost  themselves  in  the  light”  they  saw  so 
clearly  and  the  succession  will  not  fail.  So  long  as  a  century  can  x^roduce 
such  interpreters  of  Christianity  as  Tennyson  and  Browning  and  Whittier, 
it  will  not  vanish  from  the  earth. 

It  will  be  seen  that  I  have  simply  touched  a  few  points  of  a  subject  too 
large  and  wide-spreading  to  be  brought  within  an  hour’s  space.  To  amend 
for  so  scanty  a  treatment  I  will  briefly  enumerate  the  chief  ways  in  which 
literature  becomes  the  interpreter  of  Christianity. 

Literature  interprets  Christianity  correctly  for  the  plain  reason  that  both 
are  keyed  to  the  spirit.  The  inspiration  of  high  literature  is  that  of  truth; 
it  reveals  the  nature  and  meaning  of  things;  which  is  the  office  of  the  spirit 
that  takes  the  things  of  Christ  and  shows  them  unto  us  even  as  the  poet 
interprets  life — two  similar  and  sympathetic  processes. 

Literature,  with  few  exceptions — all  inspired  literature — stands  squarely 
upon  humanity  and  insists  upon  it  on  ethical  grounds  and  for  ethical  ends, 
and  this  is  essential  Christianity. 

Literature  in  its  highest  forms  is  unworldly.  It  is  a  protest  against  the 
worldly  temper,  the  worldly  motive,  the  worldly  habit.  It  appeals  to  the 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  BIBLE. 


305 


spiritual  and  the  invisible;  it  readily  allies  itself  with  all  the  greater 
Christian  truths  and  hopes  and  becomes  their  mouthpiece. 

The  greater  literature  is  prophetic  and  optimistic.  Its  keynote  is:  “All 
is  well,”  and  it  accords  with  the  Christian  secret:  “Behold,  I  make  all 
things  new.” 

Literature,  in  its  higher  ranges,  is  the  correction  of  poor  thinking — that 
which  is  crude,  extravagant,  superstitious,  hard,  one-sided.  This  is 
especially  true  in  the  realm  of  theological  thought. 

The  theology  of  the  West,  with  the  Western  passion  for  clearness  and 
immediate  effectiveness,  is  mechanical  and  prosaic ;  it  pleases  the  ordinary 
mind,  and  therefore  a  democratic  age  insists  on  it ;  it  is  a  good  tool  for 
priestcraft ;  it  is  easily  defended  by  formal  logic,  but  it  does  not  satisfy  the 
thinker,  and  it  is  abhorrent  to  the  poet.  Hence,  thoroughly  as  it  has 
swayed  the  Occidental  world,  it  has  never  commanded  the  assent  of  the 
choicest  Occidental  minds.  Hence  the  long  line  of  mystics  through  whom 
lies  the  true  continuity  of  Christian  theology,  always  verging  upon  poetry, 
and  often  reaching  it.  A  theology  that  insists  upon  a  transcendent  God, 
who  sits  above  the  world  and  spins  the  thread  of  its  affairs  as  a  spinner  at 
a  wheel ;  that  holds  to  such  a  conception  of  God  because  it  involves  the 
simplest  of  several  perplexing  propositions ;  that  immanence  as  involving 
pantheism;  that  makes  two  catalogues — the  natural  and  the  super¬ 
natural  —and  puts  everything  it  can  understand  into  one  list  and 
everything  it  can  not  understand  into  the  other,  and  then  makes 
faith  turn  upon  accepting  this  division — such  a  theology  does  not 
command  the  assent  of  those  minds  who  express  themselves  in  literature ; 
the  poet,  the  man  of  genius,  the  broad  and  universal  thinker,  pass  it  by; 
they  stand  too  near  God  to  be  deceived  by  such  renderings  of  His  truth. 
All  the  while,  in  every  age,  these  children  of  light  have  made  their  protest, 
and  it  is  through  them  that  the  chief  gains  in  theological  thought  have 
been  secured. 

For  the  most  part  the  greater  names  in  literature  have  been  true  to 
Christ,  and  it  is  the  Christ  in  them  that  has  corrected  theology,  redeeming 
it  from  dogmatism  and  making  it  capable  of  belief — not  clear,  perhaps,  but 
profound. 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  BIBLE. 

RT.  REV.  MGR.  SETON  OF  NEWARK. 

Bible  is  the  name  now  given  to  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews  and  Chris¬ 
tians.  Independently  of  all  considerations  of  its  moral  and  religious  advan¬ 
tages,  we  believe  that  no  book  has  conduced  more  than  the  Bible  to  the 
intellectual  advancement  of  the  human  race;  we  believe  that  no  book  has 
been  to  so  many,  and  so  abundantly,  wealth  in  poverty,  liberty  in  bondage, 
health  in  sickness,  society  in  solitude;  and  as  a  divinely  inspired  work,  such 
as  the  testimony  of  the  Jewish  nation  for  the  greater  part  of  it  and  the 
tradition  of  the  Christian  church  for  the  whole  of  it  declares  it  to  be,  it 
claims  our  sincerest  homage. 

The  relations  of  the  church  to  these  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  form  an  important  part  of  dogmatic  theology  and  an  interesting 
portion  of  ecclesiastical  history.  They  have,  also,  been  the  occasion  of  relig¬ 
ious  differences  in  the  Christian  body;  for,  as  that  wise  Englishman,  John 
Selden,  said  in  his  “Table  Talk”  of  two  centuries  ago,  “’Tis  a  great  ques¬ 
tion  how  we  know  scripture  to  be  scripture,  whether  by  the  church  or  by 
man’s  private  judgment.”  We  shall  not  discuss  purely  controversial  mat¬ 
ters;  but  limit  ourselves  to  an  introductory  statement  of  facts  and  to  a 
brief  consideration  of  the  canon,  the  inspiration,  and  the  Vulgate  edition  of 
scripture. 


306  ‘  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  church  is  a  living  society  commissioned  by  Jesus  Christ  to  preserve 
the  word  of  God  pure  and  unchanged.  This  revealed  word  of  God  is  con¬ 
tained  partly  in  the  Holy  Scripture  and  partly  in  tradition.  The  former  is 
called  the  written  word  of  God.  Writing,  not  necessarily,  indeed,  on 
paper,  but  as  often  found  on  more  durable  materials,  such  as  clay  or  brick 
tablets,  stone  slabs  and  cylinders,  and  metal  plates,  being  the  art  of  fixing 
thoughts  in  an  intelligible  and  lasting  shape,  so  as  to  hand  them  down  to 
other  generations,  and  thus  perpetuate  historical  records.  There  is  a 
special  congruity  that  the  Almighty,  from  whose  instructions  not  only 
originally  spoken,  but  probably  also  written,  language  was  derived,  should 
have  put  His  divine  revelations  in  writing  through  the  instrumentality  of 
chosen  men;  and  as  the  human  race  is  originally  one,  we  think  that  the 
fact  that  scriptures  of  some  sort  claiming  to  be  inspired  are  found  in  all 
the  civilized  nations  of  the  past  shows  that  such  conceptions,  although 
outside  of  the  orthodox  line  of  tradition,  are  derived  from  the  primitive 
unity  and  religion  of  the  human  family. 

The  church  teaches  that  the  Sacred  Scriptures  are  the  written  word  of 
God  and  that  He  is  their  author,  and  consequently  she  receives  them  with 
piety  and  reverence.  This  gives  a  distinct  character  to  the  Bible  which  no 
other  book  possesses,  for  of  no  mere  human  composition,  however  excellent, 
can  it  ever  be  said  that  it  comes  directly  from  God.  The  church  also 
maintains  that  it  belongs  to  her — and  to  her  alone — to  determine  the  true 
sense  of  the  scriptures,  and  that  they  can  not  be  rightly  interpreted  con¬ 
trary  to  her  decision;  because  she  claims  to  be  and  is  the  living,  unerring 
authority  to  (vhom— and  not  to  those  who  expound  the  scripture  by  the 
light  of  private  judgment — infallibility  was  promised  and  given. 

Her  teaching  is  the  rule  of  faith,  since  she  is  a  visible,  perpetual,  and 
universal  organization,  possessed  of  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  func¬ 
tions.  She  is  historically  independent  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  some  parts 
thereof  being  anterior  and  other  parts  subsequent  to  her  own  existence,  but 
receives  safeguards  and  preserves  them  as  her  most  sacred  deposit,  some¬ 
what  as,  to  make  a  comparison  taken  from  our  civil  polity,  the  government 
of  the  United  States  in  its  three  co-ordinate  branches  venerates,  interprets, 
and  executes  the  American  Constitution. 

One  of  the  duties  incumbent  upon  the  pastors  of  the  church  in  the  con¬ 
duct  of  public  worship  has  ever  been  the  reading  of  the  scriptures  with  an 
explanation  of  what  was  read  or  an  exhortation  derived  from  it.  During 
the  middle  ages,  owing  to  the  lack  of  those  aids  and  appliances — such 
especially  as  archaeology  and  comparative  philology — learned  and  scientific 
as  contrasted  with  scholastic  and  devotional  interpretation  of  the  Holy 
Scripture,  although  never  quite  neglected,  occupied  relatively  only  a  small 
share  in  the  studies  of  those  times. 

The  Catholic  principles  as  to  the  general  use  of  the  Bible  may  be  deduced 
from  this  Tridentine  decree,  which  was  partially  directed  against  those 
irreverent  and  sometimes  blasphemous  expounders  of  Holy  Writ,  whom  the 
council  qualifies  as  “  petulant  spirits.”  According  to  our  view,  the  Bible 
does  not  contain  the  whole  of  revealed  truth,  nor  is  it  necessary  for  every 
Christian  to  read  and  understand  it.  The  church  existed  as  an  organized 
society,  having  powers  from  her  Divine  Pounder  to  teach  all  nations,  before 
the  scriptures  as  a  whole  existed  and  before  there  was  a  question  or  dis¬ 
pute  about  any  part  of  the  scriptures. 

The  redemption  by  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ  being  the  central 
idea  of  all  Christian  instruction,  the  Old  Testament  subjects  in  these  rare 
and  valuable  works  were  chosen  for  their  typical  significance  and  relation 
to  it,  and  thus  the  people  were  instructed  in  a  manner  not  less  calculated 
to  excite  their  piety  than  that  which  is  conveyed  by  means  of  speech.  Dur¬ 
ing  this  present  century  several  popes  have  warned  the  faithful  against 
societies  which  distribute  vernacular  versions — often  corrupt  ones — with 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  BIBLE, 


307 


the  avowed  purpose  of  unsettling  the  belief  of  simple-minded  Catholics, 
but  it  is  unjust  to  conclude  from  this  that  the  church  is  not  solicitous  for 
her  children  to  read  the  Bible  if  this  be  correctly  rendered  into  their  lan¬ 
guage  and  they  possess  the  necessary  qualifications  and  proper  disposition. 

The  Christian  church  did  not  receive  the  canon  of  Old  Testament  script¬ 
ure  from  the  Jewish  synagogue,  because  there  was  no  settled  Hebrew 
canon  until  long  after  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel.  The  inspired 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  did  not  enumerate  the  books  received  by 
Christ  and  His  disciples.  Nevertheless  we  are  certain  that  the  Septuagint 
version  or  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  scriptures  into  Greek  made 
some  part  (the  Pentateuch)  at  Alexandria  about  280  years  B.  C.  and  the 
rest,  made  also  in  Egypt  before  133  B.  C.,  which  contains  several  books  now 
thrown  out  by  the  Jews,  was  favorably  viewed  and  almost  constantly  quoted 
from  by  them,  so  that  St.  Augustine  says  that  it  is  “of  most  grave  and  pre¬ 
eminent  authority.”  It  is  supposed  to  be  the  oldest  of  all  the  versions  of 
the  scriptures  and  was  commonly  used  in  the  church  for  four  centuries, 
since  from  it  was  made  that  very  early  Latin  translation  which  was  used  in 
the  western  part  of  the  emxjire  before  the  introduction  of  St.  J erome’s 
Vulgate. 

It  was  held  in  great  repute  for  a  long  time  by  the  Jews  and  read  in  their 
synagogues,  until  it  became  odious  to  them  on  account  of  the  arguments 
drawn  from  it  by  the  Christian^.  From  it  the  great  body  of  the  fathers 
have  quoted,  and  it  is  still  used  in  the  Greek  church.  This  celebrated 
translation  contains  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  whiclji  Catholics 
acknowledge  to  be  genuine.  The  Christian  writers  of  the  first  three  cent¬ 
uries  were  unanimous  in  accepting  these  books  as  inspired;  and  the  letter 
of  Pope  St.  Clement,  written  about  A.  D.  96,  indicates  that  a  scriptural 
canon  must  already  have  been  fixed  upon  by  apostolical  tradition  in  the 
church  at  Rome,  since  the  author  cites  from  almost  every  one  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  including  those  called  deuterocanonical  and  rejected 
by  the  Jews. 

At  the  council  of  Florence,  the  canon  was  not  discussed.  “A  clear 
proof,”  says  Dixon  in  his  general  introduction  to  the  Sacred  Scripture, 
“  that  the  Greek  and  Latin  churches  were  then  unanimous  upon  this  point.” 
At  this  period,  A.  D.  1439,  the  Decree  of  the  Union,  drawn  up  by  Pope 
Eugene  IV.  for  the  Orientals,  who  came  to  Rome  to  abjure  their  errors, 
gives  the  canon  as  it  had  always  been  held  by  his  predecessors.  In  the 
next  century,  the  Bible,  having  become  an  occasion  of  bitter  religious  con¬ 
troversy,  the  canonicity  of  the  scriptures  was  thoroughly  discussed  and 
forever  settled  for  Catholics  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  uses  these 
words,  in  the  fourth  session,  held  on  the  8th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1546:  The 
synod,  “  following  the  examples  of  the  orthodox  fathers,  receives  and  ven¬ 
erates  with  an  equal  affection  of  piety,  and  reverence,  all  the  books,  both 
of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament — seeing  that  one  God  is  the  author 
of  both— and  it  has  thought  it  meet  that  a  list  of  the  sacred  books  be  in¬ 
serted  in  this  decree,  lest  a  doubt  may  arise  in  anyone’s  mind  which  are 
the  books  that  are  received  by  this  synod.” 

Insxjiration  is  a  certain  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  mind  of  a 
writer  urging  him  to  write,  and  so  acting  upon  him  that  his  work  is  truly 
the  word  of  God.  Father,  since  Cardinal,  Franzelin’s  second  thesis  on  the 
sacred  pictures,  in  his  course  of  the  Roman  College  in  1864,  states  the 
Catholic  idea  of  inspiration  in  the  following  words: 

As  books  may  be  called  divine  in  several  senses,  the  scriptures,  according  to 
Catholic  doctrine  contained  both  in  the  apostolic  writings  and  in  unbroken  tradi¬ 
tion,  must  be  held  to  be  divine  in  this  sense,  that  they  are  the  books  of  God  as 
their  efficient  cause  and  that  God  is  the  author  of  these  books  by  his  supernatural 
acdon  upon  their  human  writers,  which  action  is  styled  inspiration  in  ecclesias¬ 
tical  terminology  derived  from  the  scriptures  themselves. 

The  Holy  Scriptures  have  been  translated  into  every  language,  but 


308 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


among  these  almost  innumerable  versions  one  only,  which  is  called  the 
Vulgate,  is  authorized  and  declared  to  be  “  authentic  ”  by  the  church.  The 
belief  of  the  faithful  being  that  the  doctrinal  authority  of  the  church 
extends  to  positive  truths  and  “dogmatic  facts”  which,  although  not 
revealed,  are  necessary  for  the  exposition  or  defense  of  Revelation. 

The  Vulgate  has  an  interesting  history.  It  is  the  common  opinion  that, 
from  the  first  age  of  Christianity,  one  particular  version  made  from  the 
Septuagint  was  received  and  sanctioned  by  the  Church  of  Rome  and  used 
throughout  the  West.  Among  individual  Christians  almost  innumerable 
Latin  translations  were  current,  but  only  one  of  these,  called  the  Old  Latin, 
bore  an  official  stamp. 

These  translations,  corrections,  and  portions  left  untouched  by  St. 
Jerome,  being  brought  together,  form  the  Vulgate,  which,  however,  did  not 
displace  the  Old  Version  for  two  centuries,  although  it  spread  rapidly  and 
constantly  gained  strength,  until  about  A.  D.  600  it  was  generally  received 
in  the  churches  of  the  West  and  has  continued  ever  since  in  common  use. 
In  the  collect  for  the  feast  of  St.  Jerome,  September  30th,  he  is  called  “A 
doctor  mighty  in  expounding  Holy  Scripture.” 


WHAT  THE  HEBREW  SCRIPTURES  HAVE 

WROUGHT  FOR  MANKIND, 

« 

A  paper  by  Alexander  Kohut,  D.  D.,  Ph.  D.,  rabbi  of  the 
Congregation  Ahawath  Chesad,  New  York  City,  was  read  by 
Rabbi  Stolz. 

To  them  who,  cradled  in  the  infancy  of  faith,  rocked  by  the  violent 
tempests  of  adversity,  and  tried  by  passion  waves  of  lurking  temptation; 
who,  seeking  virtue,  find  but  vice;  who,  striving  for  the  weal,  gain  but  the 
bleakest  summit  of  realism;  who,  sorely  jjressed  by  rude  time  and  ruder 
destiny  and  whirled  by  gay  balloons  of  chance  into  rainbow  clouds  of  space, 
redescend  into  the  sad  arena  of  mortal  tragedy  only  to  encounter  fresh 
shipwrecks  in  the  turbulent  oceans  of  existence  ;  God  is  the  anchor  of  a 
new-born  hope,  the  electric  quickener  of  life’s  uneven  current,  drifting  into 
His  harbor  of  safest  refuge  from  the  hurricane  of  outward  seas  into  glad¬ 
some,  cheery  gulf  shores  of  welcome  peace,  the  placid  water’s  sacred  con¬ 
sciousness,  wherein  no  ship,  no  craft,  no  burden,  and  no  trust  ever  founders, 
the  tranquil  Bible  streams. 

Faith  is  a  spark  of  God’s  own  flame,  and  nowhere  did  it  burn  with  more 
persistence  and  vehemence  than  in  the  ample  folds  of  Israel’s  devotion. 
With  faith  as  the  corner-stone  of  the  future  the  glorious  past  of  the  Jew, 
suffused  with  the  warmest  sunshine  of  divine  effulgence  and  human  trust, 
reflects  the  most  perfect  image  of  individual  and  national  existence.  Faith 
—the  Bible  creed  of  Israel — was  the  first  and  most  vital  principle  of  uni¬ 
versal  ethics,  and  it  was  the  Jew,  now  the  Pariah  pilgrim  of  ungrateful 
humanity,  who  bequeathed  the  precious  legacy  to  Semitic-Aryan  nations; 
who  sowed  the  healthy  seeds  of  irradicable  belief  in  often  unfertile  ground, 
but  with  inexhaustible  vigor  infused  that  inherent  vitality  of  propagation 
and  endurance,  which  forever  marks  the  progress  and  triumph  of  God’s 
chosen,  though  unaccepted,  people. 

The  sonorous  clang  of  the  trite  adage,  “  The  Hebrews  drank  of  the 
fountain,  the  Greeks  from  the  stream,  and  the  Romans  from  the  pool,” 
applied  by  an  able  critic,  is  moreuniversally  acknowledged  with  the  dawn  of 
unbiased  reason,  turned  upon  history  with  the  Diogenes  lantern  of  search¬ 
ing  justice.  The  religion  of  Israel  is  the  grandest  romance  of  idealism, 
blended  with  the  sedate  realism  of  terrestial  perpetuity. 


WHAT  THE  HEBREW  SCRIPTURES  HAVE  WROUGHT.  309 


Every  unprejudiced  mind  gladly  acknowledges  that  the  Bible,  the  divine 
encyclopedia  of  unalienable  truths  and  morals,  belongs  to  the  world,  like 
the  sun,  the  air,  the  ocean,  the  rivers,  the  fountains — the  common  heirloom 
of  humanity. 

The  doctrine  of  divine  unity,  by  collecting  all  the  scattered  race  of  beauty 
and  excellence,  from  every  quarter  of  the  universe,  and  condensing  them 
into  one  overpowering  conception — by  tracing  the  innumerable  rills  of 
thought  and  feeling  to  the  fountain  of  an  infinite,  mind — surpasses  the  most 
elegant  and  etherial  polytheism  immeasurably  more  than  the  sun  does  the 
“cinders  of  the  element.  ”  However  beautiful  the  mythology  of  Greece, 
as  interpreted  by  Wordsworth,  it  must  yield  without  a  straggle  to  the 
thought  of  a  great  One  Spirit.  Compared  to  those  conceptions  how  does 
the  tine  dream  of  the  pagan  mythus  melt  away — Olympus,  with  its  multi¬ 
tude  of  stately,  celestial  natures  dwindle  before  the  solitary,  immutable 
throne  of  Adonay,  the  poetry  as  well  as  the  philosophy  of  Greece  shrink 
before  the  single  sentence,  “  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord  ” 
or  before  any  one  of  these  ten  majestic  commands  hurled  down  amid  lurid 
blaze  above  in  a  halo  of  divine  revelation! 

The  history  of  the  Jewish  nation  offers  to  the  consideration  of  the  phil¬ 
osopher  and  the  chronicler  many  peculiar  circumstances  nowhere  else  exem¬ 
plified  in  any  one  branch  of  the  great  family  of  mankind,  originating  from 
one  common  stem.  In  all  the  characteristics  which  distinguish  the  Israel¬ 
ites  from  other  nations  the  difference  is  wide.  The  most  remarkable  of  the 
distinctions  which  divide  the  Jewish  people  from  the  rest  of  the  world  is 
the  immutability  of  their  laws. 

Revelation,  the  primal  source  of  inspiration  and  prophecy,  set  the 
universe  on  fire  with  a  torch  of  blazing  grandeur  aglow  with  the  combust¬ 
ible  sparks  of  heaven-imparted  gifts,  and  illuminated  the  softly  creeping 
shadows  of  fast  decaying  races  with  the  brightest  colors  of  a  future  hope. 
Revelation,  the  essence  of  religious  belief,  was  the  guiding  star  in  the 
unstudded  labyrinth  of  national  and  individual  progress  and  inspiration. 
The  code  bequeathed  to  Israel  by  their  great  law-giver  contains,  as  a 
modern  exegetist,  Wilkins,  aptly  remarked,  “  the  only  complete  body  of  law 
ever  vouchased  to  a  people  at  one  time.”  The  Mosaic  ordinance,  with  its 
unequaled  mastery  of  detail,  its  comprehensiveness  of  character,  its  univer¬ 
sality  of  human  rights  and  rigid  suppression  of  most  trivial  wrongs,  its 
earnest,  nay,  enthusiastic  avow  and  championship  of  truth,  justice,  morality, 
and  above  all  righteousness — yet  the  firmest  seal  of  His  imperishable  docu¬ 
ment — is  the  most  unique  marvel  of  lofty  wisdom  and  divine  forethought 
ever  penned  into  the  inspired  records  of  ancient  history. 

Righteousness,  from  its  patriarchal  primitiveness  to  the  full-grown  glory 
of  prophetic  instinct,  is  the  choicest  pearl  of  biblical  ethics,  and,  excepting 
the  fervent  sentiment  of  brotherly  love,  which  is  so  often  commended  by  the 
sages  of  the  Talmud,  embodying  the  frequent  teachings  of  the  Nazarene, 
pleads  most  eloquently  J udea’s  claim  as  the  first  moral  perceptor  of  antiq- 
uity. 

Bible  ethics,  justice,  morality,  righteousness,  and  all  the  mighty  ele¬ 
ments  embodied  in  virtuous  life  are  summed  up  in  Judaism’s  great  truths, 
faithfully  portrayed  and  preserved  to  mankind  in  that  ponderous  volume  of 
poetic  inspirations.  Israel’s  Bible  first  re-echoed  the  reverberating  melody 
of  truth  at  a  musical  synonym  for  omniscience. 

No  more  plausible  evidence  of  scripture  verity  can  be  sighted  than 
Abraham,  that  stanch  pioneer  of  monotheism,  who,  after  mocking  the 
household  gods  of  Terah,  emerged  from  his  gross  surroundings  in  Ur,  of 
Chaldean  magic,  unscathed  by  the  stigma  of  sinful  idolatry,  and  prosecuted 
his  noble  mission  of  popularizing  the  God-idea  with  unabated  vigor.  The 
same  God  with  whom  Abraham’s  chivalric  spirit  of  brother-redeeming  love 
pleaded,  Jacob’s  dreaming  fancy  beheld  enthroned  on  the  celestial  ladder- 


310 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


top  of  sterling  faith.  The  very  same  invigorating  and  omnipresent 
impulse  preserved  Joseph’s  chastity ;  lured  Moses  from  his  flocks  to  guide 
a  nation’s  destiny;  led  Joshua  to  victory;  smote  the  enemies  of  Gideon, 
and  gave  Sampson  iron  strength.  David’s  lyre  pealed  forth,  Solomon’s  wis¬ 
dom  lauded,  and  prophecy  proclaimed  the  majesty  of  God,  the  only  truth, 
in  poetry,  in  rhythmic  prose,  and  in  melody  of  song.  What,  then,  is  truth, 
but  faith;  what,  then,  is  faith,  but  trust  in  His  sole  unity,  and  where  else 
so  manifest  as  in  Judea’s  inscribed  Rock  of  Salvation? 

Israel’s  entire  history  teems  with  apt  illustration  to  preserve  intact  their 
sublime  doctrine  of  the  All  Father,  and  jealously  guard  every  accessory  to 
higher,  perfecter,  conception  of  the  potential  deity — Jehovah,  the  Lord  of 
Hosts. 

We  “  search  the  writ,”  according  to  its  liberal  dictates  and  can  not  but 
remark  a  tacit,  unflinching,  and  unbending  perseverance,  continually  on 
the  alert  to  comprehend  and  appropriate  a  deeper,  more  enlightening  idea 
of  God  and  His  ways.  “We  have  seen,”  again  remarks  Matthew  Arnold, 
“  how  in  its  intuition  of  God — of  that  not  ourselves,  of  which  all  mankind 
form  some  conception  or  other — as  the  eternal  that  makes  for  righteous¬ 
ness,  the  Hebrew  race  found  the  revelation  needed  to  breathe  the  motion 
into  the  laws  of  morality  and  to  make  morality  religion.  This  revelation  is 
the  capital  fact  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  source  of  its  grandeur  and 
power.  For  while  other  nations  had  the  misleading  idea  this  or  that,  other 
than  righteousness,  is  saving,  and  it  is  not;  that  this  or  that,  other  than 
conduct,  brings  happiness,  and  it  does  not,  Israel  had  the  true  idea — that 
righteousness  is  saving,  that  to  conduct  belongs  happiness.” 

We  have  pointed  out  the  priceless  benefits  conferred  upon  mankind  by 
Israel’s  Bible.  It  only  remains  to  be  briefly  demonstrated  to  what  degree 
humanity  is  indebted  to  Hebrew  Scriptures  for  gifts  equally  invaluable, 
though  not  so  generally  accredited  to  Judaism  by  the  envy  of  modern 
skeptics. 

On  Judea’s  soil,  that  green  oasis  in  the  desert  of  antiquity,  there  blos¬ 
somed  the  bud  of  polite  arts,  of  the  so  much  boasted  sciences  of  later 
Greece  and  plagerizing  Rome.  Greece  and  Rome  were  indebted  to  humble 
Israel  for  that  reputed  familiarity  with  profound  philosophy  and  cognate 
learning  which  ascribed  to  any  source  and  every  origin,  save  that  here  advo¬ 
cated,  the  wide  diffusion  of  Hebraic  wisdom  among  the  heathen  nations  of 
the  past. 

Can  Plato,  Demosthenes,  Cato,  Cicero,  and  other  thiinderers  of  eloquence 
compete  with  such  lightning  rods  of  magnetic  power  as  Moses,  David,  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  other  past  orators  of  Bible  times?  Who  wrote  nobler 
history,  Moses,  Livy,  or  Herodotus?  Were  the  dramas  and  tragedies  of 
•Sophocles,  iEschylus,  and  Euripides  worthy  of  classification  with  the 
masterpieces  of  realism  and  grand  cormogonic  conceptions,  furnished  us  in 
the  soul-vibrating  account  of  Job’s  martyrdom?  In  poetry  aud  hymnology 
the  harp  of  David  is  tuned  to  sweeter  melody  than  Virgil’s  ^Eneid  or  Hor¬ 
ace’s  odes.  Strabo’s  accurate  geographical  and  ethnological  accounts  are 
not  more  thorough  in  detail  than  scriptural  narratives  and  the  famous 
tenth  chapter  of  Genesis.  The  haughty  philosophical  maxims  of  Marcus 
Aurelius,  Epictetus,  and  Seneca,  fade  into  insignificance  before  the  edifying 
discourse  and  moral  chidings  of  Koheleth,  whose  very  pessimism  in  con¬ 
tradistinction  to  heathenish  levity,  failed  not  to  inspire  and  instruct.  Com¬ 
pare  the  ethics  of  Aristotle  with  those  pure  gems  of  monition  to  truth,  right¬ 
eousness,  and  moral  chastity  contained  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  as  confront 
even  the  all-conquering  wisdom  of  Socrates  with  Solomonic  sagacity.  “The 
Zephyrs  of  Attica  were  as  bland  and  Hellican  and  Parnassus  were  as  lofty 
and  verdant  before  Judea  put  forth  her  displays  of  learning  and  the  arts  as 
afterward.”  Y et  no  Homer  was  ever  heard  reciting  the  vibrating  strains 
of  poetry  with  David,  Isaiah,  and  other  monarchs  of  genius  and  soul  culture 


WHAT  THE  HEBREW  SCRIPTURES  HAVE  WROUGHT.  311 


pouring  forth  their  sublime  symphonies  in  the  holy  land;  yet  none  of  all 
the  muses  breathed  their  inspiration  over  Greece  till  the  spirit  of  the  Most 
High  had  awakened  the  soul  of  letters  and  of  arts  in  the  nation  of  the 
Hebrews.  Not  to  Egypt,  Phoenicia,  or  Syria,  do  Greece  and  her  apt  dis¬ 
ciple,  Rome,  owe  their  eminence  in  the  entertaining  and  relined  branches 
of  learning.  They  flourished  at  a  period  so  remote  that  fable  replaces  fact 
and  no  authentic  records — chiefly  obtained  through  a  comparatively  new 
field  in  modern  exploration — are  extant  which  establish  an  impartial  prior¬ 
ity  of  culture  and  science  before  the  Hebraic  age. 

Egypt  is  accredited  with  far  too  much  distinction  in  knowledge  which 
she  never  possessed  to  any  eminent  degree.  Recent  excavations  and  dis¬ 
coveries  from  ruins  of  her  ancient  cities  tend  to  corroborate  our  view.  A 
mass  of  inscribed  granite,  a  papyrus  roll,  or  a  sarcophagus,  bears  the  tell¬ 
tale  message  of  her  standard  in  taste  and  her  progress  in  art.  “  They 
prove,”  says  Hosmer,  “  that  if  she  was  ever  entitled  to  be  called  the  Cradle 
of  Science,  it  must  have  been  when  science,  owing  to  the  feebleness  of 
infancy,  required  the  use  of  a  cradle.  But  when  science  had  outgrown 
the  appendages  of  bewildering  and  tottering  infancy,  and  had  reached 
matured  form  and  strength,  Egypt  was  neither  her  guardian  nor  her  home. 
Many  of  Egypt’s  works  of  art,  for  which  an  antiquity  has  been  claimed 
that  would  place  them  anterior  to  David  and  Solomon,  have  been  shown  to 
be  comparatively  modern;  while  those  confessedly  of  an  earlier  date  have 
marks  of  an  age  which  may  have  excelled  in  compact  solidity,  but  knew 
little  or  nothing  of  finished  symmetry  or  grace.  Architecture,  the  boast  of 
Greece  and  the  pride  of  Assyria,  whose  stately  palaces  at  Nineveh  are  to 
this  day  the  marvel  of  the  world,  attained  its  loftiest  summit  of  perfection 
in  the  noble  structure  reared  by  Israel’s  mighty  king  in  Jerasulem,  of 
which  the  holy  tabernacle  mounted  by  the  Cherubim  of  peace  and  sanctity, 
was  the  magnificent  model. 

No  one  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Hebrews  can  question  their 
pre-eminence  in  the  noble  art.  The  proof  of  this  is  found  in  the  record, 
that  endureth  forever.  Though  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  was  destroyed 
before  Greece  became  fully  adorned  with  her  splendid  architecture,  the 
plan  which  had  been  given  by  inspiration  from  heaven,  and  according  to 
which  the  peerless  edifice  was  built,  remains  written  at  full  length  in 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  The  dimensions,  the  form  and  proportions  of  all  the 
parts  are  described  with  minute  exactness.  Everything  that  could  impart 
grandeur,  grace,  symmetry  to  the  art-palace  of  worship,  and  which  made  it 
to  be  called  for  ages  “the  excelleney  of  beauty”  was  placed  in  the  imxjerish- 
able  volume  to  be  consulted  by  all  nations  in  all  ages. 

Wherever  we  turn,  in  fact,  we  are  forcibly  reminded  of  Israel’s  precious 
legacies  to  mankind  in  almost  every  department  of  industry.  We  must 
ever  return  and  sit  at  the  feet  of  the  Hebrew  bards,  who  as  teachers,  as 
poets,  as  truthful  and  earnest  men  as  yet  stand  alone— unsurmounted  and 
unapproached— the  Himalayan  Mountains  of  mankind. 

The  Hebrew  Scriptures,  not  mere  trickery  of  fate,  is  the  cause  and 
effect  oi  the  long  levity  and  immortality  of  Judaism.  To  us  “  the  dictum 
of  a  romantic  Scribe,”  unique  among  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth,  it  has 
come  undoubtedly  to  the  present  day  from  the  most  distant  antiquity. 
Forty,  perhaps  fifty,  centuries  rest  upon  this  venerable  contemporary  of 
Egypt,  Chaldea,  and  Troy.  The  Hebrew  defied  the  Pharaohs;  with  the 
sword  of  Gideon  he  smote  the  Midianite;  in  Jephthah,  the  children  of 
Ammon.  The  purple  chariot  bands  of  Assyria  went  back  from  his  gates 
humbled  and  diminished.  Babylon,  indeed,  tore  him  from  his  ancient  seats 
and  led  him  captive  by  strange  waters,  but  not  long.  He  had  fastened  his 
love  upon  the  heights  of  Zion,  and,  like  an  elastic  cord,  that  love  broke  not, 
but  only  drew  with  the  more  force  as  the  distance  became  great.  He  saw 
the  Hellenic  flower  bud,  bloom,  and  wither  upon  the  soil  of  Greece.  He 


312 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


saw  the  wolf  of  Rome  suckled  on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber,  then  prowl  raven¬ 
ous  for  dominion  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  until  paralysis  and  death  laid 
hold  upon  its  savage  sinews. 

At  last  Israel  was  scattered  over  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  earth. 
In  every  kingdom  of  the  modern  world  there  has  been  a  Jewish  element. 
There  are  Hebrew  clans  in  China,  on  the  steppes  of  Central  Asia,  in  the 
desert  heat  of  Africa.  The  most  powerful  races  have  not  been  able  to 
assimilate  them.  The  bitterest  persecution,  so  far  from  exterminating 
them,  has  not  eradicated  a  single  characteristic.  In  mental  and  moral 
traits,  in  form  and  feature  even,  the  Jew  to-day  is  the  same  as  when  Jeru¬ 
salem  was  the  peer  of  Tyre  and  Babylon. 

And  why  not  strive  through  the  coming  ages  to  live  in  fraternal  con¬ 
cord  and  harmonious  unison  with  all  the  nations  on  the  globe?  Not  theory 
but  practice,  deed  not  creed,  should  be  the  watchword  of  modern  races 
stamped  with  the  blazing  characters  of  rational  equity  and  unselfish 
brotherhood.  Why  not,  then,  admit  the  scions  of  the  mother  religion — the 
wandering  Jew  of  myth  and  harsh  reality — into  the  throbbing  affections 
of  faith-permeating,  equitable  peoples  now  inhabiting  the  mighty  hemi¬ 
spheres  of  culture  and  civilization? 

Three  religions,  Judaism,  Christianity,  and  Islamism  imbibed  the  liquid, 
enlightenment  from  that  virgin  spring  of  truth,  and  yet  they  are  distinct — 
estranged  from  each  other  by  dogmatic  separatism,  and  a  fibrous  accumu¬ 
lation  of  prejudice  which  yet  await  the  redeeming  champion  of  old,  who 
with  herculean  grasp  or  irrevocable  conviction  should  hurl  far  away  the 
lead-weight  of  passion  and  bigotry,  of  malice  and  egotism  from  the  his¬ 
torical  streams  of  original  truth,  equity,  and  righteousness.  Three  relig¬ 
ions  and  now  many  more  are  gathered  at  the  sparkling  fountain  of  a  glo¬ 
rious  enterprise  in  the  cause  of  truth,  congregated  beneath  the  solid  splen¬ 
dor  of  a  powerful  throne,  wherein  reclines  the  new  monarch  of  disenthrall¬ 
ing  sentiment — a  glorious  sovereign  of  God-anointed  grace — to  examine 
and  to  judge  with  the  impartial  scepter  of  Israel’s  holiest  emblem — justice 
— the  merits  of  a  nation,  who  are  as  irrepressible  as  the  elements,  as  uncon¬ 
querable  as  reason  and  as  immortal  as  the  starry  firmament  of  eternal 
hope. 

The  scions  of  many  creeds  are  convened  at  Chicago’s  succoring  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  Religions,  aglow  with  enthusiasm,  imbued  with  the  courage  of 
expiring  fear,  electrified  with  the  absorbing  anticipation  of  dawning  light. 
The  hour  has  struck.  Will  the  stone  of  abuse — a  burden  brave  Israel  b^ore 
for  countless  centuries — on  the  rebellious  well  of  truth  at  last  be  shat¬ 
tered  into  merciless  fragments  by  that  invention  of  every-day  philosophy — 
the  gun-powder  modern  war — rational  conviction;  and  finally,  a  blessed 
destiny  establish  peace  for  all  faiths  and  unto  all  mankind?  Who  knows? 


THE  SACRED  BOOKS  OF  THE  WORLD  AS  LITERA¬ 
TURE, 

PROF.  MILTON  S.  TERRY,  OF  THE  NORTHWESTERN  UNIVERSITY. 

There  have  been  and  probably  yet  exist  some  isolated  tribes  of  men 
who  imagine  that  the  sun  rises  and  sets  for  their  sole  benefit.  They 
occupy,  perchance,  a  lonely  island  far  from  the  routes  of  ocean  travel,  and 
have  no  thought  that  the  sounding  waters  about  their  island  home  are  at 
the  same  time  washing  beautiful  corals  and  precious  pearls  on  other  shores. 
We  say.  How  circumscribed  their  vision;  how  narrow  their  world!  But 
the  same  may  be  said  of  anyone  who  is  so  circumscribed  by  the  conditions 
of  race  and  language  in  which  he  has  been  reared  that  he  has  no  knowledge 
or  appreciation  of  lands,  nations,  religions,  and  literatures,  which  differ  from 


SACRED  BOOKS  OF  THE  WORLD  AS  LITERATURE.  313 


his  own.  I  am  a  Christian,  and  must  needs  look  at  things  from  a  Christian 
point  of  view.  But  that  fact  should  not  hinder  the  broadest  observation. 
Christian  scholars  have  for  centuries  admired  the  poems  of  Homer,  and 
will  never  lose  interest  in  the  story  of  Odysseus,  the  myriad-minded  Greek, 
who  traversed  the  roaring  seas,  touched  many  a  foreign  shore,  and  observed 
the  habitations  and  customs  of  many  men.  Will  they  be  likely  to  discard 
the  recently  deciphered  Arcadian  hymns  and  Assyrian  penitential  psalms? 
Is  it  probable  that  men  who  can  devote  studious  years  to  the  philosophy  of 
Plato  and  Aristotle  will  care  nothing  about  the  invocations  of  the  old  Per¬ 
sian  A  vesta,  the  Vedic  hymns,  the  doctrines  of  Buddha  and  the  maxims  of 
Confucius?  Nay,  I  repeat  it,  I  am  a  Christian;  therefore,  I  think  there  is 
nothing  human  or  divine  in  any  literature  of  the  world  that  I  can  afford  to 
ignore.  My  own  New  Testament  Scriptures  enjoin  the  following  words  as  a 
solemn  commandment: 

Whatever  [things  are  true,  whatever  things  are  worthy  of  honor,  whatever 
things  are  just,  whatever  things  are  pure,  whatever  things  are  lovely,  whatever 
things  are  of  good  report,  if  there  be  any  virtue  and  if  there  be  any  praise,  exer¬ 
cise  reason  upon  these  things.  ^'Phil.  iv.,  8.J 

My  task  is  to  speak  of  the  “  sacred  books  of  the  world,”  as  so  much 
various  literature.”  And  I  must  at  the  very  outset  acknowledge  my  ina¬ 
bility  to  treat  such  a  broad  subject  with  anything  like  comprehensive 
thoroughness.  And  had  I  the  requisite  knowledge  and  ability,  the  time  at 
my  disposal  would  forbid.  I  can  only  glance  at  some  notable  character¬ 
istics  of  this  varied  literature,  and  call  attention  to  some  few  things  which 
are  worthy  of  protracted  study. 

I  commence  with  a  quotation  from  the  treatise  of  the  old  Chinese  phil¬ 
osopher,  Lao  Tsze,  where  he  gives  utterance  to  his  conception  of  the 
infinite.  He  seems  to  be  struggling  in  thought  with  the  great  power  which 
is  back  of  all  phenomena,  and  seeking  to  set  forth  the  idea  which  possesses 
him  so  that  others  may  grasp  it.  His  book  is  known  as  the  Tao-teh-king, 
and  is  devoted  to  the  praise  of  what  the  author  calls  his  Tao.  The  twenty- 
fifth  chapter,  as  translated  by  John  Chalmers,  reads  thus: 

There  was  something  chaotic  in  nature  which  existed  before  heaven  and 
earth.  It  was  still.  It  was  void.  It  stood  alone  and  was  not  changed.  It  pervaded 
everywhere  and  was  not  endangered.  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  mother 
of  the  universe.  I  know  not  its  name,  but  give  it  the  title  of  Tao.  If  I  am 
forced  to  make  a  name  for  it  I  say  it  is  great;  being  great,  I  say  it  passes  away; 
passing  away,  I  say  that  it  is  far  off;  being  far  off,  I  say  that  it  returns.  Now,  Tao 
is  great,  heaven  is  great,  earth  is  great,  a  king  is  great.  In  the  universe  there  are 
four  greatnesses,  and  a  king  is  one  of  them.  Man  takes  his  law  from  the  earth; 
the  earth  takes  its  law  from  heaven;  heaven  takes  its  law  from  Tao,  and  Tao  takes 
its  law  from  what  it  is  in  itself. 

Now  it  is  not  the  theology  of  this  passage,  nor  its  cosmology,  that  we 
put  forward;  but  rather  its  grand  poetic  concepts.  Here  is  the  production 
of  an  ancient  sage,  born  600  years  before  the  Christian  Era.  He  had  no 
Pentateuch  or  Hexateuch  to  enlighten  him;  no  Isaiah  to  prophesy  to  him; 
no  Vedic  songs  addressed  to  the  deities  of  earth,  and  sea,  and  air;  no  pil¬ 
grim  from  any  other  nation  to  tell  him  of  the  thoughts  and  things  of  other 
lands.  But  like  a  poet  reared  under  other  skies,  he  felt — 

A  presence  that  disturbed  him  with  the  joy 
Of  elevated  thoughts,  a  sense  sublime 
Of  something  far  more  deeply  interfused. 

Whose  dwelling  is  the  light  of  setting  suns. 

And  the  round  ocean  and  the  living  air. 

And  the  blue  sky,  and  in  the  mind  of  man— 

A  motion  of  a  spirit  that  impels 
All  thinking  things. 

Students  of  Lao  Tsze’s  book  have  tried  to  express  his  idea  of  Tao  by 
other  terms.  It  has  been  called  the  Supreme  Reason,  the  Universal  Soul, 
the  Eternal  Idea,  the  Nameless  Void,  Mother  of  Being,  and  Essence  of 
Things.  But  the  very  mystery  that  attaches  to  the  word  becomes  an  ele¬ 
ment  of  power  in  the  literary  features  of  the  book.  That  suggestiveness 


314 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  something  great  and  yet  intangible — a  something  that  awes  and  im¬ 
presses  and  yet  eludes  our  grasp— is  recognized  by  all  great  writers  and 
critics  as  a  conspicuous  element  in  the  masterpieces  of  literature. 

I  have  purposely  chosen  this  passage  from  the  old  Chinese  book  since  it 
affords  a  subject  for  comparison  in  other  sacred  books.  Most  religions  have 
some  theory  or  poem  of  creation,  and  I  select  next  the  famous  hymn  of 
creation  from  the  Rigveda  (Bk.  10,  ch.  129).  It  is  not  by  any  means  the 
most  beautiful  specimen  of  the  Vedic  hymns,  but  it  shows  how  an  ancient 
Indian  poet  thought  and  spoke  of  the  mysterious  origin  of  things.  He 
looked  out  on  a  mist- wrapt  ocean  of  being,  and  his  soul  was  filled  with 
strong  desire  to  know  its  secrets. 

Then  there  was  nothing,  being  nor  not-being, 

The  atmosphere  was  not,  nor  sky  above  it. 

What  covered  all?  And  where?  By  what  protected? 

Was  there  the  fathomless  abyss  of  waters? 

When  neither  death  nor  deathlessness  existed; 

Of  day  and  night  there  was  yet  no  distinction. 

Alone  that  one  breathed  calmly,  self-supported. 

Other  than  it  was  none,  nor  aught  above  it. 

Darkness  there  was  at  first  in  darkness  hidden; 

This  universe  was  undistinguished  water. 

That  which  is  void  and  emptiness  lay  hidden. 

Alone  by  power  of  fervor  was  developed. 

Then  for  the  first  time  there  arose  desire. 

Which  was  the  primal  germ  of  mind,  within  it. 

And  sages,  searching,  in  their  heart,  discovered 
In  nothing  the  connecting  bond  of  being. 

Who  is  it  knows?  Who  here  can  tell  us  surely 
From  what  and  how  this  universe  has  risen? 

And  whether  not  till  after  it  the  gods  lived? 

Who,  then,  can  know  from  what  it  has  arisen? 

The  source  from  which  this  universe  has  risen 
And  whether  it  was  made,  or  increated, 

He  only  knows,  who  from  the  highest  heaven 
'  Rules— the  all -seeing  Lord— or  does  not  He  know? 

One  naturally  compares  with  these  poetic  speculations  the  beginning  of 
Ovid’s  Metamorphoses,  where  we  have  a  Roman  poet’s  conception  of  the 
original  Chaos,  a  rude  and  confused  mass  of  water,  earth,  and  air,  all  void  of 
light,  out  of  which  “  God  and  kindly  Nature”  produced  the  visible  order  of 
beauty  of  the  world.  The  old  Scandinavians  had  also,  in  their  sacred  book. 
“  The  Elder  Edda,”  a  song  of  the  prophetess,  who  told  the  story  of  creation. 

In  that  far  age  when  Yinir  lived. 

And  then*  was  neither  land  nor  sea; 

Earth  there  was  not  nor  lofty  heaven, 

A  yawning  deep,  but  verdure  none. 

Until  Bor's  sotis  the  spheres  upheaved. 

And  formed  the  mighty  midguard  round; 

Then  bright  the  sun  shone  on  the  cliffs, 

And  green  the  ground  became  with  plants. 

I  need  not  quote,  but  only  allude  to  the  Chaldean  account  of  creation, 
recently  diciphered  from  the  monuments,  and  the  opening  chapter  of  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  which  contains  what  modern  scholars  are  given  to  calling 
the  “  Hebrew  poem  of  Creation.”  In  this  we  have  the  sublime  but  vivid 
pictures  of  God  creating  the  heavens  and  the  earth  and  all  their  contents 
and  living  tribes  in  six  days  and  resting  the  seventh  day  and  blessing  it. 

As  theologians  we  naturally  study  these  theosophic  poems  with  reference 
to  their  origin  and  relationship.  But  we  now  call  attention  to  the  place 
they  hold  in  the  sacred  literatures  of  the  world.  Each  composition  bears 
the  marks  of  an  individual  genius.  He  may,  and  probably  does,  in  every 


SACRED  BOOKS  OF  THE  WORLD  AS  LITERATURE.  315 


case  express  the  current  belief  or  tradition  of  his  nation,  but  his  description 
reveals  a  human  mind  wrestling  with  the  mysterious  problems  of  the  world, 
and  suggesting,  if  not  announcing,  some  solution.  As  specimens  of  litera¬ 
ture  the  various  poems  of  creation  exhibit  a  world- wide  taste  and  tendency 
to  cast  in  poetic  form  the  profoundest  thoughts  which  busy  the  human 
soul. 

I  turn  now  to  that  great  collection  of  ancient  Indian  songs  known  as  the 
Rigveda.  As  a  body  of  sacred  literature  it  is  especially  expressive  of  a 
childlike  intuition  of  nature.  The  hymns  are  addressed  to  various  gods  of 
earth  and  air,  and  the  bright  heaven  beyond,  but,  owing  to  their  great 
diversity  of  date  and  authorship,  they  vary  much  in  value  and  interest. 
By  the  side  of  some  splendid  productions  of  gifted  authors,  we  find  many 
tiresome  and  un’nteresting  compositions.  It  is  believed  by  those  best 
competent  to  judge  that,  in  the  oldest  hymns,  we  have  a  picture  of  an 
original  and  primitive  life  of  men  just  as  it  may  be  imagined  to  have  sprung 
forth,  fresh  and  exultant,  from  the  bosom  of  nature.  Popular  songs  always 
embody  numerous  facts  in  the  life  of  a  people,  and  so  these  Vedic  hymns 
reveal  to  us  the  ancient  Aryans  at  the  time  when  they  entered  India,  far 
back  beyond  the  beginnings  of  authentic  history.  They  were  not  the  first 
occupants  of  that  country,  but  entered  it  by  the  same  northwestern  passes 
where  Alexander  led  his  victorious  armies  more  than  2,000  years  thereafter. 
The  Indus  and  the  rivers  of  the  Punjab  water  the  fair  fields  where  the 
action  of  the  Vedas  is  laid.  The  people  cultivated  the  soil,  and  were  rich 
in  flocks  and  herds.  But  they  were  also  a  race  of  mighty  warriors,  and  with 
apparently  the  best  good  conscience  prayed  and  struggled  to  enrich  them¬ 
selves  with  the  spoil  of  the  enemies.  All  these  things  find  expression  in 
the  Vedic  songs,  and  a  popular  use  of  them  implies  an  ardent  worship  of 
nature. 

The  principal  earth-god,  to  whom  very  many  hymns  are  addressed,  is 
Agni,  the  god  of  fire.  His  proper  home  is  heaven,  they  say,  but  he  has 
come  down  as  a  representative  of  other  gods  to  bring  light  and  comfort  to 
the  dwellings  of  men.  His  births  are  without  number,  and  the  vivid  poet¬ 
ical  concept  of  their  nature  is  seen  in  the  idea  that  he  lies  concealed  in  the 
soft  wood,  and  when  two  sticks  are  rubbed  together  Agni  springs  forth  in 
gleaming  brightness  and  devours  the  sticks  which  were  his  parents.  He 
is  also  born  amid  the  rains  of  heaven  and  comes  down  as  lightning  to  the 
earth. 

Take  the  following  as  a  fair  specimen  of  many  hymns  of  praise  addressed 
to  the  god  of  fire: 

O  Agni,  graciously  accept  this  wood  that  I  offer  thee,  and  this  my  service,  and 
listen  to  my  songs.  Herewith  we  worship  thee,  O  Agni,  thou  highborn,  thou  con¬ 
queror  of  horses,  thou  son  of  power.  With  songs  we  worship  thee  who  lovest 
song,  who  givest  riches  and  art  lord  thereof.  Be  thou  to  us  of  wealth  the  lord 
and  giver,  O  wise  and  powerful  one;  and  drive  away  from  us  the  enemies.  Give 
us  rains  out  of  heaven,  thou  inexhaustible  one,  give  us  our  food  and  drinks  a 
thousandfold.  To  him  who  praises  thee  and  seeks  thy  help,  draw  near,  O  young¬ 
est  messenger  and  noblest  priest  of  the  gods,  draw  near  through  song.  O  thou 
wise  Agni,  wisely  thou  goest  forth  between  gods  and  men— a  friendly  messenger 
between  the  two.  Thou  wise  and  honored  one,  occult,  perform  the  sacrificial 
service,  and  seat  thyself  upon  this  sacred  grass. 

As  Agni  is  the  principal  deity  of  the  earth  so  is  Indra  of  the  air.  He  is 
the  god  of  the  clear .  blue  sky,  the  air  space,  whence  come  the  fertilizing 
rains.  The  numerous  poems  addressed  to  him  abound  in  images  which  are 
said  to  be  especially  forcible  to  such  as  have  lived  some  time  in  India  and 
watched  the  phenomena  of  the  changing  seasons  there.  The  clouds  are 
conceived  as  the  covering  of  hostile  demons,  who  hide  the  sun,  darken  the 
world,  and  hold  back  the  heavenly  waters  from  the  thirsty  earth.  It  is 
Indra’s  glory  that  he  alone  is  able  to  vanquish  those  dreadful  demons.  All 
the  other  gods  shrink  back  from  the  roaring  monsters,  but  Indra,  arnied 
with  his  fatal  thunderbolt,  smites  them  with  rapid  lightning  strokes,  ruins 


316 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS 


their  power;  pierces  their  covering  of  clouds  and  releases  the  waters  which 
then  fall  in  copious  showers  to  bless  the  earth.  In  other  hymns  the  demons 
are  conceived  as  having  stolen  the  reservoirs  of  water  and  hidden  them 
away  in  the  caverns  of  the  mountains.  But  Indra  pursues  them  thither, 
splits  the  mountains  with  his  thunderbolt,  and  sets  them  at  liberty  again. 
Such  a  powerful  deity  is  also  naturally  worshiped  as  the  god  of  battle.  He 
is  always  fighting  and  never  fails  to  conquer  in  the  end.  Hence  he  is  the 
ideal  hero  whom  the  warrior  trusts  and  adores. 

On  him  all  men  must  call  amid  the  battle; 

He, high  adored,  alone  has  power  to  succor. 

The  man  who  offers  him  prayers  and  libations, 

Him  Indra’s  arm  helps  forward  in  his  goings. 

With  Indra  other  divinities  of  the  air  realm  are  associated,  as  Vata,  the 
god  of  the  wind,  who  arises  in  the  early  morning  to  drink  the  soma  juice, 
and  lead  in  the  dawn;  Rudra’s  sons,  the  Maruts,  gods  of  the  thunderstorm. 
Where  in  all  the  realm  of  lyric  poetry  can  be  found  compositions  more 
charming  than  the  Vedic  hymns  of  Aurora,  the  goddess  of  the  dawn?  She 
opens  the  gates  of  the  day,  drives  away  darkness,  clears  a  pathway  on  the 
misty  mountain  tops,  and  sweeps  along  in  glowing  brightness  with  her 
white  steeds  and  beautiful  chariot.  All  nature  springs  to  life  as  she 
approaches,  and  beasts,  and  birds,  and  men  go  forth  with  joy. 

The  sacred  scriptures  of  Buddhism  comprise  three  immense  collections 
known  as  the  Tripitaka  or  “  three  baskets.”  One  of  these  contains  the 
discourses  of  Buddha,  another  treats  of  doctrines  and  metaphysics,  and 
another  is  devoted  to  ethics  and  discipline.  In  bulk  these  writings  rival 
all  that  was  ever  included  under  the  title  of  Veda,  and  contain  more  than 
seven  times  the  amount  of  matter  in  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  The  greater  portion  of  this  extensive  literature,  in  the  most 
ancient  texts,  exists  as  yet  only  in  manuscript.  But  as  Buddhism  spread 
and  triumphed  mightily  in  Southern  and  Eastern  Asia,  its  sacred  books 
have  been  translated  into  Pali,  Burmese,  Siamese,  Tibetan,  Chinese,  and 
other  Asiatic  tongues.  The  Tibetan  edition  of  the  Tripitaka  fills  about  325 
folio  volumes.  Every  important  tribe  or  nation  which  has  adopted  Bud¬ 
dhism  appears  to  have  a  more  or  less  complete  Buddhist  literature  of  its  own. 
But  all  this  literature,  so  vast  that  one  lifetime  seems  insufficient  to  explore 
it  thoroughly,  revolves  about  a  comparatively  few  and  simple  doctrines. 
First  we  have  the  four  sublime  Verities.  (1)  All  existence,  being  subject  to 
change  and  decay,  is  evil.  (2)  The  source  of  all  this  evil  is  desire.  (3) 
Desire  and  the  evil  which  follows  it  may  be  made  to  cease.  (4)  There  is  a 
fixed  and  certain  way  by  which  to  attain  exemption  from  all  evil.  Next 
after  these  Verities  are  the  doctrines  of  the  Eightfold  Path:  (1)  Right 
Belief,  (2)  Right  Judgment,  (3)  Right  Utterance,  (4)  Right  Motive,  (5)  Right 
Occupation,  (6)  Right  Obedience,  (7)  Right  Memory,  and  (8)  Right  Medi¬ 
tation.  Then  we  have  further.  Five  Commandments:  (1)  Do  not  kill;  (2) 
Do  not  steal;  (3)  Do  not  lie;  (4)  Do  not  become  intoxicated;  (5)  Do  not 
commit  adultery.  The  following  passage  is  a  specimen  of  the  tone  and  style 
of  Buddha’s  discourses: 

The  best  of  ways  is  the  Eightfold;  the  best  of  truths  the  four  words;  the  best 
of  virtues  passionlessness ;  the  best  of  men.  he  who  has  eyes  to  see.  This  is  the 
way;  there  is  no  other  that  leads  to  the  purifying  of  intelligence.  Go  on  this  way. 
Everything  else  is  the  deceit  of  the  tempter.  If  you  go  on  this  way  you  will  make 
an  end  of  pain.  The  way  was  preached  by  men  when  I  had  understood  the  thorns 
ofthe  flesh.  You  yourself  must  make  an  effort.  The  Buddha  is  only  a  preacher. 
The  thoughtful  that  enter  this  way  are  freed  from  the  bondage  of  the  tempter. 
All  created  things  perish;  he  who  knows  this  becomes  passive  in  pain;  this  is  the 
way  to  purity.  All  created  things  are  grief  and  pain;  he  who  knows  and  does 
this  becomes  passive  in  pain;  this  is  the  way  that  leads  to  purity. 

We  who  are  raised  under  a  Western  civilization  can  see  little  that  is 
attractive  in  the  writings  of  Buddhism.  The  genius  of  Edwin  Arnold  has 
set  the  story  of  the  chief  doctrines  of  Buddha  in  a  brilliant  dress  in  his 


SACRED  BOOKS  OF  THE  WORLD  AS  LITERATURE.  317 


poem  of  the  “  Light  of  Asia,”  but  the  Buddhist  scriptures  as  specimens 
of  literature  are  as  far  removed  from  that  poem  as  the  Talmud  from  the 
Hebrew  psalter.  Here  and  there  a  nugget  of  gold  may  be  discovered,  but 
the  reader  must  pay  for  it  by  laborious  toiling  through  vast  spaces  of 
tedious  metaphysics  and  legend.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that,  as  Christianity 
originated  among  the  Jews,  but  has  had  its  chief  triumphs  among  the 
Gentiles,  so  Buddhism  originated  among  the  Hindus,  but  has  won  most  of 
its  adherents  among  other  tribes  and  nations. 

Glance  with  me  now  a  moment  at  the  sacred  books  of  Confucianism, 
which  is  par  excellence  the  religion  of  the  Chinese  Empire.  But  Confucius 
was  not  the  founder  of  the  religion  which  is  associated  with  his  name.  He 
claimed  merely  to  have  studied  deeply  into  antiquity  and  to  be  a  teacher 
of  the  records  and  worship  of  the  past.  The  Chinese  classics  comprise  the 
five  King  and  the  four  Shu.  The  latter,  however,  are  the  works  of  Con¬ 
fucius’  disciples,  and  hold  not  the  rank  and  authority  of  the  five  King. 
The  word  King  means  a  web  of  cloth  (or  the  warp  which  keeps  the  thread 
in  place)  and  is  applied  to  the  most  ancient  books  of  the  nation  as  works 
possessed  of  a  sort  of  canonical  authority.  Of  these  ancient  books  the 
Shu  King  and  the  Shih  King  are  of  chief  importance.  One  is  a  book  of 
history  and  the  other  of  poetry.  The  Shu  King  relates  to  a  period  extend¬ 
ing  over  seventeen  centuries  from  about  2357  B.  C.  to  627  B.  C.,  and  is 
believed  to  be  the  oldest  of  all  the  Chinese  Bible  and  consists  of  ballads 
relating  to  events  of  the  national  history  and  songs  and  hymns  to  be  sung 
on  great  state  occasions.  They  exhibit  a  primitive  simplicity  and  serve  to 
picture  forth  the  manners  of  the  ancient  time.  The  following  is  a  fair 
example  of  the  odes  used  in  connection  with  the  worship  of  ancestors. 
A  young  king,  feeling  his  responsibilities,  would  fain  follow  the  example  of 
his  father  and  prays  to  him  for  help: 

I  take  counsel,  at  the  beginning  of  my  rule. 

How  can  I  follow  the  example  of  my  shrived  father? 

Ahl  far-reaching  were  his  plans. 

And  I  am  not  able  to  carry  them  out. 

However  I  endeavor  to  reach  to  them 

My  continuation  of  them  will  be  all  deflected. 

I  am  a  little  child. 

Unequal  to  the  many  difficulties  of  the  state. 

Having  taken  his  place,  I  will  look  for  him  to  go  up  and  come  down  in  the  court 

To  ascend  and  descend  in  the  house. 

Admirable  art  thou,  O  great  father; 

Condescend  to  preserve  and  enlighten  me. 

It  has  been  widely  maintained,  and  with  much  show  of  reason,  that 
Confucianism  is  at  best  a  system  of  ethics  and  political  economy  rather 
than  a  religion.  Many  a  wise  maxim,  many  a  noble  precept  may  be  cited 
from  the  sacred  books,  but  the  whole  system  logically  resolves  into  one  of 
worldly  wisdom  rather  than  of  spiritual  life.  Confucius  says: 

When  I  was  fifteen  years  old  I  longed  for  wisdom.  At  thirty  my  mind  was  fixed 
in  pursuit  of  it.  At  forty  1  saw  certain  principles  clearly.  At  fifty  I  understood  the 
rule  given  by  heaven.  At  sixty  everything  1  heard  I  easily  understood.  At  seventy 
the  desires  of  my  heart  no  longer  transgressed  the  law. 

In  passing  now  from  sacred  literatures  of  the  far  East  to  those  of  the 
West  I  linger  for  a  moment  over  the  religious  writings  of  the  ancient 
Babylonians  and  the  Persians.  Who  has  not  heard  of  Zoroaster  and  the 
Zend-Avesta?  But  the  monuments  of  the  great  valley  of  the  Tigris  and 
Euphrates  have  in  recent  years  disclosed  a  still  more  ancient  literature. 
The  old  Akkadian  and  Assyrian  hymns  might  be  collected  into  a  volume 
which  would  probably  rival  the  Veda  in  interest,  if  not  in  value.  I  can 
only  take  time  to  cite  an  old  Akkadian  hymn  to  the  setting  sun,  which 
seems  to  have  been  a  portion  of  the  Babylonian  ritual: 

O  sun,  in  the  middle  of  the  sky.  at  thy  setting. 

May  the  bright  gates  welcome  thee  favorably; 

May  the  door  of  heaven  be  docile  to  thee; 


318 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


May  the  god  director,  thy  faithful  messenger,  mark  the  way. 

In  Ebara,  seat  of  thy  royalty,  he  makes  thy  greatness  shine  for  thee. 

May  the  moon,  thy  beloved  spouse,  come  to  meet  thee  with  joy. 

May  thy  heart  rest  in  peace. 

May  the  glory  of  thy  godhead  remain  with  thee. 

Powerful  hero.  O  sun!  shine  gloriously. 

Lord  of  Ebara,  direct  thy  foot  rightly  in  thy  road. 

O  sun,  in  making  thy  way, take  the  path  marked  for  thy  rays. 

Thou  art  the  Lord  of  judgments  over  all  nations. 

As  for  the  sacred  scriptures  of  the  Parsees,  the  Avesta,  it  may  be  said 
that  few  remains  of  antiquity  are  of  much  greater  interest  to  the  stu¬ 
dent  of  history  and  religion.  But  these  records  of  the  old  Iranian  faith 
have  suffered  sadly  by  time  and  the  revolutions  of  the  empire.  One  who 
has  made  them  a  special  life  study  observes  :  “  As  the  Parsees  are  the  ruins 
of  a  people,  so  are  their  sacred  books  the  ruin  of  a  religion.  There  has  been 
no  other  great  belief  that  ever  left  such  poor  and  meager  monuments  of  its 
past  splendor.”  The  oldest  portions  of  the  Avesta  consist  of  praises  to  the 
holy  powers  of  heaven  and  invocations  for  them  to  be  present  at  the  cere¬ 
monial  worship.  The  entire  collection,  taken  together,  is  mainly  of  the 
nature  of  a  prayer-book  or  ritual. 

We  pass  now  to  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  notice  that  mysterious  compila¬ 
tion  of  myth  and  legend,  and  words  of  hope  and  fear,  now  commonly  known 
as  the  “  Book  of  the  Dead.  ”  It  exists  in  a  great  number  of  manuscripts 
recovered  from  Egyptian  tombs,  and  many  chapters  are  inscribed  upon 
coffins,  mummies,  sepulchral  wrappings,  statues,  and  walls  of  tombs.  Some 
of  the  tombs  contain  exactly  the  «ame  characters,  or  follow  the  same 
arrangement.  The  text  is  accordingly  very  corrupt.  The  writing  was  not, 
in  fact,  intended  for  mortal  eyes,  but  to  bo  buried  with  tho  dead,  and  the 
prayers  are,  for  the  most  part,  language  supposed  to  be  used  by  the  departed 
in  their  progress  through  the  underworld.  We  can  therefore  hardly  expect 
to  find  in  this  strange  book  anything  that  will  greatly  interest  us  as  litera¬ 
ture.  Its  value  is  in  the  knowledge  it  supplies  of  the  ancient  Egyptian 
faith.  The  blessed  dead  are  supposed  to  have  the  use  of  all  their  limbs, 
and  to  eat  and  drink,  and  to  enjoy  an  existence  similar  to  that  which  they 
had  known  on  earth.  But  they  are  not  confined  to  any  one  locality,  or  to 
any  one  form  of  existence.  They  have  the  range  of  the  entire  universe  in 
every  shape  and  form  which  they  desire.  We  find  in  one  chapter  an 
account  of  the  terrible  nature  of  certain  divinities  and  localities  which  the 
deceased  must  encounter,  gigantic  and  venomous  serpents, gods  with  names 
significant  of  death  and  destruction,  waters,  and  atmospheres  of  fiames.  But 
none  of  these  prevail  over  him;  he  passes  through  all  things  without  harm, 
and  lives  in  peace  with  the  fearful  gods  who  preside  over  these  fearful  abodes. 
The  following  is  a  specimen  of  invocations  to  be  used  in  passing  through 
such  dangers: 

O  Ra,  in  thine  egg,  radiant  in  thy  diSn.  shining  forth  from  the  horizon,  swim¬ 
ming  over  the  steel  firmament,  sailing  over  the  pillars  of  Shu;— thou  who  hast 
no  second  among  the  gods,  who  produced  the  winds  by  the  flames  of  thy 
mouth,  and  who  enlightenest  the  worlds  with  thy  splendors,  save  the  departed 
from  that  god  whose  nature  is  a  mystery  and  whose  eyebrows  are  as  the  arms 
of  the  balance  on  the  n’ght  when  Aanit  was  weighed. 

The  Mohammedan  Bible  is  a  comparatively  modern  book.  It  is  a  ques¬ 
tion  whether  its  author  ever  learned  to  read  or  write.  He  dictated  his 
revelations  to  his  disciples  and  they  wrote  them  on  date  leaves,  bits  of 
parchment,  tablets  of  white  stone,  and  shoulder  blades  of  sheep.  After  the 
Prophet's  death  the  different  fragments  were  collected  and  arranged  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  length  of  the  chapters,  beginning  with  the  longest  and  ending 
with  the  shortest.  As  a  volume  of  sacred  literature  the  Koran  is  deficient 
in  those  elements  of  independence  and  originality  which  are  noticeable  in 
the  sacred  books  of  the  other  great  religions  of  the  world.  It  is  a  tedious 
book  to  read.  It  is  full  of  repetition  and  seems  incapable  of  happy  trans¬ 
lation  into  any  other  language.  Its  crowning  glory  is  its  glowing  Arabic 


INSPIRATION  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  SCRIPTURE. 


319 


diction.  Mohammed  himself  insisted  that  the  marvelous  excellence  of  his 
book  was  a  standing  proof  of  its  superhuman  origin.  “If  men  and  genii,” 
says  he,  “  united  themselves  together  to  bring  the  like  of  the  Koran  they 
could  not  bring  the  like,  though  they  should  back  each  other  up.” 

In  view  of  the  limit  of  my  space  and  time,  I  propose  to  omit  particular 
notice  of  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  Scriptures.  The  New  Testament  is  a 
unique  book,  or  set  of  books,  and  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  constitute  a 
peculiar  literature.  But  as  a  body  of  rich  and  various  literature  these  writ¬ 
ings  are  surpassed  by  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  giving  the 
palm  to  the  sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews,  I  will  simply  add  the  words  of 
Sir  William  Jones,  written  on  a  blank  leaf  of  his  Bible.  That  that  distin¬ 
guished  scholar  was  a  most  competent  critic  and  judge  none  will  dispute. 
He  wrote; 

I  am  of  opinion  that  this  volume,  independently  of  its  divine  origin,  con¬ 
tains  more  true  sublimity,  more  exquisite  beauty,  more  pure  morality,  more 
important  history,  and  finer  strains  of  poetry  and  eloquence  than  can  be  col¬ 
lected  from  all  other  books  in  whatever  age  or  language  they  may  have  been 
wiitten. 


THE  CHARACTER  AND  DEGREE  OF  THE  INSIPRA- 
TION  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  SCRIPTURE. 

REV.  FRANK  SEWELL  CF  WASHINGTON.  D.  C. 

There  is  a  common  consent  among  Christians  that  the  Scriptures, 
known  as  the  Holy  Bible,  are  divinely  inspired,  that  they  constitute  a  book 
unlike  all  other  books,  in  that  they  contain  a  direct  communication  from 
the  Divine  Spirit  to  the  mind  and  heart  of  man  The  nature  and  the 
degree  of  the  inspiration  which  thus  characterizes  the  Bible  can  only  be 
learned  from  the  declaration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves,  since  only 
the  divine  can  truly  reveal  the  divine  or  afford  to  human  minds  the 
means  of  judging  truly  regarding  what  is  divine. 

The  Christian  Scripture,  or  the  Holy  Bible,  is  written  in  two  parts,  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament.  In  the  interval  of  time  that  transpired 
between  the  writing  of  these  two  parts,  the  divine  truth  and  essential  Word 
which,  in  the  beginning  was  with  God  and  was  God,  became  incarnate  on 
our  earth  in  the  person  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He,  as  the  Word  made 
flesh  and  dwelling  among  men,  being  himself  “the  true  light  that  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  worid,”  placed  the  seal  of  divine  authority 
upon  certain  of  the  then  existing  Sacred  Scriptures.  He  thus  forever  fixed 
the  divine  canon  of  that  portion  of  the  written  word ;  and  from  that  por¬ 
tion  we  are  entitled  to  derive  a  criterion  of  judgment  regarding  the  degree 
of  divine  inspiration  and  authority  to  be  attributed  to  those  other  scrip¬ 
tures  which  were  to  follow  after  our  Lord’s  ascension  and  which  constitute 
the  New  Testament. 

The  Divine  Canon  of  the  word  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  is 
declared  by  our  Lord  in  Luke  xxiv,  44,  where  he  says,  “  All  things  must  be 
fulfilled  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Prophets,  and 
in  the  Psalms  concerning  Me.”  And  in  verses  25  to  27:  “O,  fools  and  slow 
of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets  have  spoken”— and  beginning  at 
Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  scripture 
things  concerning  Himself. 

The  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  thus  enumerated  as  testifying  of 
Him  and  as  being  fulfilled  in  Him,  embrace  two  of  the  three  divisions  into 
which  the  Jews  at  that  time  divided  their  sacred  books.  These  two  are  the 
Law  (Torah),  or  the  Five  Books  of  Moses  so-called,  and  the  Prophets 
(Nebiim).  Of  the  books  contained  in  the  third  division  of  the  Jewish 
Canon,  known  as  the  Ketubin,  or  “  Other  Writings,”  our  Lord  recognizes 


320 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


but  two;  he  names  by  title,  “  The  Psalms;  ”  and  in  Matthew  xxiv,  15,  when 
j)redicting  the  consummation  of  the  age  and  His  own  second  coming,  our 
Lord  cites  the  prophecy  of  Daniel.  It  is  evident  that  our  Lord  was  not 
governed  by  Jewish  tradition  in  naming  these  three  classes  of  the  ancient 
books  which  were  henceforth  to  be  regarded  as  essentially  “  The  Word,” 
because  of  having  their  fulfillment  in  Himself. 

In  the  very  words  of  Jesus  Christ  the  canon  of  the  word  is  established 
in  a  two-fold  manner:  First,  intrinsically,  as  including  those  books  which 
interiorly  testify  of  him,  and  were  all  to  be  fulfilled  in  him.  Secondly,  the 
canon  is  fixed  specifically  by  our  Lord’s  naming  the  books  which  compose  it 
under  the  three  divisions:  “  The  law,  the  prophets,  and  the  psalms.” 

The  canon  in  this  sense  comprises  consequently  the  five  books  of  Moses, 
or  the  “law,”  so-called;  the  books  of  Joshua,  the  Judges,  First  and  Second 
Samuel,  First  and  Second  Kings,  or  the  so-called  Earlier  Prophets;  the 
Later  Prophets,  including  the  four  “great”  and  the  twelve  “minor”  Pro¬ 
phets,  and  finally  the  book  of  Psalms. 

The  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  namely:  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Job, 
Proverbs,  First  and  Second  Chronicles,  Ruth,  Esther,  the  Songs  of  Solomon, 
and  Ecclesiastes,  as  well  as  the  so-called  “  Apocrypha.”  Of  these  books, 
which  compose  the  Divine  Canon  itself,  it  may  be  said  that  they  constitute 
the  inexhaustible  source  of  revelation  and  inspiration.  We  may  regard, 
therefore,  as  established  that  the  source  of  the  divinity  of  the  Bible,  of  its 
unity,  and  its  authority  as  divine  revelation  lies  in  having  the  Christ — as 
the  Eternal  Word  within  it,  at  once  its  source,  its  inspiration,  its  prophecy, 
its  fulfillment,  its  power  to  illuminate  the  minds  of  men  with  a  knowledge 
of  divine  and  spiritual  things,  to  “  convert  the  soul,”  to  “  make  wise  the 
simxjle.” 

We  next  observe  regarding  these  divine  books  that,  besides  being  thus 
set  apart  by  Christ,  they  declare  themselves  to  be  the  word  of  the  Lord  in 
the  sense  of  being  actually  spoken  by  the  Lord  and  so  as  constituting  a 
divine  language.  This  shows  that  not  only  do  these  books  claim  to  be  of 
God’s  revealing,  but  that  the  manner  of  the  revelation  was  that  of  direct 
dictation  by  means  of  a  voice  actually  heard,  as  one  hears  another  talking, 
although  by  the  internal  organs  of  hearing.  The  same  is  also  true  through¬ 
out  the  prophetical  books  above  enumerated.  Here  we  are  met  with  the 
constant  declaration  of  the  “Word  of  the  Lord  coming,”  as  the  “Voice  of 
the  Lord  speaking,”  to  the  writers  of  these  books,  showing  that  the  writers 
wrote  not  of  themselves,  but  from  the  “  Voice  of  the  Lord  through  them.” 

We  now  turn  to  the  New  Testament,  and  applying  to  these  books  which 
in  the  time  of  Christ  were  yet  unwritten,  criteria  derived  from  those  books 
which  had  received  from  him  the  seal  of  divine  authority,  namely:  That 
they  are  words  spoken  by  the  Lord  or  given  by  His  spirit,  and  that  they 
testify  of  Him  and  so  have  in  them  eternal  life,  we  find  in  the  Four  Gospels 
either: 

1.  The  words  “spoken  unto  ”  us  by  our  Lord  Himself  when  among  men 
as  the  Word,  and  of  which  He  says:  “The  words  which  I  speak  unto  you 
they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life.” 

2.  The  acts  done  by  Him  or  to  Him  “  that  the  scriptures  might  be 
fulfilled,”  or  finally  the  words  “called  to  the  remembrance”  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  Evangelist  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to  His  promise  to  them  in 
John  xiv,  26.  Besides  the  four  gospels  we  have  the  testimony  of  John  the 
Revelator  that  the  visions  recorded  in  the  Apocalypse  were  vouchsafed  to 
him  by  the  Lord  Himself,  thus  showing  that  the  Book  of  Revelation  is  no 
mere  personal  communication  from  the  man  John,  but  the  actual  revelation 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  of  Truth  itself. 

No  such  claims  of  direct  divine  inspiration  or  dictation  are  made  in  any 
other  part  of  the  New  Testament.  Only  to  the  Four  Gospels  and  to  the 
Book  of  Revelation  could  one  presume  to  apply  these  words,  written  at  the 


INSPIRATION  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  SCRIPTURE. 


321 


close  of  the  Apocalypse  and  applying  immediately  to  it:  “If  any  man  shall 
take  away  from  the  words  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book  God  shall  take 
away  his  part  out  of  the  Book  of  Life  and  out  of  the  Holy  City,  and  from  the 
things  which  are  written  in  this  book.”  In  the  portion  of  the  Bible  which 
we  may  thus  distinguish  pre-eminently  as  the  “Word  of  the  Lord”  it  is 
therefore  the  words  themselves  that  are  inspired,  and  not  the  men  that 
transmitted  them.  This  is  what  our  Lord  declares. 

Moreover,  the  very  words  which  the  apostles  and  evangelists  themselves 
heard  and  the  acts  which  they  beheld  and  recorded  had  a  meaning  and 
content  of  which  they  were  partially  and  in  some  cases  totally  ignorant. 
Thus  when  our  Lord  speaks  of  the  “eating  of  His  flesh”  the  disciples 
murmur,  “This  is  a  hard  saying;  who  can  bear  it?”  and  when  He  speaks 
of  “  going  away  to  the  Father  and  coming  again  ”  the  disciples  say  among 
themselves,  “  What  is  this  that  He  saith?  We  can  not  tell  what  He  saith.” 

If  we  look  at  the  Apocalypse,  with  its  strange  visions,  its  mysterious 
numbers  and  signs;  if  we  read  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testaments,  with 
their  commingling  of  times,  and  nations,  and  lands,  and  seas,  and  things 
animate  and  inanimate,  in  a  manner  discordant  with  any  conceivable 
earthly  history  or  chronology;  if  we  read  the  details  of  the  ceremonial  law 
dictated  to  Moses  in  the  Mount  by  the  “voice  of  Jehovah;”  if  we  read  in 
Genesis  the  account  of  creation  and  of  the  origins  of  human  history,  we 
are  compelled  to  admit  that  the  penmen  recording  these  things  were  writing 
that  of  which  they  knew  not  the  meaning;  that  what  they  wrote  did  not 
represent  their  intelligence  or  counsel,  but  was  the  faithful  record 
of  what  was  delivered  to  them  by  the  voice  of  the  Spirit  speaking  inwardly 
to  them.  Here,  then,  we  see  the  manner  of  divine  revelation  in  human 
language,  again  definitely  declared  and  exemplified  in  Jesus  the  word 
incarnate,  in  that  not  only  in  his  acts  did  he  employ  signs  and  miracles, 
but  in  teaching  his  disciples  he  “  spake  in  parables,”  and  “  without  a  par¬ 
able  spake  he  not  to  them,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by 
the  prophet,  saying,  I  will  open  my  mouth  in  parables;  I  will  utter  things 
which  have  been  kept  sacred  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.”  We  learn, 
therefore,  that  the  divine  language  is  that  of  parable  wherein  things  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  are  clothed  in  the  familar  figures  of  earthly  speech  and 
action. 

If  the  Bible  is  divine  the  law  of  its  revelation  must  be  coincident  with 
that  of  divine  creation.  Both  are  the  involution  of  the  Divine  and  Infinite 
in  a  series  of  veils  or  symbols,  which  become  more  and  more  gross  as  they 
recede  from  their  source.  In  revelation  the  veilings  of  the  divine  truth  of 
the  essential  word  follow  in  accordance  with  the  receding  and  more  and 
more  sensualized  states  of  mankind  upon  earth.  Hence,  the  successive  dis¬ 
pensations,  or  church  eras,  which  mark  off  the  whole  field  of  human  history. 
After  the  Eden  days  of  open  vision,  when  “heaven  lay  about  us  in  our  in¬ 
fancy,”  followed  the  Noetic  era  of  a  sacred  language,  full  of  heavenly  mean¬ 
ings,  traces  of  which  occur  in  the  hieroglyphic  writings  and  the  great  world- 
myths  of  most  ancient  tradition  ;  then  came  the  visible  and  localized  the¬ 
ocracy  of  a  chosen  nation,  with  laws  and  ritual  and  a  long  history  of  its 
war  and  struggle  and  victory  and  decline,  and  the  promise  of  a  final  renewal 
and  perpetuation  ;  all  being  at  the  same  time  a  revelation  of  God’s  provi¬ 
dence  and  government  over  man,  and  a  picture  of  the  process  of  the  regen¬ 
eration  of  the  human  soul  and  its  preparation  for  an  eternal  inheritance  in 
heaven. 

But  even  the  law  of  God  thus  revealed  in  the  form  of  a  national  consti¬ 
tution,  hierarchy,  and  ritual  was  at  length  made  of  none  effect  through  the 
traditions  of  men,  and  men  “  seeing  saw  not,  and  hearing  heard  not,  neither 
did  they  understand.”  Then  for  the  redemption  of  man  in  this  extremity 
“  the  Word  itself  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,”  and  now,  in  the  veil 
of  a  humanity  subject  to  human  temptation  and  suffering,  even  to  the  death 
upon  the  cross. 


322 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGION ii. 


Thus  the  process  of  the  evolution  of  the  spirit  out  of  the  veil  of  the 
letter  of  the  scripture,  begun  in  our  Lord’s  own  interpretation  of  the  “Law 
for  those  of  ancient  time,”  is  a  process  lo  whose  further  continuance  the 
Lord  Himself  testifies.  The  letter  of  scripture  is  the  cloud  which  every¬ 
where  proclaims  the  presence  of  the  Infinite  God  with  His  creature  man. 
The  cloud  of  the  Lord’s  presence  is  the  infinitely  merciful  adaptation  of 
divine  truth  to  the  spiritual  needs  of  humanity.  The  cloud  of  the  literal 
gospel,  and  of  the  apostolic  traditions  of  our  Lord,  is  truly  typified  by  that 
cloud  which  received  the  ascending  Christ  out  of  the  immediate  sight  of 
men.  The  same  letter  of  the  word  is  the  cloud  in  which  He  makes  known 
His  second  coming  in  power  and  great  glory,  in  revealing  to  the  church  the 
inner  and  spiritual  meanings  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament  of  His 
word.  For  ages  the  Christian  church  has  stood  gazing  up  into  heaven  in 
adoration  of  Him  whom  the  cloud  has  hidden  from  their  sight,  and  with 
the  traditions  of  human  dogma,  and  the  warring  of  schools  and  critics, 
more  and  more  dense  has  the  cloud  become.  In  the  thickness  of  the  cloud 
it  behoves  the  church  to  hold  the  more  fast  its  faith  in  the  glory  within 
the  cloud. 

The  view  of  the  Bible  and  its  inspiration  thus  presented  is  only  one 
compatible  with  a  belief  in  it  as  a  divine  in  contradistinction  from  a 
human  production.  Were  the  Bible  a  work  of  human  art,  embodying 
human  genius  and  human  wisdom,  then  the  question  of  the  writers’  indi¬ 
viduality  and  their  personal  inspiration  and  even  of  the  time  and  circum¬ 
stances  amid  which  they  wrote  would  be  of  the  first  importance.  Not  so 
if  the  divine  inspiration  and  wisdom  is  treasured  up  in  the  very  words 
themselves  as  divinely  chosen  symbols  and  parables  of  eternal  truth.  Far 
from  placing  a  human  limitation  upon  the  divine  spirit,  such  a  verbal 
inspiration  as  this  opens  in  the  Bible  vistas  of  heavenly  and  divine  mean¬ 
ings,  such  as  they  could  never  possess  were  its  inspiration  confined  to  the 
degree  of  intelligence  possessed  by  the  human  writers,  even  under  a  special 
illumination  of  their  minds. 

The  difference  between  inspired  words  of  God  and  inspired  men  writing 
their  own  words  is  like  that  between  an  eternal  fact  of  nature  and  the 
scientific  theories  which  men  have  formulated  upon  or  about  it.  The  fact 
remains  forever  a  source  of  new  discovery  and  a  means  of  ever  new  revela¬ 
tion  of  the  divine;  the  scientific  theories  may  come  and  go  with  the 
changing  minds  of  men. 

It  is  not  then,  from  man,  from  the  intelligence  of  any  Moses,  or  Daniel, 
or  Isaiah,  or  John,  that  the  word  of  God  contains  its  authority  as  divine, 
the  authority  must  be  in  the  words  themselves.  If  they  are  unlike  all 
other  words  ever  written;  if  they  have  a  meaning,  yea  worlds  and  worlds  of 
meaning,  one  within  or  above  another,  while  human  words  have  all  their 
meaning  on  the  surface;  if  they  have  a  message  whose  truth  is  dependent 
upon  no  single  time  or  circumstance,  but  speaks  to  man  at  all  times  and 
under  all  circumstances;  if  they  have  a  validity  and  an  authority  self-dic- 
tated  to  human  souls  which  survives  the  passing  of  earthly  monuments  and 
powers,  which  speaks  in  all  languages,  to  all  minds — wise  to  the  learned, 
simple  to  the  simple — if,  in  a  word,  these  are  words  that  experience  shows 
no  man  could  have  written  from  the  intelligence  belonging  to  his  time,  or 
from  the  experience  of  any  single  human  soul,  then  we  may  feel  sure  that 
we  have  in  the  words  of  our  Bible  that  which  is  diviner  than  any  penman 
that  wrote  them. 

Here  is  that  which  “  speaks  with  authority  and  not  as  the  scribe.  ”  The 
words  that  God  speaks  to  man  are  “  spirit  and  are  life.  ”  The  authorship 
of  the  Bible  and  all  that  this  implies  of  divine  authority  to  the  con¬ 
science  of  man  is  contained,  like  the  frame  of  Urim  and  Thummim,  on  the 
breast-plate  of  the  high-priest,  in  the  bosom  of  its  own  language  to  reveal 
itself  by  the  spirit  to  all  who  will  “  have  an  ear  to  hear.  ”  So  shall  it 


BUDDHISM, 


323 


continue  to  utter  the  “  dark  parables  of  old  which  we  have  known  and  our 
lathers  have  told  us,  ”  and  “  to  show  forth  to  all  generations  the  praises  of 
the  Lord,  ”  becoming  ever  more  and  more  translucent  with  the  glory  that 
shines  within  the  cloud  of  the  letter;  and  so  shall  the  church  rest,  amid  all 
the  contentions  that  engage  those  who  study  the  surface  of  revelation, 
whether  in  nature  or  in  scripture,  in  the  undisturbed  assurance  that  the 
word  of  the  Lord  abideth  forever.  ” 


BUDDHISM. 

BANEIEU  YATSUBUCHI  OF  JAPAN. 

The  paper  was  read  by  Z.  Noguchi. 

The  radiating  light  of  the  civilization  of  the  present  century,  to  be 
seen  in  Europe  and  America,  is  reflected  on  all  corners  of  the  earth.  My 
country  has  already  opened  international  intercourse,  and  made  rapid 
progress,  owing  to  America,  for  which  I  return  many  thanks.  The  present 
state  of  the  world’s  civilization,  however,  is  limited  always  to  the  near 
material  world,  and  it  has  not  yet  set  forth  the  best,  most  beautiful,  and 
most  truthful  spiritual  world.  It  is  because  every  religion,  stooping  in  each 
corner,  neglects  its  duty  of  universal  love  and  brotherhood.  But,  at  last, 
the  day  came,  fortunately,  that  all  religions  sent  their  members  to  attend  the 
World’s  Religious  Congress  in  connection  with  the  Columbian  Exposition 
of  1893. 

Buddhism  is  the  doctrine  taught  by  Buddha  Shakyamuni.  The  word 
Buddha  is  Sanskrit,  and  in  the  Japanese  it  is  Satorim,  which  means  under¬ 
standing  or  comprehension.  It  has  three  meanings — self-comprehension, 
to  let  others  comprehend,  and  perfect  comprehension.  When  wisdom  and 
humanity  are  attained  thoroughly  by  one  he  may  be  called  Buddha,  which 
means  perfect  comprehension.  In  Buddhism  we  have  Buddha  as  our 
Savior,  the  spirit  incarnate  of  perfect  self-sacriflce,  and  divine  compassion, 
and  the  embodiment  of  all  that  is  pure  and  good.  Although  Buddha  was 
not  a  creator,  and  had  no  power  to  destroy  the  law  of  the  universe,  he  had 
the  power  of  knowledge  to  know  the  origin  of  nature,  and  end  of  each 
revolving  manifestation  of  the  universal  phenomena.  He  suppressed  the 
craving  and  passions  of  his  mind  until  he  could  reach  no  higher  spiritual 
and  moral  plane.  As  every  object  of  the  universe  is  one  part  of  the  truth, 
of  course  it  may  become  Buddha,  according  to  a  natural  reason. 

The  only  difference  between  Buddha  and  all  other  beings  is  in  point  of 
supreme  enlightenment.  Kegon  Sutra  teaches  us  that  there  is  no  distinc¬ 
tion  between  mind,  Buddha,  and  beings,  and  Nirvana  Sutra  also  teaches  us 
that  all  beings  have  the  nature  of  Buddhahood.  If  one  does  not  neglect  to 
•purify  his  mind  and  to  increase  his  power  of  religion,  he  may  take  in  the 
spiritual  world  or  space  and  have  cognizance  of  the  jiast,  present,  and  future 
in  his  mind.  Kishinron  tells  us  that  space  has  no  limit,  that  the  worlds  are 
innumerable,  that  the  beings  are  countless,  that  Buddhas  are  numberless. 
Buddhism  aims  to  turn  from  the  incomplete,  superstitious  world  to  the 
complete  enlightenment  of  the  world  of  truth. 

The  complete  doctrinces  of  Buddha,  who  spent  fifty  years  in  elaborating 
them,  were  preached  precisely  and  carefully,  and  their  meanings  are  so  pro¬ 
found  arid  deep  that  I  can  not  explain  at  this  time  an  infinitesimal  part  of 
them.’  His  preaching  was  a  compass  to  point  out  the  direction  to  the 
bewildering  spiritual  world.  He  taught  his  disciples  just  as  the  doctor  cures 
his  patient,  by  giving  several  medicines  according  to  the  different  cases. 
Twelve  divisions  of  Sutras  and  84,000  laws  made  to  meet  the  different  cases 
of  Buddha’s  patients  in  the  suffering  world  are  minute  classifications  of 
Buddha’s  teaching.  Why  are  there  so  many  sects  and  preachings  in 


324 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Bucldhism?  Simply  because  of  the  differences  in  human  character.  His 
teaching  may  be  divided  under  four  heads:  Thinking  about  the  general 
state  of  the  world;  thinking  about  the  individual  character  simply;  con¬ 
quering  the  passions;  giving  up  the  life  to  the  sublime  first  principle. 

There  is  no  room  for  censure  because  Buddhism  has  many  sects  which 
were  founded  on  Buddha’s  teachings,  because  Buddha  considered  it  best  to 
preach  according  to  the  sjjiritual  needs  of  his  hearers,  and  leave  to  them 
the  choice  of  any  particular  sect.  We  are  not  allowed  to  censure  other 
sects,  because  the  teaching  of  each  guides  us  all  to  the  same  place  at  last. 
The  necessity  for  separating  the  many  sects  arose  from  the  fact  that  the 
people  of  different  countries  were  not  alike  in  dis})ositions  and  could  not 
accept  the  same  truths  in  the  same  way  as  others.  One  teaching  of  Buddha 
contains  many  elements  which  are  to  be  distributed  and  separated.  But 
the  object,  as  taught  by  Buddha,  is  one  we  teach  the  ignorant  according  to 
the  conditions  that  arise  through  our  different  sects.  If  you  wish  to  know 
about  Buddhism  thoroughly  you  must  begin  the  study  of  it.  Those  of  you 
who  would  care  to  knov/ ihe  outline  of  Buddhism  might  read  Professor 
Nanjo’s  English  translation  of  the  “History  of  the  Japanese  Buddhist 
Sects.”  TWs  will  also  give  you  a  general  idea  of  the  Buddhism  of  Japan. 

Before  leaving  this  platform  I  wish  to  say  something  more.  Not  many 
years  have  passed  since  my  country  became  known  to  the  civilized  world. 
Even  now  the  customs  and  conditions  of  Japan  are  not  known  to  foreign¬ 
ers,  with  very  few  exceptions.  The  heart  of  my  country,  the  power  of  my 
country,  and  the  light  of  my  country  is  Buddhism.  That  Buddhism,  the 
real  Buddhism,  is  not  known  to  the  world.  Some  take  Buddhism  to  be 
polytheism,  some  say  it  is  idolatry,  some  pessimism,  and  some  regard  it  as  a 
barbarous  religion  They  are  very  far  from  the  truth.  I  understand  that 
the  object  of  the  World’s  Religious  Congress  is  to  give  a  new  life  and  light 
to  the  struggling,  material  world  of  the  present  century.  It  is  in  this  spirit 
that  I  have  contributed  this  short  account  of  Buddhism. 


OUTLOOK  FOR  JUDAISM. 

MISS  JOSEPHINE  LAZARUS. 

The  paper  was  read  by  Mrs.  Max  Leopold,  who  was  intro¬ 
duced  by  Dr.  George  Dana  Boardman,  the  chairman  of  the 
afternoon  session. 

The  19th  century  has  had  its  surprises;  the  position  of  the  Jews 
to-day  is  one  of  these,  both  for  the  Jew  himself  and  for  most  enlightened 
Christians.  There  were  certain  facts  we  thought  forever  laid  at  rest, 
certain  conditions  and  contingencies  that  could  never  confront  us  again,  . 
certain  war-cries  that  could  not  be  raised.  In  this  last  decade  of  our  civil¬ 
ization,  however,  we  have  been  rudely  awakened  from  our  false  dream  of 
security— it  may  be  to  a  higher  calling  and  destiny  than  we  had  yet  fore¬ 
seen.  I  do  not  wish  to  emphasize  the  painful  facts  by  dwelling  on  them, 
or  even  pointing  them  out.  We  are  all  aware  of  them,  and  whenever  Jews 
and  Christians  come  together  on  equal  terms,  ignoring  difference  and  oppo¬ 
sition  and  injury,  it  is  well  that  they  should  do  so.  At  the  same  time,  we 
must  not  shut  our  eyes,  nor,  like  the  ostrich,  bury  our  head  in  the  sand. 
The  situation,  which  is  so  grave,  must  be  bravely  and  honestly  faced,  the 
crisis  met,  the  problem  frankly  stated  in  all  its  bearings  so  that  the  whole 
truth  may  be  brought  to  light  if  possible.  We  are  a  little  apt  to  look  on 
one  side  only  of  the  shield,  especially  when  our  sense  of  justice  and  human¬ 
ity  is  stung,  and  the  cry  of  the  oppressed  and  persecuted — our  brothers — 
rings  in  our  ears. 


OUTLOOK  FOR  JUDAISM. 


325 


As  we  all  know,  the  effect  of  persecution  is  to  strengthen  solidity.  The 
Jew  who  never  was  a  Jew  before  becomes  one  when  the  vital  spot  is  touched. 
When  we  are  attacked  as  Jews  we  do  not  strike  back  angrily,  but  we  coil 
up  in  our  shell  of  Judaism  and  intrench  ourselves  more  strongly  than 
before.  The  Jews  themselves,  both  from  natural  habit  and  force  of  circum¬ 
stances,  have  been  accustomed  to  dwell  along  their  own  lines  of  thought  and 
life,  absorbed  in  their  own  point  of  view,  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  outside 
opinion.  Indeed,  it  is  this  power  of  concentration  in  their  own  pursuits 
that  insures  their  success  in  most  things  they  set  out  to  do.  They  have  been 
content  for  the  most  part  to  guard  the  truth  they  hold  rather  than  spread 
it.  Amid  favorable  surroundings  and  easy  circumstances  many  of  us  had 
ceased  to  take  it  very  deeply  or  seriously  that  we  were  Jews.  We  had  grown 
to  look  upon  it  merely  as  an  accident  of  birth  for  which  we  were  not  called 
upon  to  make  any  sacrifice,  but  rather  to  make  ourselves  as  much  as  pos¬ 
sible  like  our  neighbors,  neither  better  nor  worse  than  the  people  around 
us.  But  with  a  painful  shock  we  are  suddenly  made  aware  of  it  as  a  detri¬ 
ment,  and  we  shrink  at  once  back  into  ourselves,  hurt  in  our  most  sensitive 
point,  our  pride  wounded  to  the  quick,  our  most  sacred  feelings,  as  we 
believe,  outraged  and  trampled  upon. 

But  our  very  attitude  proves  that  something  is  wrong  with  us.  Perse¬ 
cution  does  not  touch  us;  we  do  not  feel  it  when  we  have  an  ideal  large 
enough  and  close  enough  to  our  hearts  to  sustain  and  console  us.  The 
martyrs  of  old  did  not  feel  the  fires  of  the  stake,  the  arrows  that  pierced 
their  flesh.  The  Jews  of  the  olden  time  danced  to  their  death  with  praise 
and  song  and  joyful  shouts  of  Hallelujah.  They  were  willing  to  die  for 
that  which  was  their  life,  and  more  than  life  to  them.  But  the  martyr¬ 
dom  of  the  present  day  is  a  strange  and  a  novel  one,  that  has  no  grace  or 
glory  about  it,  and  of  which  we  are  not  proud.  We  have  not  chosen,  and 
perhaps  would  not  choose  it.  Many  of  us  scarcely  know  the  cause  for 
which  we  suffer,  and  therefore  we  feel  every  pang,  every  cut  of  the  lash. 
For  our  sake  then,  and  still  more  perhaps  for  those  who  come  after  us,  and 
to  whom  we  bequeath  our  Judaism,  it  behoves  us  to  find  out  just  what  it 
means  to  us,  and  what  it  holds  for  us  to  live  by.  In  other  words,  what  is 
the  content  and  significance  of  modern  Judaism  in  the  world  to-day,  not  for 
us  personally  as  Jews,  but  for  the  v/orld  at  large?  What  power  has  it  as  a 
spiritual  influence?  And  as  such,  what  is  its  share  or  part  in  the  large  life 
of  humanity,  in  the  broad  current  and  movement  of  the  times?  What 
actuality  has  it,  what  possible  unfoldment  in  the  future? 

As  the  present  can  best  be  read  by  the  light  of  the  past  I  should  like 
briefly  to  review  the  ideas  on  which  our  existence  is  based  and  our  identity 
sustained.  Upon  the  background  of  myth,  and  yet  in  a  sense  how  bold, 
how  clear,  stands  Moses,  the  man  of  God,  who  saw  the  world  aflame  with 
Deity — the  burning  bush,  the  flaming  mountain-top,  the  fiery  cloud,  lead¬ 
ing  his  people  from  captivity,  and  who  heard  pronounced  the  divine  and 
everlasting  name,  the  unpronounceable,  the  ineffable  I  Am.  In  Moses, 
above  all,  whether  we  look  upon  him  as  semihistoric  or  a  purely  symbolic 
figure,  the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  race  is  typified,  the  fundamental  note  of 
Judaism  is  struck,  the  word  that  rings  forever  after  through  the  ages, 
which  is  the  law  spoken  by  God  himself,  with  trumpet  sound,  midst  thun- 
derings  and  lightenings  from  heaven.  Whatever  of  true  or  false,  of  fact  or 
legend  hangs  about  it,  we  have  in  the  Mosaic  conception,  the  moral  idea  of 
the  Hebrews,  a  code  divinely  sanctioned  and  ordained,  the  absolute  imper¬ 
ative  of  duty,  a  transcendent  law  laid  upon  man  which  he  must  perforce 
obey,  in  order  that  he  may  live.  “  Thou  shalt,  thou  shalt  not”  hedges  him 
round  on  every  side,  now  as  moral  obligation  and  again  as  ceremonial  or 
legal  ordinance,  and  becomes  the  bulwark  of  the  faith  through  centuries 
of  greatness,  centuries  of  darkness  and  humiliation. 

In  the  Hebrew  writings  we  trace,  not  so  much  the  development  of  a 


32G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


people  but  of  an  idea  that  constantly  grows  in  length  and  purity.  The 
petty  tribal  god,  cruel  and  partisan  like  the  gods  around  them,  becomes  the 
universal  and  eternal  God,  who  tills  all  time  and  space,  all  heaven  and 
earth,  and  beside  whom  no  other  power  exists.  Throughout  nature  his  will 
is  law,  his  tiat  goes  forth  and  the  stars  obey  him  in  their  course,  the  winds 
and  waves,  tire  and  hail,  snow  and  vapors,  stormy  wind  fulfilling  his  word. 
The  lightnings  do  his  bidding  and  say,  “  Here  we  are,”  when  he  commands 
them. 

But  not  alone  in  the  physical  realm,  still  more  is  He  the  moral  ruler  of 
the  universe,  and  here  we  come  upon  the  core  of  the  Hebrew  conception, 
its  true  grandeur,  and  originality,  upon  which  the  whole  stress  was  laid, 
namely,  that  it  is  only  in  the  moral  sphere,  only  as  a  moral  being  that 
man  can  enter  into  relation  with  his  Maker,  and  the  Maker  of  the  Universe, 
and  come  to  any  understanding  of  Him.  “Canst  thou  by  searching  find 
out  God?  Canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection?  It  is  as 
high  as  heaven;  what  canst  thou  do?  deeper  than  hell;  what  canst  thou 
know?”  Not  through  the  finite  limited  intellect,  nor  any  outward  sense-* 
perception,  but  only  through  the  moral  sense,  do  these  earnest  teachers  bid 
us  seek  God,  who  reveals  Himself  in  the  law  which  is  at  once  human  and 
divine,  the  voice  of  duty  and  of  conscience  animating  the  soul  of  man.  It 
is  this  breath  of  the  divine  that  vitalizes  the  pages  of  the  Hebrew  prophets 
and  their  moral  precepts.  It  is  the  blending  of  the  two  ideals,  the  complete 
and  absolute  identification  of  the  moral  and  religious  life,  so  that  each  can 
be  interpreted  in  terms  of  the  other — the  moral  life  saturated  and  fed,  sus¬ 
tained,  and  sanctified  by  the  divine;  the  religious  life  merely  a  divinely 
ordained  morality — that  it  is  that  constitutes  the  essence  of  their  teachings, 
the  unity  and  grand  simplicity  of  their  ideal.  The  link  was  never  broken 
between  the  human  and  divine,  between  conduct  and  its  motives,  religion 
and  morality,  nor  obscured  by  any  cloudy  abstractions  of  theory  or  meta¬ 
physics.  Their  God  was  a  God  whom  the  people  could  understand;  no 
mystic  figure  relegated  to  the  skies,  but  a  very  present  power,  working 
upon  earth,  a  personality  very  clear  and  distinct,  very  human  one  might 
almost  say,  who  mingled  in  human  affairs,  whose  word  was  swift  and  sure, 
and  whose  path  so  plain  to  follow  “that  wayfaring  men,  though  fools, 
should  not  err  therein.”  What  he  required  was  no  impossible  ideal,  but 
simply  to  do  justice,  to  love  mercy  and  walk  humbly  before  Him.  What 
He  promised  was:  “Seek  ye  me  and  ye  shall  live.”  How  can  one  fail  to  be 
impressed  by  the  heroic  mold  of  these  austere  impassioned  souls,  and  by 
the  richness  of  the  soil  that  gave  them  birth  at  a  time  when  spiritual 
thought  had  scarcely  dawned  upon  the  world?  The  prophets  were  “high 
lights”  of  Judaism,  but  the  light  failed,  the  voices  ceased  and  prophetism 
died  out. 

In  order  that  Israel  should  survive,  should  continue  to  exist  at  all  in 
the  midst  of  the  ruins  that  were  full  around  it,  and  the  darkness  upon 
which  it  was  entering,  it  was  necessary  that  this  close,  eternal  organization, 
this  mesh  and  network  of  law  and  practice  of  regulated  usage  covering  the 
most  insignificant  acts  of  life,  knitting  them  together  as  with  nerve  and 
sinew,  and  invulnerable  to  any  catastrophe  from  without,  should  take  the 
place  of  all  external  prop  and  form  of  unity,  The  whole  outer  framework 
of  life  fell  away.  The  kingdom  perished,  the  temple  fell,  the  people  scattered. 
They  ceased  to  be  a  nation,  they  ceased  to  be  a  church,  and  yet,  indissolu¬ 
bly  bound  by  these  inevitable  chains,  as  fine  as  silk,  as  strong  as  iron,  they 
presented  an  impenetrable  front  to  the  outside  world;  they  became  more 
intensely  national,  more  exclusive  and  sectarian,  more  concentrated  in  their 
individuality  than  they  had  ever  been  before.  The  Talmud  came  to  rein¬ 
force  the  Pentateuch,  and  Rabbinism  intensified  Judaism,  which  thereby 
lost  its  power  to  expand  its  claim  to  become  a  universal  religion,  and 
remained  the  ijrerogative  of  a  peculiar  people. 


OUTLOOK  FOR  JUDAISM. 


327 


With  fire  and  sword  the  Christian  era  dawned  for  Israel.  Jerusalem 
was  besieged,  the  temple  fired,  the  Holy  Mount  in  flames,  and  a  million 
people  perished,  a  fitting  prelude  to  the  long  tragedy  that  has  not  ended 
yet,  the  martyrdom  of  eighteen  centuries.  Death  in  every  form,  by  flood, 
by  fire,  and  with  every  torture  that  could  be  conceived,  leaving  a  track  of 
blood  through  history — the  crucified  of  the  nations.  Strangers  and  wan¬ 
derers  in  every  age  and  in  every  land,  calling  no  man  friend  and  no  spot 
home.  With  all  the  ignominy  of  the  Ghetto,  a  living  death.  Dark,  pitiable, 
ignoble  destiny.  Magnificent,  heroic,  unconquerable  destiny,  luminous 
with  self-sacrifice,  unwritten  heroism,  devotion  to  an  ideal,  a  cause  believed 
in  and  a  name  held  sacred!  But  destiny  still  unsolved;  martyrdom  not  yet 
swallowed  up  in  victories. 

In  our  modern  rushing  days,  life  changes  with  such  swiftness  that  it  is 
difficult  even  to  follow  its  rapid  inovement.  During  the  last  hundred  years 
Judaism  has  undergone  more  modification  than  during  the  previous  thou¬ 
sand  years.  The  French  revolution  sounded  a  note  of  freedom  so  loud,  sc 
clamorous,  that  it  pierced  the  Ghetto  walls  and  found  its  way  to  the  im¬ 
prisoned  souls.  The  gates  were  thrown  open,  the  light  streamed  in  from 
outside,  and  the  Jew  entered  the  modern  world.  As  if  by  enchantment, 
the  spell  which  had  bound  him,  hand  and  foot,  body  and  soul,  was  broken, 
and  his  mind  and  spirit  released  from  thrall,  sprang  into  re-birth  and  vigor. 
Eager  for  life  in  every  form  and  in  every  direction,  with  unused  pent-up 
vitality,  he  pressed  to  the  front  and  crowded  the  avenue  where  life  was 
most  crowded,  thought  and  action  most  stimulated.  And  in  order  to  this 
movement,  naturally  and  of  necessity,  he  began  to  disengage  himself  from 
the  toils  in  which  he  was  involved,  to  unwind  himself,  so  to  speak,  from  fold 
to  fold,  of  outworn  and  outlandish  custom.  Casting  off  the  outer  shell 
or  skeleton,  which,  like  the  bony  covering  of  the  tortoise,  serves  as  armor 
at  the  same  time  that  it  impedes  all  movement  and  progress,  as  well  as 
inner  growth,  Judaism  thought  to  revert  to  its  original  type,  the  pure  and 
simple  monotheism  of  the  early  days,  the  simple  creed  that  Right  is  Might, 
the  simple  law  of  justice  among  men.  Divested  of  its  spiritual  mechan¬ 
ism,  absolutely  without  myth  or  dogma  of  any  kind,  save  the  all-embracing 
unity  of  God,  taxing  so  little  the  credulity  of  men,  no  religion  seemed  so 
fitted  to  withstand  the  storm  and  stress  of  modern  thought,  the  doubt  and 
skepticism  of  a  critical  and  scientific  age  that  has  played  such  havoc  with 
time-honored  creeds. 

And  having  rid  himself,  as  he  proudly  believed,  of  his  own  superstitions, 
naturally  the  Jew  had  no  inclination  to  adopt  what  he  looked  upon  as  the 
superstitions  of  others.  He  was  still  as  much  as  ever  the  Jew,  as  far  as 
ever  removed  from  the  Christian  standpoint  and  outlook,  the  Christian 
philosophy  and  solution  of  life.  Broad  and  tolerant  as  either  side  might 
consider  itself,  there  was  a  fundamental  disagreement  and  opposition, 
almost  a  different  make-up,  a  different  calibre  and  attitude  of  soul,  fostered 
by  centuries  of  mutual  alienation  and  distrust.  To  be  a  Jew  w^as  still 
something  special,  something  inherent,  that  did  not  depend  upon  any  exter¬ 
nal  conformity  or  nonconformity,  any  peculiar  mode  of  life.  The  tremen¬ 
dous  background  of  the  past,  of  traditions  and  associations  so  entirely  apart 
from  those  of  the  people  among  whom  they  dwelt,  threw  them  into  strong 
belief.  They  were  a  marked  race,  always,  upon  whom  an  indelible  stamp 
was  set,  a  nation  that  cohered  not  as  a  political  unit,  but  as  a  single  family, 
through  ties  the  most  sacred,  the  most  vital  and  intimate,  of  parent  to  child, 
of  brother  and  sister,  bound  still  more  closely  together  through  a  common 
fate  of  suffering.  And,  yet,  they  were  everywhere  living  among  Christians, 
making  part  of  Christian  communities,  and  mixing  freely  among  them  for 
all  the  business  of  life,  all  material  and  temporal  ends. 

Thus  the  spiritual  and  secular  life  which  had  been  absolutely  one  with 
the  Jew  grew  apart  in  his  own  sphere  as  well  as  in  his  intercourse  with 


328 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OR  RELIGIONS. 


Christians;  the  divorce  was  complete  between  religion  and  the  daily  life. 
In  his  inmost  consciousness,  deep  down  below  the  surface,  he  was  still  a 
Jew.  The  outer  world  allured  him,  and  the  false  gods  whom  the  nations 
around  him  worshiped:  Success,  power,  the  pride  of  life,  and  the  intel¬ 
lectual.  He  threw  himself  full-tilt  into  the  arena  where  the  clash  was  the 
loudest  and  the  press  thickest,  the  struggle  keenest  to  compete  and  outstrip 
one  another,  which  we  moderns  call  life.  And  his  faculties  were  sharpened 
to  it,  and  in  his  eagerness  he  forgot  his  proper  birthright.  He,  the  man  of 
the  past,  became  essentially  the  man  of  to-day,  with  interest  centered  on 
the  present,  the  actual;  with  intellect  set  free  to  grapple  with  the  problems 
of  the  hour  and  solve  them  by  its  own  unaided  light.  Liberal,  progressive, 
humanitarian,  he  might  become,  but  always  along  human  lines;  the  link 
was  gone  with  any  larger,  more  satisfying  and  comprehensive  life.  Religion 
had  detached  itself  from  life,  not  only  in  its  trivial,  every-day  concerns,  but 
in  its  highest  aims  and  aspirations. 

And  here  was  just  the  handle,  just  the  grievance  for  their  enemies  to 
seize  upon.  Every  charge  would  lit.  Behold  the  Jew  !  Every  cry  could 
shape  itself  against  them,  every  class  could  take  alarm  and  every  prejudice 
go  loose.  And  hence  the  Protean  form  of  anti-Semitism.  Wherever  the 
social  conditions  are  most  unstable,  the  equilibrium  most  threatened  and 
easily  disturbed,  in  barbarous  Russia,  liberal  France,  and  philosophic  Ger¬ 
many,  the  x>roblem  is  most  acute  ;  but  there  is  no  country  now,  civilized 
or  uncivilized,  v/here  some  echo  of  it  has  not  reached  ;  even  in  our  own 
free-breathing  America  some  wave  has  come  to  die  upon  our  shores. 

What  answer  have  we  for  ourselves  and  for  the  world  in  this,  the  trial 
hour  of  our  faith,  the  crucial  test  of  Judaism  ?  We,  each  of  us,  must  look 
into  our  own  hearts  and  see  what  Judaism  stands  for  in  that  inner  shrine, 
what  it  holds  that  satisfies  our  deepest  need,  consoles  and  fortifies  us,  com¬ 
pensates  for  every  sacrifice,  every  humiliation  w'e  may  be  called  upon  to 
endure,  so  that  we  count  it  a  glory,  not  a  shame,  to  suffer.  Will  national 
or  personal  loyalty  suffice  for  this,  when  our  personality  is  not  touched,  our 
nationality  is  merged  ?  Will  pride  of  family  or  yace  take  away  the  sting, 
the  stigma  ?  No!  We  have  turned  the  shield,  and  persecution  becomes 
our  opportunity.  “Those  that  were  in  darkness,  upon  them  the  light  hath 
shined.”  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  exodus  from  Russia,  from  Poland, 
these  long  black  lines  crossing  the  frontiers  or  crushed  within  the  pale — the 
“  despised  and  rejected  of  men,”  emerging  from  their  Ghettos,  scarcely  able 
to  bear  the  light  of  day  ? '  Many  of  them  will  never  see  the  promised  land, 
and  for  those  who  do,  cruel  will  be  the  suffering  before  they  enter ;  long 
and  difficult  will  be  the  task  and  process  of  assimilation  and  regeneration. 

But  for  us,  who  stand  upon  the  shore  in  the  full  blessed  light  of  free¬ 
dom  and  watch  at  last  the  ending  of  that  weary  pilgrimage  through  the 
centuries,  how  great  the  responsibility,  how  great  the  occasion,  if  only  we 
can  rise  to  it.  Let  us  not  think  our  duty  ended  when  we  have  taken  in  the 
wanderers,  given  them  food  and  shelter  and  initiated  them  into  the  sharp 
daily  struggle  to  exist,  upon  which  we  are  all  embarked  ;  nor  yet  guarding 
their  exclusiveness,  when  we  leave  them  to  their  narrow  rites  and  limiting 
observance,  until,  breaking  free  from  these,  they  find  themselves,  like 
their  emancipated  brethren  elsewhere,  adrift  on  a  blank  sea  of  indifference 
and  materialism. 

If  Judaism  would  be  anything  in  the  world  to-day  it  must  be  a  spiritual 
force.  Only  then  can  it  be  true  to  its  special  mission,  the  spirit  not  the 
letter  of  its  truth.  Away,  then,  with  all  the  Ghettos  and  with  spiritual 
isolation  in  every  form  and  let  the  “  spirit  blow  where  it  listeth.”  The  Jew 
must  change  his  attitude  before  the  world  and  come  into  spiritual  fellow¬ 
ship  with  those  around  him.  John,  Paul,  Jesiis  Himself — we  can  claim 
them  all  for  our  own.  We  do  not  want  “  missions  ”  to  convert  us.  We  can 
not  become  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians,  members  of  any  dividing  sect, 


OUTLOOK  FOR  JUDAISM. 


329 


“teaching  for  doctrines  the  opinions  of  men.”  Christians,  as  well  as 
Jews,  need  the  larger  unity  that  shall  embrace  them  all — the  unity  of  the 
pirit,  not  of  doctrine. 

Mankind  at  large  may  not  be  ready  for  a  universal  religion,  but  let  the 
Jews,  with  their  prophetic  instinct,  their  deep,  spiritual  insight,  set  the 
example  and  give  the  ideal.  The  world  has  not  yet  fathomed  the  secret  of 
its  redemption,  and  “salvation  may  yet  again  be  of  the  Jews.”  The  times 
are  full  of  signs.  On  every  side  there  is  a  call,  a  challenge,  and  awakening. 
What  the  world  needs  to-day,  not  alone  the  Jews — who  have  borne  the 
yoke,  but  the  Christians  who  bear  Christ’s  name  and  persecute,  and  who 
have  built  up  a  civilization  so  entirely  at  variance  with  the  principles  He 
taught — what  we  all  need,  gentiles  and  Jews  alike,  is  not  so  much  “  a  new 
body  of  doctrine,”  as  Claude  Montetiore  suggests,  but  a  new  spirit  put  into 
life  which  shall  refashion  it  upon  a  nobler  plan,  and  consecrate  it  anew  to 
higher  purpose  and  ideals  Science  has  done  its  work,  clearing  away  the 
dead  wood  of  ignorance  and  superstition,  enlarging  the  vision  and  opening 
out  the  path.  Christians  and  Jews  alike,  “Have  we  not  all  one  Father? 
Hath  not  one  God  created  us?”  Remember  to  what  you  are  called,  you 
who  claim  belief  in  a  living  God  who  is  a  spirit,  and  who  therefore  must  be 
worshiped  “  in  spirit  and  in  truth,”  not  with  vain  forms  and  with  mean¬ 
ingless  service,  nor  yet  in  the  world’s  glittering  shapes,  the  work  of  men’s 
hands  or  brains,  but  in  the  ever  growing,  ever  deepening  love  and  knowl¬ 
edge  of  His  truth,  and  its  showing  forth  to  men.  Once  more  let  the  Holy 
Spirit  descend  and  dwell  among  you,  in  your  life  to-day,  as  it  did  upon  your 
holy  men,  your  prophets  of  the  olden  times,  lighting  the  world  as  it  did  lor 
them  with  that  radiance  of  the  skies;  and  so  make  known  the  faith  that  is 
in  you.  “  for  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.” 


CHAPTEK  VII. 


SEVENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  17th. 


RELIGION  IN  SOCIAL  AND  MARRIED  LIFE. 

With  the  day  of  rest  came  the  seventh  day  of  the  world’s 

A 

congress.  Many  of  the  distinguished  foreigners  and  pulpit 
orators,  attending  the  Parliament  of  Religions,  occupied  Chicago 
pulpits  in  the  morning.  Sessions  at  Columbus  Hall,  however, 
were  held  in  the  afternoon  and  evening.  At  two  o’clock  and 
thirty  minutes,  the  exercises  began.  Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows 
in  the  chair.  After  the  universal  prayer,  the  audience  gave  a 
cordial  reception  to  a  delegate  from  Bombay,  who  spoke  on 
social  reform.  Bishop  Keane  and  Dr.  Barrows  presided  alter¬ 
nately  during  the  evening  session.  When  the  first  paper  had 
been  read.  Dr.  Barrows  said  that  on  account  of  the  failure  of 
some  of  the  essayists  to  be  present  at  the  parliament,  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  congress  announced  for  the  evening  in  hall  3,  would 
complete  its  exercises  in  the  Hall  of  Columbus.  Thus  it  was 
that  Catholics  and  Presbyterians  divided  the  honors  of  the 
platform,  and  again  beautifully  illustrated  the  spirit  of  good 
will  and  respect  which  has  made  the  parliament  a  possibility 
and  a  success. 

THE  WORK  OF  SOCIAL  REFORM  IN  INDIA. 

B.  NAGARKAR  OF  INDIA. 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  The  conquest  of  India  by 
England  is  one  of  the  most  astounding  marvels  of  modern  history.  To 
those  who  are  not  acquainted  with  the  social  and  religious  condition  of  the 
diverse  races  that  inhabit  the  vast  Indian  peninsula,  it  will  always  be  a 
matter  of  great  wonder  as  to  how  a  handful  of  English  people  were  able  to 

330 


WORK  OF  SOCIAL  REFORM  IN  INDIA. 


331 


bring  under  their  sway  such  an  extensive  continent  as  Hindustan,  sepa¬ 
rated  from  England  by  thousands  of  miles  of  the  deep  ocean  and  lofty 
mountains.  Whatever  the  circumstances  of  this  so-called  conquest  were 
they  were  no  more  than  the  long-standing  internal  feuds  and  jealousies — 
the  mutual  antipathies  and  race-feelings — between  caste  and  caste,  creed 
and  creed,  and  community  and  community,  that  have  been  thrown  together 
in  the  land  of  India.  The  victory  of  the  British — if  victory  it  can  be  called 
— was  mainly  due  to  the  internal  quarrels  and  dissensions  that  had  been 
going  on  for  ages  past  between  the  conflicting  and  contending  elements  of 
the  Indian  population.  Centuries  ago,  when  such  a  miserable  state  of  local 
division  and  alienation  did  not  exist  in  India,  or  at  any  rate  had  not  reached 
any  appreciable  degree,  the  Hindus  did  make  a  brave  and  successful 
stand  against  powerful  armies  of  fierce  and  warlike  tribes  that  led  invasion 
after  invasion  against  the  holy  home  of  the  Hindu  nation.  Thus  it  was 
that  from  time  to  time  hordes  of  fierce  Bactrians,  Greeks,  Persians,  and 
Afghans  were  warded  off  by  the  united  armies  of  the  ancient  Hindus.  Time 
there  was  when  the  social,  political,  and  religious  institutions  of  the  Aryans 
in  India  were  in  their  pristine  purity,  and  when,  as  a  result  of  these  noble 
institutions,  the  people  were  in  the  enjoyment  of  undisturbed  unity,  and  so 
long  as  this  happy  state  of  things  continued  the  Hindus  enjoyed  the  bless¬ 
ings  of  freedom  and  liberty.  But  time  is  the  great  destroyer  of  everything. 
What  has  withstood  the  withering  influence  of  that  arch-enemy  of  every 
earthly  glory  and  greatness!  In  proportion  as  the  people  of  India  became 
faithless  to  their  ancestral  institutions  in  the  same  proportion  they  fell  in 
the  scale  of  nations. 

At  first  they  fell  a  prey  to  one  foreign  power  and  then  to  another,  and 
then  again  to  a  third,  and  so  on,  each  time  degeneration  doing  the  V'ork  of 
division,  and  division  in  its  own  turn  doing  the  gnastly  work  of  further  and 
deeper  degeneration.  About  two  hundred  years  ago  this  fatal  process 
reached  its  lowest  degree  and  India  was  reduced  to  a  state  of  deadly  division 
and  complete  confusion.  Internecine  wars  stormed  the  country,  and  the 
various  native  and  foreign  races,  then  living  in  India,  tried  to  tear  eacq 
other  to  pieces!  It  was  a  state  of  complete  anarchy,  and  no  one  could 
fathom  what  was  to  come  out  of  this  universal  chaos. 

At  this  critical  juncture  of  time  there  appeared  on  the  scene  a  distant 
power  from  beyond  the  ocean!  No  one  had  heard  or  known  anything  of  it. 
The  white-faced  sahib  was  then  a  sheer  novelty  to  the  people  of  India.  To 
them  in  those  days  a  white-faced  biped  animal  was  synonymous  with  a 
representative  of  the  race  of  monkeys,  and  even  to  this  day  in  such  parts 
of  India  as  have  not  been  penetrated  by  the  rays  of  education  or  civiliza¬ 
tion,  ignorant  people  in  a  somewhat  serious  sense  do  believe  that  the  white¬ 
faced  European  is  perhaps  a  descendant  of  apes  and  monkeys!  For  aught 
I  know  the  ever-shifting,  ever-changing,  novelty-hunting  philosophies  of 
the  occult  world  and  the  occult  laws,  of  spirit  presence  and  spirit  presenti¬ 
ment  in  your  part  of  the  globe  may  some  day  be  able  to  find  out  that  these 
simple  and  unsophisticated  people  had  a  glimpse  of  the  “  Descent  of  Man  ” 
according  to  Darwin.  Whatever  it  may  be,  no  one  could  ever  have  dreamt 
that  the  people  of  England  would  ever  stand  a  chance  of  wielding  supreme 
power  over  the  Indian  peninsula.  At  first  the  English  came  to  India  as 
mere  shopkeepers.  Not  long  after  they  rose  to  be  the  keepers  of  the 
country,  and  ultimately  they  were  raised  to  be  the  rulers  of  the  Indian 
empire.  In  all  this  there  was  the  hand  of  God.  It  was  no  earthly  power 
that  transferred  the  supreme  sovereignty  of  Hindustan  into  the  hands  of 
the  people  of  Great  Britain.  Through  the  lethargic  sleep  of  centuries  the 
people  of  India  had  gone  on  degenerating.  Long  and  wearisome  wars  with 
the  surrounding  countries  had  enervated  them;  the  persistent  cruelty, 
relentless  tyranny,  and  ceaseless  persecution  of  their  fanatic  invaders  had 
rendered  them  weak  and  feeble  even  to  subjection,  and  a  strange  change 
had  come  over  the  entire  face  of  the  nation. 


332 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  glory  of  their  ancient  religion,  the  purity  of  their  social  institutions, 
and  the  strength  of  their  political  constitution  had  all  been  eclipsed  for  the 
time  being  by  a  thick  and  heavy  cloud  of  decay  and  decrepitude.  For  a 
long  time  past  the  country  had  been  suffering  from  a  number  of  social 
evils,  such  as  wicked  priestcraft,  low  superstition,  degrading  rites  and  cere¬ 
monies,  and  demoralizing  customs  and  observances.  It  was  indeed  a  pitia¬ 
ble  and  pitiful  condition  to  be  in.  The  children  of  God  in  the  holy  Arya- 
varta,  the  descendants  of  the  noble  Rishis,  were  in  deep  travail.  Their  d«.ep 
wailing  and  lamentation  had  pierced  the  heavens,  and  the  Lord  of  love  and 
mercy  was  moved  with  compassion  for  them.  He  yearned  to  help  them,  to 
raise  them,  to  restore  them  to  their  former  glory  and  greatness;  but  he  saw 
that  in  the  country  itself  there  was  no  force  or  power  that  He  could  use  as 
an  instrument  to  work  out  His  divine  providence.  The  powers  that  were 
and  long  had  been  in  the  country  had  all  grown  too  weak  and  effete  to 
achieve  the  reform  and  regeneration  of  India.  It  was  for  this  purpose  that 
an  entirely  alien  and  outside  power  was  brought  in.  Thus  you  will  per¬ 
ceive  that  the  advent  of  the  British  in  India  was  a  matter  of  necessity  and, 
therefore,  it  may  be  considered  as  fully  providential. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  this  change  of  sovereignty  from  the  Eastern 
into  the  Western  hands  was  accomplished  without  any  bloodshed  or  loss  of 
life.  Even  the  very  change  in  its  process  introduced  new  elements  of 
discord  and  disunion,  but  when  the  change  was  completed  and  the  balance 
of  power  established,  an  entirely  new  era  was  opened  up  on  the  field  of 
Indian  social  and  political  life.  This  transfer  of  power  into  the  hands  of 
your  English  cousins  has  cost  us  a  most  heavy  and  crushing  price.  In  one 
sense,  it  took  away  our  liberty ;  it  deprived  us,  and  has  been  ever  since 
depriving  us,  of  some  of  our  noblest  pieces  of  ancient  art  and  antiquity, 
which  have  been  brought  over  to  England  for  the  jjurpose  of  adornment  of 
and  exhibition  in,  English  museums  and  art  galleries. 

At  one  time  it  took  away  from  the  country  untold  amounts  of  wealth 
and  jewelry,  and  since  then  a  constant,  ceaseless  stream  of  money  has  been 
fiowing  from  India  into  England.  The  cost,  indeed,  has  been  heavy,  far 
too  heavy,  but  the  return,  too,  has  been  inestimable.  We  have  paid  in 
gold  and  silver,  but  we  have  received  in  exchange  what  gold  and  silver  can 
never  give  or  take  away — for  the  English  rule  has  bestowed  upon  us  the 
inestimable  boon  of  knowledge  and  enlightenment.  And  knowledge  is  a 
power.  It  is  with  this  power  that  we  shall  measure  the  motives  of  the 
English  rule.  The  time  will  come,  as  it  must  come,  when  if  our  English 
rulers  should  happen  to  rule  India  in  a  selfish,  unjust,  and  partial  manner, 
with  this  same  weapon  of  knowledge  we  shall  compel  them  to  withhold 
their  power  over  us.  But  I  must  say  that  the  educated  natives  of  India 
have  too  great  a  confidence  in  the  good  sense  and  honesty  of  our  rulers 
over  to  apprehend  any  such  calamity. 

Our  Anglo-Saxon  rulers  brought  with  them  their  high  civilization,  their 
improved  methods  of  education,  and  their  general  enlightenment.  We  had 
been  in  darkness  and  had  well-nigh  forgotten  our  bright  and  glorious  past. 
But  a  new  era  dawned  upon  us.  New  thoughts,  new  ideas,  new  notions 
began  to  flash  upon  us  one  after  another.  We  were  rudely  roused  from  our 
long  sleep  of  ignorance  and  self-forgetfulness.  The  old  and  the  new  met 
face  to  face.  We  felt  that  the  old  could  not  stand  in  the  presence  of  the 
new.  The  old  we  began  to  see  in  the  light  of  the  new  and  we  soon  learned 
to  feel  that  our  country  and  society  had  been  for  a  long  time  suffering  from 
a  number  of  social  evils;  from  the  errors  of  ignorance  and  from  the  evils  of 
superstition.  Thus  we  began  to  bestir  ourselves  in  the  way  of  remedying 
our  social  organization.  Such,  then,  were  the  occasion  and  the  origin  of 
the  work  of  social  reform  in  India. 

Before  I  proceed  further,  I  must  tell  you  ‘that  the  work  of  reform  in 
India  has  a  two-fold  aspect.  In  the  first  place  we  have  to  revive  many  of 


WORK  OF  SOCIAL  REFORM  IN  INDIA. 


333 


our  ancient  religious  and  social  institutions.  Through  ages  of  ignorance 
they  have  been  lost  to  us,  and  what  we  need  to  do  in  regard  to  these  insti¬ 
tutions  is  to  bring  them  to  life  again. 

So  far  as  religious  progress  and  spiritual  culture  are  concerned  we  have 
little  or  nothing  to  learn  from  the  West— beyond  your  compact  and  advanced 
methods  of  combination,  co-operation,  and  organization.  This  branch  of 
reform  I  style  as  reform  by  revisal.  In  the  second  place,  we  have  to  receive 
some  of  your  Western  institutions.  These  are  mostly  political,  industrial, 
and  educational;  a  few  social.  But  in  every  case  the  process  is  a  composite 
one.  For  what  we  are  to  revive  we  have  often  to  remodel  and  what  we 
have  to  receive  we  have  often  to  recast.  Hence  our  motto  in  every  depart¬ 
ment  of  reform  is,  “  Adapt  before  you  adopt.”  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
indicate  to  you  some  of  the  social  reforms  that  we  have  been  trying  to  effect 
in  our  country. 

The  abolition  of  caste — what  is  this  Hindu  institution  of  caste?  In  the 
social  dictionary  of  India  “caste”  is  a  most  difficult  word  for  you  to  under¬ 
stand.  Caste  may  be  defined  as  the  classification  of  a  society  on  the  basis 
of  birth  and  parentage.  For  example,  the  son  or  daughter  of  a  priest  must 
always  belong  to  the  caste  of  priests  or  Brahmans,  even  though  he  or  she 
may  never  choose  to  follow  their  ancestral  occupation.  Those  who  are  born 
in  the  family  of  soldiers  belong  to  the  soldier  caste,  though  they  may  never 
prefer  to  go  on  butchering  men.  Thus  the  son  of  a  grocer  is  born  to  be  called  a 
grocer,  and  the  son  of  a  shoemaker  is  fated  to  be  called  a  shoemaker.  Origin¬ 
ally  there  were  only  four  castes — the  Brahman,  or  the  priest;  Kihateiya,or 
the  soldier;  Vaishya,  or  the  merchant,  and  Shudra,  or  the  serf.  And  these 
four  ancient  castes  were  not  based  on  birth,  but  on  occupation  or  profes¬ 
sion.  In  ancient  India  the  children  of  Brahman  parents  often  took  to  a 
martial  occupation,  while  the  sons  of  a  soldier  were  quite  free  to  choose  a 
peaceful  occupation  if  they  liked.  But  in  modern  India,  by  a  strange  proc¬ 
ess,  the  original  four  castes  have  been  multiplied  to  no  end,  and  have 
been  fixed  most  hard  and  fast.  Now  you  find  perhaps  as  many  castes  as 
there  are  occupations.  There  is  a  regular  scale  and  grade.  You  have  the 
tailor  caste  and  the  tinker  caste,  the  blacksmith  caste  and  the  goldsmith 
caste,  the  milkman  caste  and  the  carpenter  caste,  the  groom  caste  and 
the  sweeper  caste.  The  operation  of  caste  may  be  said  to  be  confined 
principally  to  matters  of  (1)  food  and  drink,  (2)  matrimony  and  adoption, 
(3)  the  performance  of  certain  religious  rites  and  ceremonies. 

Each  caste  has  its  own  code  of  laws  and  its  own  system  of  observances. 
They  will  eat  with  some,  but  not  with  others.  The  higher  ones  will  not 
so  much  as  touch  the  lower  ones.  Intermarriages  are  strictly  prohibited. 
Why,  the  proud  and  haughty  Brahman  will  not  deign  to  bear  the  shadow 
of  a  Shudra  or  low  caste.  In  the  West  you  have  social  classes;  we  in  India 
have  “castes.”  But  remember  that  “classes”  with  you  are  a  purely  social 
institution,  having  no  religious  sanction.  “Castes’  with  us  are  essentially 
a  religious  institution,  based  on  the  accident  of  birth  and  parentage. 
With  a  view  to  illustrate  the  difference  besween  “classes”  and  “castes,’ 

I  may  say  that  in  Western  countries  the  lines  of  social  division  are  parallel, 
but  horizontal,  and,  therefore,  ranging  in  the  social  strata  one  above 
another.  In  India  these  lines  are  perpendicular,  and,  therefore,  running 
from  the  top  to  the  bottom  of  the  body  social,  dividing  and  separating  one 
social  strata  from  every  other.  The  former  arrangement  is  a  source  of 
strength  and  support  and  the  latter  a  source  of  alienation  and  weakness. 
Perhaps  at  one  time  in  the  history  of  India  when  the  condition  of  things 
was  entirely  different  and  when  the  number  of  these  castes  was  not  so 
large,  nor  their .  nature  so  rigid  as  now,  the  institution  of  caste  did  not 
serve  a  high  purpose;  but  now  it  is  long,  too  long,  since  that  social  condi¬ 
tion  underwent  a  change.  Under  those  ancient  social  and  political  environ¬ 
ments  of  India  the  institution  of  caste  was  greatly  helpful  in  centralizing 


334 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


and  transmitting  professional  knowledge  of  arts  and  occupations,  as  also  in 
grouping,  bind  ng  together,  and  preserving  intact  the  various  guilds  and 
artisan  communities.  But  centuries  ago  that  social  and  political  environ¬ 
ment  ceased  to  exist,  while  the  mischievous  machinery  of  caste  continues 
in  full  swing  up  to  this  day.  Caste  in  India  has  divided  the  mass  of  Hindu 
society  into  innumerable  classes  and  cliques.  It  has  created  a  spirit  of 
extreme  exclusiveness;  it  has  crowded  and  killed  legitimate  ambition, 
healthy  enterprise,  and  combined  adventure.  It  has  fostered  envy  and 
jealousy  between  class  and  class,  and  set  one  community  against  another. 

It  is  an  unmitigated  evil  and  the  veriest  social  and  national  curse. 
Much  of  our  national  and  domestic  degradation  is  due  to  this  pernicious 
caste  system.  Young  India  has  been  fully  convinced  that  if  the  Hindu 
nation  is  once  more  to  rise  to  its  former  glory  and  greatness  this  dogma  of 
caste  must  be  put  down.  The  artificial  restrictions  and  the  unjust— nay, 
in  many  cases  inhuman  and  unhuman — distinctions  of  caste  must  be  abol¬ 
ished.  Therefore,  the  first  item  on  the  programme  of  social  reform  in  India 
is  the  abo’  tion  of  caste  and  furtherance  of  free  and  brotherly  intercourse 
between  class  and  class  as  also  between  individual  and  individual,  irre¬ 
spective  of  the  accident  of  his  birth  and  parentage,  but  mainly  on  the  recog¬ 
nition  of  his  moral  worth  and  goodness  of  heart. 

Freedom  of  intermarriage — intermarriage  that  is  marriage  between  the 
members  of  two  different  castes,  is  not  allowed  in  India.  The  code  of  caste 
rules  does  not  sanction  any  such  unions  under  any  circumstances.  Neces¬ 
sarily,  therefore,  they  have  been  marrying  and  marrying  for  hundreds  of 
years  within  the  pale  of  their  own  caste.  Now,  many  castes  and  their  sub¬ 
sections  are  so  small  that  they  are  no  larger  than  mere  handfuls  of  families. 
These  marriages  within  such  narrow  circles  not  only  prevent  the  natural 
and  healthy  fiow  of  fellow-feeling  between  the  members  of  different  classes, 
but,  according  to  the  law  of  evolution,  as  now  fully  demonstrated,  bring  on 
the  degeneration  of  the  race.  The  progeny  of  such  parents  go  on  degener¬ 
ating  physically  and  mentally  and,  therefore,  there  should  be  a  certain 
amount  of  freedom  for  intermarriage.  It  is  evident  that  this  question  of 
intermarriage  is  easily  solved  by  the  abolition  of  caste. 

Prevention  of  infant  marriage.  Among  the  higher  caste  of  Hindus  it  is 
quite  customary  to  have  their  children  married  when  they  are  as  young  as 
seven  or  eight,  in  cases  not  very  infrequent  as  young  as  four  and  five. 

Evidently  these  marriages  are  not  real  marriages — they  are  mere 
betrothals;  but,  so  far  as  inviolability  is  concerned,  they  are  no  less  bind¬ 
ing  upon  the  innocent  parties  than  actual  consummation  of  marriage. 
Parties  thus  wedded  together  at  an  age  when  they  are  utterly  incapable  of 
understanding  the  relations  between  man  and  woman,  and  without  their 
consent,  are  united  with  each  other  lifelong  and  can  not  at  anytime  be  sep¬ 
arated  from  each  other  even  by  law,  for  the  Hindu  law  does  not  admit  of 
any  divorce.  This  is  hard  and  cruel.  It  often  happens  that  infants  that 
are  th  us  married  together  do  not  grow  in  love.  When  they  come  of  age  they 
come  to  dislike  each  other,  and  then  begins  the  misery  of  their  existence. 
They  perhaps  hate  each  other  and  yet  they  are  expected  to  live  together  by 
law,  by  usage,  and  by  social  sentiment.  You  can  picture  to  yourselves  the 
untold  misery  of  such  unhappy  pairs.  Happily  man  is  a  creature  of  habits, 
and  providence  has  so  arranged  that,  generally  speaking,  we  come  to  toler¬ 
ate,  if  not  to  like,  whatever  our  lot  is  cast  in  with.  But  even  if  it  were 
only  a  question  of  likes  and  dislikes  there  is  a  large  number  of  young 
couples  in  India  that  happen  to  draw  nothing  but  blanks  in  this  lottery  of 
infant  marriage.  In  addition  to  this  serious  evil  there  are  other  evils  more 
pernicious  in  their  effects  connected  with  infant  marriage.  They  are  phys¬ 
ical  and  intellectual  decay  and  degenerac/  of  the  individual  and  the  race, 
loss  of  individual  independence  at  a  very  early  period  of  life  w’hen  youths  of 
either  sex  should  be  free  to  acquire  knowledge  and  work  out  their  own 


WORK  OF  SOCIAL  REFORM  IN  INDIA. 


335 


place  and  position  in  the  world,  consequent  penury  and  poverty  of  the  race, 
and  latterly  the  utterly  hollow  and  unmeaning  character  imposed  upon  the 
sacred  sacrament  of  marriage.  These  constitute  only  a  few  of  the  glaring 
evils  of  Hindu  infant  marriage.  On  the  score  of  all  these  the  system  of 
Hindu  infant  marriage  stands  condemned,  and  it  is  the  aim  of  every  social 
reformer  in  India  to  suppress  this  degrading  system.  Along  with  the  spread 
of  education  the  public  opinion  of  the  country  is  being  steadily  educated 
and,  at  least  among  the  enlightened  classes,  infant  marriages  at  the  age  of 
four  and  live  are  simple  held  up  to  ridicule.  The  age  on  an  average  is  being 
raised  to  twelve  and  fourteen,  but  nothing  short  of  sixteen  as  the  minimum 
for  girls  and  eighteen  for  boys  would  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  case. 
One  highest  ideal  is  to  secure  the  best  measure  possible,  but  where  the 
peculiar  traditions,  customs,  and  sentiments  of  the  people  can  not  give  us 
the  best,  we  have  tor  the  time  being,  to  be  satisfied  with  the  next  best  and 
then  again  keep  on  demanding  a  higher  standard. 

The  marriage  laws  in  general — the  Hindu  marriage  laws  and  customs — 
were  formulated  and  systematized  in  the  most  ancient  of  times,  and  viewed 
under  the  light  of  modern  times  and  Western  thought  they  w^ould  require  in 
many  ways  a  considerable  radical  reform  and  recasting.  For  instance,  why 
should  women  in  India  be  compelled  to  marry?  Why  should  they  not  be 
allowed  to  choose  or  refuse  matrimony  just  as  women  in  Western  countries 
are?  W^hy  should  bigamy  or  polygamy  be  allowed  by  Hindu  law?  Is  it  not 
the  highest  piece  of  injustice  that  while  woman  is  allowed  to  marry  but 
once,  man  is  allowed  (by  law)  to  marry  two  or  more  than  two  wives  at  one 
and  the  same  time?  Why  should  the  law  in  India  not  allow  divorce  under 
any  circumstances?  Why  should  a  woman  not  be  allowed  to  have  (within 
the  lifetime  of  her  husband)  her  own  personal  property  over  which  he 
should  have  no  right  or  control?  These  and  similar  to  these  are  the  prob¬ 
lems  that  relate  to  a  thorough  reform  of  the  marriage  laws  in  India.  But 
situated  as  we  are  at  present,  society  is  not  ripe  even  for  a  calm  and  dispas¬ 
sionate  discussion  of  these — much  less  than  for  any  acceptance  of  them, 
even  in  a  qualified  or  modified  form.  However  in  the  distant  future  people 
in  India  will  have  to  face  these  problems.  They  can  not  avoid  them  for¬ 
ever.  But  as  my  time  is  extremely  limited,  you  will  pardon  me  if  I  avoid 
them  on  this  occasion. 

Widow  marriage — you  will  be  surprised  to  hear  that  Hindu  widows  from 
among  the  higher  castes  are  not  allowed  to  marry  again.  I  can  understand 
this  restriction  in  the  case  of  women  who  have  reached  a  certain  limit  of 
advanced  age,  though  in  this  country  it  is  considered  to  be  in  perfect  accord 
with  social  usage  even  for  a  widow  of  three-score  and  five  to  be  on  the  look¬ 
out  for  a  husband,  especially  if  he  can  be  a  man  of  substance.  But,  cer¬ 
tainly,  you  can  never  comprehend  what  diabolical  offense  a  child  widow  of 
the  tender  age  of  ten  or  twelve  can  have  committed  that  she  should  be  cut 
away  from  all  marital  ties,  and  be  compelled  to  pass  the  remaining  days  of 
her  life,  however  long  they  may  be,  in  perfect  loneliness  and  seclusion. 
Even  the  very  idea  is  sheer  barbarism  and  inhumanity.  Far  be  it  from  me 
to  convey  to  you,  even  by  implication,  that  the  Hindu  home  is  necessarily 
a  place  of  misery  and  discord,  or  that  true  happiness  is  a  thing  never  to  be 
found  there.  Banish  all  such  idea  if  it  should  have  unwittingly  taken  pos¬ 
session  of  your  minds. 

Happiness  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  palatial  dwellings,  gorgeously 
fitted  with  soft  seats  and  yielding  sofas,  with  magnificent  costumes,  with 
^  gay  balls  or  giddy  dancing  parties,  nor  with  noisy  revelries  or  drinking 
bouts  and  card  tables,  and  as  often,  if  not  oftener,  in  that  distant  lotus 
land,  as  in  your  own  beloved  land  of  liberty,  you  will  come  across  a  young 
and  blooming  wife  in  the  first  flush  of  impetuous  youth  who,  when  suddenly 
smitten  with  the  death  of  the  lord  of  her  life,  at  once  takes  to  the  pure 
and  sxjotless  garb  of  a  poor  widow,  and  with  devout  resignation  awaits  for 


33G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  call  from  above  to  pass  into  the  land  which  knows  no  parting  or  separa¬ 
tion.  But  these  are  cases  of  those  who  are  capable  of  thought  and  feeling. 
What  sentiment  of  devoted  love  can  you  expect  from  a  girl  of  twelve  or 
fourteen  whose  ideas  are  so  simple  and  artless  and  whose  mind  still  lingers 
at  skipping  and  doll -making?  What  sense  and  reason  is  there  in  expecting 
her  to  remain  in  that  condition  of  forced,  artificial,  lifelong  widowhood? 
Oh,  the  lot  of  such  child- widow!  How  shall  I  depict  their  mental  misery  and 
sufferings?  Language  fails  and  imagination  is  baffled  at  the  task.  Cruel 
fate— if  there  be  any  such  power — has  already  reduced  them  to  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  widows,  and  the  heartless,  pitiless  customs  of  the  country  barbar¬ 
ously  shave  them  of  their  beautiful  hair,  divest  them  of  every  ornament  or 
adornment,  coniine  them  to  loneliness  and  seclusion — nay,  teach  people  to 
hate  and  avoid  them  as  objects  indicating  something  supremely  ominous 
and  inauspicious.  Like  bats  and  owls,  on  all  occasions  of  mirth  and  merri¬ 
ment  they  mast  confine  themselves  to  their  dark  cells  and  close  chambers. 
The  unfortunate  Hindu  widow  is  often  the  drudge  in  the  family;  every 
worry  and  all  work  that  no  one  in  the  family  will  ever  do  is  heaped  on  her 
head,  and  yet  the  terrible  mother-in-law — the  mother-in-law  in  every 
country  is  the  same  execrable  and  inexorable  character — will  almost  four 
times  in  the  hour  visit  her  with  cutting  taunts  and  sweeping  curses.  No 
wonder  that  these  poor  forlorn  and  persecuted  widows  often  drown  them¬ 
selves  in  an  adjoining  ijool  or  a  well,  or  make  a  quietus  to  their  life  by 
draining  the  poison  cup.  After  this  I  need  hardly  say  that  the  much- 
needed  reform  in  this  matter  is  the  introduction  of  widow  marriages. 

The  Hindu  social  reformer  seeks  to  introduce  the  practice  of  allowing 
such  widows  to  marry  again.  As  long  ago  as  fifty  years,  one  of  our  great 
pundits,  the  late  pundit  V.  S.  of  Bombay,  raised  this  question,  and  fought 
it  out  in  Central  and  Northern  India  with  the  orthodox  Brahmans.  The 
same  work,  and  in  a  similar  spirit  was  carried  out  in  Bengal  and  Northern 
India  by  the  late  Ishwar  Ch.  V.  Sagar  of  Calcutta,  who  died  only  two 
years  ago.  These  two  brave  souls  wore  the  Luther  and  Knox  of  India. 
Their  cause  has  been  espoused  by  many  others,  and  until  to-day  perhaps 
about  200  widov/  marriages  have  been  celebrated  in  India.  The  orthodox 
Hindus  as  yet  have  not  begun  to  entertain  this  branch  of  reform  with  any 
degree  of  favor,  and  so  anyone  who  marries  a  widow  is  put  under  a  social 
ban.  He  is  excommunicated,  that  is,  no  one  would  dine  with  him,  or  enter¬ 
tain  any  idea  of  intermarriage  with  his  children  or  descendants.  In  spite 
of  these  difficulties  the  cause  of  widow  marriage  is  daily  gaining  strength 
both  in  opinion  and  adherence. 

The  position  of  woman — A  great  many  reforms  in  the  Hindu  social 
and  domestic  life  can  not  be  effected  until  and  unless  the  question  as  to 
what  position  does  a  woman  occupy  with  reference  to  man  is  solved  and 
settled.  Is  she  to  be  recognized  as  man’s  superior,  his  equal,  or  his  inferior? 
The  entire  problem  of  Hindu  reform  hinges  on  the  position  .that  people  in 
India  will  eventually  ascribe  to  their  women.  The  question  of  her  position 
is  yet  a  vexed  question  in  such  advanced  countries  as  England  and  Scot¬ 
land.  Here  in  your  own  country  of  the  States  you  have,  I  presume  to  think, 
given  her  a  superior  place  in  what  you  call  the  social  circle  and  a  place  of 
full  equality  in  the  paths  and  provinces  of  ordinary  life.  Thus  my  Ameri¬ 
can  sisters  are  free  to  compete  with  man  in  the  race  for  life.  Both  enjoy 
the  same,  or  nearly  the  same,  rights  and  privileges.  In  India  it  is  entirely 
different.  The  Hindu  lawgivers  were  all  men,  and  whatever  others  may 
say  about  them,  I  must  say  that  in  this  one  particular  respect,  viz. ;  that  of  giv¬ 
ing  woman  her  own  place  in  society  they  were  very  partial  and  short-sighted*' 
men.  They  have  given  her  quite  a  secondary  place.  In  Indian  dramas, 
poems,  and  romances,  you  may  in  many  places  find  woman  spoken  of  as  the 
“  goddess  ”  of  the  house  and  the  “  deity  of  the  palace,  ”  but  that  is  no  more 
than  a  poet’s  conceit,  and  indicates  a  state  of  things  that  long,  long  ago 
used  to  be  rather  than  at  present  is. 


WORK  OF  SOCIAL  REFORM  IN  INDIA. 


337 


For  every  such  passage  you  will  find  the  other  passages  in  which  the 
readers  are  treated  with  terse  dissertations  and  scattering  lampoons  on 
the  so-called  innate  dark  character  of  woman.  The  entire  thought  of  the 
country  one  finds  saturated  with  this  idea.  The  Hindu  hails  the  birth  of 
a  son  with  noisy  demonstrations  of  joy  and  feasting;  that  of  a  female  child 
as  the  advent  of  something  that  he  would  most  gladly  avoid  if  he  could. 
The  bias  begins  here  at  her  very  birth.  Whatever  may  be  the  rationale  of 
this  state  of  things  no  part  of  the  programme  of  Hindu  social  reform  can 
ever  be  successfully  carried  out  until  woman  is  recognized  as  man’s  equal, 
his  companion,  and  co-worker  in  every  part  of  life;  not  his  handmaid,  a 
tool  or  an  instrument  in  his  hand,  a  puppet  or  a  plaything,  fit  only  for  the 
hours  of  amusement  and  recreation.  To  me  the  work  of  social  reform  in 
India  means  a  full  recognition  of  woman’s  position.  The  education  and 
enlightenment  of  women,  granting  to  them  liberty  and  freedom  to  move 
about  freely,  to  think  and  act  for  themselves,  liberating  them  from  the 
prisons  of  long-locked  zenana,  extending  to  them  the  same  rights  and 
privileges,  are  some  of  the  grandest  problems  of  Hindu  social  reform.  All 
these  depend  on  the  solution  of  the  above-mentioned  problem  of  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  woman  in  India. 

The  masses  or  the  common  people  in  India  are  very  ignorant  and  quite 
uneducated.  The  farmer,  the  laborer,  the  workman,  and  the  artisan  does 
not  know  how  to  read  or  write;  he  is  not  able  to  sign  his  own  name.  They 
do  not  understand  their  own  rights.  They  are  custom-bound  and  priest- 
ridden.  From  times  past  the  jjriestly  class  has  been  the  keeper  and  custo¬ 
dian  of  the  temple  of  knowledge  and  they  have  sedulously  kept  the  lower 
class  in  ignorance  and  intellectual  slavery.  Social  reform  does  not  mean 
the  education  and  elevation  of  the  upper  few  only;  it  means  inspiring  the 
whole  country,  men  and  women,  high  and  low,  from  every  creed  and  class, 
with  right  motives  to  live  and  act.  The  work  classes  need  to  be  taught  in 
many  cases  the  very  rudiments  of  knowledge.  Night  schools  for  them  and 
day  schools  for  their  children  are  badly  wanted. 

Government  is  doing  much,  but  how  much  can  you  expect  from  govern¬ 
ment,  especially  when  that  government  is  a  foreign  one,  and  therefore  has 
every  time  to  think  of  maintaining  itself  and  keeping  its  prestige  among 
foreign  people?  It  is  here  that  the  active  benevolence  of  such  free  people 
is  needed.  In  educating  our  masses  and  in  extending  enlightenment  to  our 
women  you  can  do  much.  Every  year  you  are  lavishing,  I  shall  not  say  wast¬ 
ing,  mints  of  money  on  your  so-called  foreign  missions  and  missionaries  sent 
out,  as  you  think,  to  carry  the  Bible  and  its  salvation  to  the  “heathen  Hindu” 
and  thus  to  save  him  !  Aye,  to  save  him.  Your  poor  peasants,  your 
earnest  women,  and  your  generous  millionaires  raise  millions  of  dollars  every 
year  to  be  spent  on  foreign  missions.  Little,  how  little  do  you  ever  dream 
that  your  money  is  expended  in  spreading  abroad  nothing  but  Christian 
dogmatism  and  Christian  bigotry,  Christian  pride,  and  Christian  exclusive¬ 
ness.  I  entreat  you  to  expend  at  least  one-tenth  of  all  this  vast  fortune  on 
sending  out  to  our  country  unsectarian,  broad-learned  missionaries  that 
will  spend  all  their  efforts  and  energies  in  educating  our  women,  our  men, 
and  our  masses.  Educate.'  Educate  them  first  and  they  will  understand 
Christ  much  better  than  they  would  do  by  being  “  converted  ”  to  the  nar¬ 
row  creed  of  canting  Christendom. 

The  difficulties  of  social  reformers  in  India  are  manifold.  Their  work 
is  most  arduous.  The  work  of  engrafting  on  the  rising  Hindu  mind  the 
ideals  of  a  material  civilization  such  as  yours,  without  taking  in  its  agnos¬ 
tic  or  atheistic  tendencies,  is  a  task  peculiarly  difficult  to  accomplish. 
Reforms  based  on  utilitarian  and  purely  secular  principles  can  never  take 
a  permanent  hold  on  the  mind  of  a  race  that  has  been  essentially  spiritual 
in  all  its  career  and  history.  Those  who  have  tried  to  do  so  have  failed. 
The  Brahmo-Somaj,  or  the  Church  of  Indian  Theism,  has  always  advocated 


338 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  cause  of  reform  and  has  always  been  the  pioneer  in  every  reform  move¬ 
ment.  In  laying  the  foundations  of  a  new  and  reformed  society  the  Brahmo- 
Somaj  has  established  every  reform  as  a  fundamental  principle  which  must 
be  accepted  before  any  one  can  consistently  belong  to  its  organization. 

Acting  on  the  model  of  ancient  Hindu  society,  we  have  so  proceeded 
that  our  social  institutions  may  secure  our  religious  principles,  while  those 
principles  regulate  and  establish  every  reform  on  a  safe  and  permanent 
footing. 

Social  reform  merely  as  such  has  no  vitality  in  our  land.  It  may 
influence  here  and  there  an  individual  ;flt  can  not  rear  a  society  or  sway  a 
community.  Recognizing  this  secret,  the  religion  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj 
has  from  its  very  birth  been  the  foremost  to  jjroclaim  a  crusade  against 
every  social  evil  in  our  country.  The  ruthless,  heartless  practice  of  suttee, 
or  the  burning  of  Hindu  widows  on  the  funeral  pile  of  their  husband,  was 
abolished  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  great  Rajah  Ram  Mohan  Roy. 
His  successors  have  all  been  earnest  social  reformers  as  much  as  religious 
reformers.  In  the  heart  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  you  find  no  caste,  no  image- 
worship.  We  have  abolished  early  marriage,  and  helped  the  cause  of 
widow’s  marriage.  We  have  promoted  inter-marriage;  we  fought  for  and 
obtained  a  law  from  the  British  Government  to  legalize  marriages  between 
the  representatives  of  any  castes  and  any  creeds.  The  Brahmos  have  been 
great  educationists.  They  have  started  schools  and  colleges,  societies  and 
seminaries,  not  only  for  boys  and  young  men,  but  for  girls  and  young 
women.  In  the  Brahmo  community  you  will  find  hundreds  of  young  ladies 
who  combine  in  their  education  the  requirements  of  the  East  and  the  West; 
Oriental  reserve  and  modesty  with  Occidental  culture  and  refinement.  Many 
of  our  young  ladies  have  taken  degrees  in  arts  and  sciences  in  Indian  uni¬ 
versities.  The  religion  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  is  essentially  a  religion  of 
life= — the  living  and  life-giving  religion  of  love  to  God  and  love  to  man.  Its 
corner-stones  are  the  fatherhood  of  God,  the  brotherhood  of  man,  and  the 
sisterhood  of  woman.  We  uphold  reform  in  religion  and  religion  in  reform. 
While  we  advocate  that  every  religion  needs  to  be  reformed,  we  also  most 
firmly  hold  that  every  reform,  in  order  that  it  may  be  a  living  and  lasting 
power  for  good,  needs  to  be  based  on  religion. 

These  are  the  lines  of  our  work:  We  have  been  working  out  the  most 
intricate  problems  of  Hindu  social  reform  on  these  lines.  We  know  our 
work  is  hard,  but  at  the  same  time  we  know  that  the  Almighty  God,  the 
Father  of  nations,  will  not  forsake  us;  only  we  must  be  faithful  to  Him,  His 
guiding  spirit.  And  now,  my  brethren  and  sisters  in  America,  God  has 
made  you  a  free  people.  Liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity  are  the  guiding 
words  that  you  have  pinned  on  your  banner  of  progress  and  advancement. 
In  the  name  of  that  liberty  of  thought  and  action  for  the  sake  of  which 
your  noble  forefathers  forsook  their  ancestral  homes  in  far-off  Europe,  in 
the  name  of  that  equality  of  peace  and  position  which  you  so  much  prize 
and  which  you  so  nobly  exemplify  in  all  your  social  and  national  institu¬ 
tions,  I  entreat  you,  my  beloved  American  brothers  and  sisters,  to  grant  us 
your  blessings  and  good  wishes,  to  give  us  your  earnest  advice  and  active 
co-operation  in  the  realization  of  the  social,  political,  and  religious  aspira¬ 
tions  of  young  India.  God  has  given  you  a  mission.  Even  now  He  is  enact¬ 
ing  through  your  instrumentality  most  marvelous  events.  Read  His  holy 
will  through  these  events  and  extend  to  young  India  the  right  hand  of  holy 
fellowship  and  universal  brotherhood. 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  MARRIAGE  BOND.  339 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  MARRIAGE 

BOND. 

PROF.  MARTIN  J.  WADE  OF  THE  LAW  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE 

STATE  UNIVERSITY  OF  IOWA. 

Upon  the  great  question  of  marriage  and  the  effect  of  the  marriage  bond, 
as  upon  all  other  questions  involving  moral  and  social  duties  and  obliga¬ 
tions,  the  Catholic  Church  speaks  with  an  unfaltering  voice.  '■  What,  there¬ 
fore,  God  has  joined  together  let  no  man  put  asunder,”  has  been  adopted  as 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church;  and,  through  the  darkness  and  the  light, 
the  successes  and  reverses  of  Christian  civilization,  those  sacred  words  have 
been  breathed  down  through  the  ages,  a  solemn  benediction  upon  individ¬ 
uals  and  upon  society. 

Divinely  instituted  in  the  beginning,  marriage,  throughout  all  the  ages 
before  the  Christian  era,  was  a  recognized  institution  among  the  children  of 
men.  In  the  chaos  incident  to  the  moral  darkness  which  preceded  the 
dawn  it  is  true  it  lost  much  of  its  sanctity,  but,  when  the  light  came,  that 
divine  institution  was  again  impressed  with  the  seal  of  Divinity  and  was 
honored  by  being  elevated  to  the  dignity  of  a  sacrament. 

The  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  is,  therefore,  that  marriage  is  a 
sacrament — that  true  marriage,  properly  entered  into  by  competent  per¬ 
sons,  is  of  a  three-fold  nature — a  contract  between  the  persons  joined  in 
wedlock,  a  contract  between  the  persons  joined  in  wedlock  and  society,  the 
state,  and  a  solemn  contract  between  the  contracting  parties  and  God. 
The  difference  which  is  seen  between  this  view  of  marriage  and  the  civil 
conception  of  marriage  is  that  in  the  latter  the  only  recognized  elements 
are  the  personal  obligations,  one  to  the  other,  and  the  joint  and  several 
obligations  to  the  state.  The  most  liberal  will  not  claim  that  marriage  is  a 
mere  contract  of  the  parties. 

The  civil  law  teaches  that  by  marriage  each  party  assumes  certain  duties 
and  responsibilities  toward  the  other — both  parties  assume  certain  duties 
and  responsibilities  toward  society,  and  society,  in  turn,  assumes  certain 
duties  toward  the  family  relation  newly  established.  Laws  are  made  for 
the  enforcement  of  these  various  duties  and  the  protection  of  these  rights. 
And  while  a  state  guards  the  individual  and  protects  their  rights,  she  is 
jealous  of  her  own. 

One  of  the  duties  assumed  by  the  contracting  parties  is  that  they  shall 
live  together  as  husband  and  wife,  maintaining  their  family  in  peace  with 
their  fellowmen,  and  so  educating  their  children  as  to  make  them  good  citi¬ 
zens — good  members  of  society. 

It  is  well  settled  in  our  jurisprudence  that  the  contracting  parties  can 
not  by  mutual  consent  dissolve  the  marriage  bond  (in  this  it  differs  from 
the  ordinary  contract),  but  that  in  order  to  sever  the  union  the  other  party 
to  the  contract  must  be  consulted— in  other  words,  the  state  must  consent. 
The  Catholic  Church  goes  a  step  farther,  and  holds  that  God  is  a  party  to 
the  contract,  and  that  even  with  the  consent  of  the  state,  expressed  by  the 
decrees  of  her  courts,  the  sacred  tie  can  not  be  severed,  but  that  it  is  bind¬ 
ing  until  dissolved  by  the  solemn  decree  of  God — which  is  death. 

The  Church  points  to  the  words  of  God  Himself;  she  points  to  marriage, 
which  from  its  very  nature  must  be  indissoluble,  and  she  points  to  society 
and  the  intimate  relation  which  marriage  bears  to  it,  and  she  says :  “Mar¬ 
riage  is  not  alone  of  this  earth,  but  is  also  of  the  Kingdom  of  God;  in  so  far 
as  it  is  of  this  earth,  let  earthly  courts  govern  and  control,  but  in  so  far  as 
it  is  of  a  higher  power,  let  the  higher  power  speak.” 

To  the  Catholic  Church  marriage  is  something  holy.  ^  “For  this  cause 
shall  man  leave  father  and  mother  and  cleave  unto  his  wife.”  It  is  to  her 


5 


340  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

a  solemn  compact  for  life — a  compact  which,  when  once  validly  made  and 
consummated  by  competent  parties,  can  not  be  completely  dissolved  by 
judge,  by  priest,  by  bishop,  nor  pope;  by  none  can  it  be  dissolved  save  by 
Him  who  created  the  sacred  relation— God  Himself. 

Many  erroneously  believe  that  the  Pope  grants  divorces,  but  in  the 
almost  nineteen  centuries  of  the  history  of  the  Church,  the  lirst  decree  of 
divorce  has  yet  to  come  from  Rome.  On  the  contrary,  the  sacred  pontiffs 
have  stood,  a  wall  of  brass,  in  every  age,  against  the  violation  of  the  mar¬ 
riage  bond.  History  speaks  of  the  many  instances  where  the  laws  of 
Christian  marriage  were  sought  to  be  set  aside  by  those  high  in  power, 
and  the  brightest  pages  in  the  history  of  the  lives  of  the  popes  are  those 
which  tell  of  the  x)atient  resignation  with  which  they  withstood  entreaty, 
threats,  and  even  torture  in  defending  the  sanctity  of  marriage.  They 
have  been  no  respecter  of  persons.  To  the  rich  and  to  the  poor,  to  the 
Ijrince  and  peasant  seeking  an  absolute  dissolution  of  the  marriage  bond, 
the  same  answer  has  been  made. 

Prom  the  throne  have  come,  first  entreaties,  then  threats,  and,  these 
being  unavailing,  even  armies  have  been  sent.  Rome  has  been  besieged, 
priests  and  people  maltreated,  churches  desecrated,  the  cross,  the  emblem 
of  Christianity,  torn  to  the  ground,  the  Pojoe  imijrisoned  and  forced  to 
endure  hunger  and  thirst,  but  above  the  din  of  battle,  out  from  the  dust 
of  destruction,  from  the  prison  door,  above  the  noise  of  the  clanking  chains, 
has  been  heard,  coming  from  the  quivering  lips  of  the  Pontiff:  “What, 
therefore,  God  hath  joined  together,  let  no  man  put  asunder.” 

“  If  the  popes,”  says  the  Protestant  writer.  Von  Mueller,  “could  hold  up 
no  other  merit  than  that  which  they  gained  by  protecting  monogamy 
against  the  brutal  lusts  of  those  in  power,  notwithstanding  bribes,  threats, 
and  persecution,  that  alone  would  render  them  immortal  for  all  future 
ages  ” 

The  Church  is  condemned,  by  those  who  know  not,  for  compelling  per¬ 
sons  who  have  entered  the  married  state  to  live  together,  regardless  of  the 
faults  of  one  or  the  other.  This  is  an  error ;  the  Church  teaches  that 
man  and  wife  should  live  together ;  she  imposes  upon  husband  and 
wife  the  solemn  duties  of  sharing  in  the  joys  and  sorrows  of  each  other, 
but  she  by  no  word  holds  virtue  chained  in  the  grasp  of  vice,  Por  compels 
the  sober  wife  to  submit  to  the  brutal  treatment  of  the  drunken  husband. 
The  object  of  her  teachings  is  to  promote  virtue,  and  when  contact  longer 
breeds  vice — when  a  soul,  whether  it  be  of  a  husband,  or  wife,  or  child,  is  in 
danger ;  where  the  body,  the  casket  of  the  soul,  is  in  danger  of  serious 
injury — she  not  only  permits  but  advises  her  children  to  live  separate  and 
apart.  And  in  such  cases  she  permits  the  strong  arm  of  the  law  to  inter-  - 
pose  between  husband  and  wife,  to  shield  the  weak  from  the  strong.  Exer¬ 
cising  no  civil  autnority,  she  permits  her  children,  in  the  proper  case,  to 
seek  the  solace  of  the  law,  and,  by  proper  decree  in  the  civil  courts,  to  erect 
a  barrier  against  vice,  wrong,  and  injustice.  But  to  her  the  divorce  absolute 
of  the  civil  courts  is  of  no  more  effect,  except  as  it  affects  civil  rights,  than 
the  divorce  a  mensa  et  thora.  In  her  eyes  the  mystical  bond  of  marriage 
is  ever  existing  until  “death  does  them  part.” 

So  that  while  civil  divorces  are  loermitted  in  cases  where  the  facts  justify 
a  separation,  neither  party  can,  while  the  other  lives,  enter  into  another 
valid  marriage.  The  Church  therefore  admonishes  those  who  are  about  to 
marry  to  consider  well  the  step  they  are  about  to  take — she  throws  about 
them  such  protection  as  she  can  by  requiring  the  “publication  of  the 
banns”  in  order  to  prevent  secret  marriages,  and  to  circumvent  the  scheme 
of  any  adventurer  or  other  unworthy  person,  who  by  secret  marriage, 
would  pollute  innocence  and  ruin  a  young  life. 

It  is  liberty  of  remarriage  after  divorce  which  encourages  divorce.  We 
know  that  in  the  marital  relations  differences  arise  which  seem  to  point  to 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  MARRIAGE  BOND,  341 


separation  as  the  only  remedy.  We  know  that  the  wrongs  of  one  may  be 
such  that  common  humanity  dictates  that  the  other  be  freed  from  the 
bonds  which  have  become  unbearable.  We  may  even  admit  what  is  claimed 
by  the  advocates  of  divorce  that  it  seems  in, one  sense  to  be  an  injustice  to 
compel  the  innocent  to  remain  unmarried  after  divorce  because  of  the 
wrongs  of  the  wicked,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  laws  can  not  be 
framed  to  suit  the  individual  case.  Laws  and  rules  of  life  must  be  enacted 
with  a  view  to  the  common  good  of  humanity  at  large.  An  individual  case 
of  apparent  injustice  arising  from  a  law  is  no  argument  against  its  propri¬ 
ety.  It  is  said  that  such  a  rule  destroys  individual  liberty,  but  no;  the 
contract  to  be  binding  must,  in  the  first  instance,  be  the  voluntary  act  of 
the  parties.  If  it  is  understood  that  the  bond  is  to  remain  unbroken  duiing 
life  it  is  one  of  the  conditions  to  which  consent  is  given. 

But  it  is  said,  as  one  of  the  parties  has  broken  his  vow,  the  other  is  not 
bound;  but  we  say,  society,  the  state,  God,  has  not  violated  the  contract, 
and  it  is  still  in  force  until  all  agree  to  a  dissolution. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  in  actual  life  it  is  not  the  innocent  or  wronged  one 
who  usually  seeks  remarriage;  on  the  contrary  it  is  the  one  who  has  violated 
the  most  solemn  obligations,  who  has  trampled  upon  right,  broken  the  heart 
of  innocence,  and,  by  his  own  acts,  forced  the  other  party  to  the  divorce 
court  for  protection  of  life  and  honor.  In  many  cases  it  is  apparent  that 
the  wrong  has  been  inflicted  with  the  purpose  of  forcing  a  separation  and 
consequent  divorce  in  order  to  enable  the  wrong-doer  to  again  take  the  vows 
of  marriage,  to  be  in  turn  violated  as  whim  or  passion  may  dictate. 

The  wrong-doer,  free  from  the  bonds  of  matrimony,  free  from  the  care  of 
children — for  it  is  to  the  innocent  party  their  custody  is  given  by  the  court 
— free  even  from  the  obligation  to  support  in  most  cases,  goes  out  into 
society  a  threatening  blight  to  innocence  and  purity. 

It  is  this  condition  that  encourages  hasty  marriage.  As  the  system  has 
grown  there  has  been  developing  its  correlative,  the  matrimonial  bureau, 
through  the  operations  of  which  wives  and  husbands  are  taken  on  trial 
with  the  full  knowledge  that  if  they  prove  unsuitable  the  divorce  courts  are 
open  to  declare  their  relations  at  an  end  and  permit  them  to  go  forth  to 
cast  another  line  in  the  matrimonial  sea.  Oh,  shades  of  the  Christian 
founders  of  this  Christian  land,  didst  thou  ever  foresee  this  threatening 
evil!  Oh,  men  and  women  of  to-day,  stop  and  consider  ere  it  is  too  late. 

Eminent  men  who  have  made  a, study  of  causes  and  effects  in  marital 
difficulties  assert  that  indissolubility,  in  the  sense  that  remarriage  after 
separation  be  not  permitted,  is  the  only  safeguard  of  marriage.  That 
eminent  legal  scholar ,  J ohn  Taylor  Coleridge,  in  a  note  to  his  edition  of  Black- 
stone’s  Commentaries,  says  :  “  It  is  no  less  truly  than  beautifully  said  by 

Sir  W.  Scott,  in  the  case  of  Evans  vs.  Evans,  ‘  that  though,  in  particular 
cases,  the  repugnance  of  law  to  dissolve  the  obligation  of  matrimonial 
cohabitation  may  operate  with  great  severity  upon  individuals,  yet  it  must  be 
carefully  remembered  that  the  general  happiness  of  the  married  life  is 
secured  by  its  indissolubility.’  When  people  understand  that  they  must  live 
together,  except  for  a  few  reasons  known  to  the  law,  they  learn  to  soften,  by 
mutual  accommodation,  that  yoke  which  they  know  they  can  not  shake  off; 
they  become  good  husbands  and  good  wives  from  the  necessity  of  remain¬ 
ing  husbands  and  wives,  for  necessity  is  a  powerful  master  in  teaching  the 
duties  which  it  imposes.  If  it  were  once  understood  that,  upon  mutual  dis¬ 
gust,  married  persons  might  be  legally  separated,  many  couples  who  now 
pass  through  the  world  with  mutual  comfort,  with  attention  to  their  com¬ 
mon  offspring  and  to  the  moral  order  of  civil  society,  might  have  been  at 
this  moment  living  in  a  state  of  mutual  unkindness,  in  a  state  of  estrange¬ 
ment  from  their  common  offspring,  and  in  a  state  of  the  most  licentious 
and  unrestrained  immorality.  In  this  case,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  hap¬ 
piness  of  some  individuals  must  be  sacrificed  to  the  greater  and  more  gen¬ 
eral  good,” 


342 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Gibbon,  after  speaking  of  the  loose  system  of  divorce  among  the 
Romans,  adds:  “  A  specious  theory  is  confuted  by  this  free  and  x^erfect 
experiment,  which  demonstrates  that  the  liberty  of  divorce  does  not  con¬ 
tribute  to  happiness  and  virtue.” 

What  can  be  more  convincing  than  the  words  of  that  eminent  statesman 
and  scholar,  Rt.  Hon.  William  E.  Gladstone,  who,  in  answer  to  the  question 
“  Ought  divorced  people  be  allowed  to  marry  under  any  circumstances?” 
replies: 

The  second  question  deals  with  what  may  be  called  divorce  proper.  It  resolves 
itself  into  the  lawfulness  or  unlawfulness  of  re-marriage,  and  the  answer  appears 
to  me  to  be  that  re-marriage  is  not  admissible  under  any  circumstances  or  condi¬ 
tions  whatsoever.  Not  that  the  difficulties  arising  from  incongruous  marriage 
are  to  be  either  denied  or  extenuated.  They  are  indissoluble.  But  the  remedy  is 
worse  than  the  disease. 

These  sweeping  statements  ought,  I  am  aware,  to  be  supported  by  reasoning 
and  detail,  which  space  does  not  permit  and  which  1  am  not  qualified  adequately 
to  supply.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  such  reasoning  might  fall  under  the  following 
heads; 

That  Christian  marriage  involves  a  vow  before  God. 

That  no  authority  has  been  given  to  the  Christian  church  to  cancel  such  a  vow. 

That  it  lies  beyond  the  province  of  the  vdvil  legislature,  which,  from  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  things,  has  a  veto 'power  within  the  limits  of  reason  upon  the  making 
of  it,  but  has  no  competency  to  annul  it  when  once  made. 

That  according  to  the  laws  of  just  interpretation  marriage  is  forbidden  by  the 
text  of  Holy  Scripture. 

While  divorce  of  any  kind  impairs  the  integrity  of  the  family,  divorce  with  re¬ 
marriage  destroys  it  root  and  branch.  The  parental  and  conjugal  relations  are 
‘‘joined  together”  by  the  hand  of  the  Almighty,  no  less  than  the  persons  united 
by  the  marriage  tie  to  one  another.  Marriage  contemplates  not  only  an  absolute 
identity  of  interests  and  affections,  but  also  the  creation  of  new,  joint,  and  inde¬ 
pendent  obligations,  stretching  into  the  future  and  limited  only  by  the  stroke  of 
death.  These  obligations,  where  divorce  proper  is  in  force,  lose  all  community, 
and  the  obedience  reciprocal  to  them  is  dislocated  and  destroyed. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  most  eminent  minds  of  different  ages  regard 
marriage  as  indissoluble,  not  from  religious  considerations  alone,  but 
because  the  best  interests  of  society  demand  it. 

The  history  of  mankind  has  demonstrated  the  wisdom  of  the  teaching. 
Upon  the  tablets  of  the  world’s  story  it  is  written  that,  as  divorce  has 
increased  in  a  nation,  that  nation  has  fallen  lower  and  lower  until  her 
loftiest  monuments  crumbled  in  the  dust.  In  ancient  Greece  and  Rome 
the  shattered  ties  of  statehood  were  prefigured  in  the  broken  ties  of  home- 
life  made  possible  by  divorce  laws  the  conception  of  which  was  in  the  vices 
of  the  people. 

Gibbon  tells  us  that  “passion,  interest,  or  caprice  suggested  daily 
motives  for  the  dissolution  of  marriage;  a  word,  a  sign,  a  message,  a  letter, 
the  mandate  of  a  freedman,  declared  the  separation;  the  most  tender  of 
human  connections  was  degraded  to  a  transient  society  of  profit  or  pleas- 
ure.” 

And,  oh,  what  a  vital  subject  is  this  for  consideration  in  these  times, 
when  the  frequency  of  divorce  in  the  land  of  progress  is  becoming  alarming 
— threatening,  as  it  does,  the  very  foundation  of  society.  Too  many  seem 
to  forget  that  society  does  not  exist  except  in  the  individuals  that  compose 
it.  The  state  is  virtuous  or  lacking  in  virtue  as  the  individual  elements — 
the  people — are  virtuous  or  otherwise.  Individuals  are  virtuous  or  other¬ 
wise  as  the  home  from  which  they  come  is  the  seat  of  virtue  or  the  den  of 
vice.  Hence  the  home  is  the  foundation  of  society,  from  which  must  go 
forth  the  men  and  women  of  the  world. 

Divorce  strikes  at  the  very  heart  of  the  home;  it  is  a  keen  sword  which 
severs  every  home  tie;  it  is  a  demon  with  cloven  foot  which  stamps  out 
every  vestige  of  home  life. 

What  do  the  people  think  of  the  record  for  the  twenty  years  prior  to 
1886  (the  latest  comyjleted  statistics)  of  328,716  divorces  in  the  United 
States?  Over  328,000  homes  destroyed  and  eliminated  forever  as  component 
factors  in  civilization. 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  MARRIAGE  BOND.  343 


But  this  is  not  the  worst.  In  1867  there  were  9,937.  In  1886  there  were 
25,535  divorces,  an  increase  of  72  per  cent  —  an  increase  more  than  twice  as 
great  as  the  growth  in  population,  and  representing  a  ratio  to  marriage  of 
as  high  as  one  to  nine.  To  the  person  whose  daily  jjaper  brings,  in  glowing 
head-lines,  the  story  of  marital  infelicity  told  to  the  public  in  the  divorce 
courts  of  the  country  it  is  needless  to  say  that  the  number  of  divorces  have 
not  decreasd  since  1886. 

How  long  can  society  stand  this  drain  upon  its  resources?  How  long  can 
the  patriotic  American  people  see 'with  composure  the  divorce  courts  of  the 
land  severing  husband  and  wife — driving  one  or  the  other  to  the  asylum  or 
the  grave,  and  driving  helpless  and  innocent  children  God  knows  where? 

Does  it  not  bring  a  blush  to  the  cheek  to  find  new  States  allowing  divorce 
upon  a  residence  of  six  and  even  three  months,  with  other  conditions  so 
easy  that  there  is  attracted  to  their  borders  hundreds,  aye,  thousands  of 
divorce  seekers,  not  only  from  our  own  land,  but  inviting  from  foreign  lands 
its  decaying  nobility,  whose  lives  are  such  that  in  their  own  country  the 
courts  will  not  grant  them  relief?  And  is  it  not  a  serious  condition  w^hen  a 
new  State  will  be  boldly  put  forth  as  the  Mecca  of  dissatisfied  husbands 
and  wives  in  order  that  they  may  spend  their  money  in  procuring  a  divorce 
within  its  borders,  that  their  wealth  may  add  to  the  general  prosperity? 
God  help  the  State  whose  material  progress  is'  based  upon  the  money  spent 
by  non-resident  applicants;  for  legal  separation  from  husband  or  wife. 

The  provisions  of  the  different  States  regarding  divorce  and  the  causes 
for  which  the  same  can  be  granted  are  greatly  at  variance.  So  that  those 
who  can  not  establish  a  case  in  the  State  of  their  residence  can  readily 
acquire  a  residence  in  some  other  State,  and  thus  reach  the  desired  end. 
The  want  of  uniformity  in  our  laws  upon  this  subject  is  the  cause  for  much 
of  the  fraud  perpetrated  and  the  perjury  committed  in  establishing  a  resi¬ 
dence  and  furnishing  the  necessary  proofs  in  order  to  obtain  a  decree.  If 
we  look  for  the  causes  which  produce  the  deplorable  condition  existing  we 
find  that  they  are  legion;  but  far  above  all  other  causes  we  find  divorce 
itself  breeding  divorce  and  we  find  public  sentiment  upholding,  or  at  least 
permitting,  existing  conditions. 

What  is  the  remedy?  Asa  first  step  strike  from  the  statute  books  all 
of  the  provisions  permitting  divorce  for  inadequate  causes.  Require  that 
all  petitioners  for  divorce  be  bona  fide  residents  of  the  State  in  which  the 
action  is  commenced  for  a  period  of  at  least  two  years  preceding  the  appli¬ 
cation.  Require  personal  service,  unless  the  petitioner  can  show  by  com¬ 
petent  evidence  that  such  service  is  impossible,  and  when  service  is  made 
by  publication  the  defendant  should  have  a  reasonable  time,  even  after  the 
decree,  in  which  to  apply  for  a  re-hearing.  These  changes  should  come 
from  the  legislature.  But  what  is  needed  even  more  than  legislation  is  a 
proper  administration  of  the  laws.  It  is  bad  enough  that  a  legislature 
should  permit  persons  who  have  resided  in  the  State  but  a  few  months  to 
seek  relief  in  the  courts,  but  it  is  scandalous  to  see  a  temporary  resident, 
publicly  known  to  have  adopted  residence  for  the  sole  purpose  of  procuring 
a  divorce,  treated  with  all  judicial  dignity  as  having  a  good-faith  residence 
required  by  the  statute. 

These  changes  can  be  brought  about  only  by  the  people  themselves— by 
creating  and  maintaining  such  a  public  sentiment  as  will  force  the  legis¬ 
latures  and  courts  to  a  fuller  recognition  of  the  overwhelming  importance 
of  this  great’ question.  Laws,  to  be  effectual,  must  go  hand  in  hand  with 
public  sentiment.  Those  that  are  not  sustained  by  the  approval  of  the 
masses  of  the  people  will  fail  of  enforcement.  Therefore  the  crying  need  of 
the  hour  is  a  healthy,  active,  agressive,  public  sentiment.  ^  Public  senti¬ 
ment  is  the  life-current  of  society;  it  affects  individual  action  in  private 
life;  it  enters  the  jury  box  in  our  civil  courts;  it  whispers  to  judges  upon 
the  bench ;  it  stalks  boldly  into  the  halls  of  legislation,  both  State  and 


344 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


national.  Public  opinion  reaches  the  national  conscience,  and  it  is  this 
conscience  that  must  be  reached,  must  be  quickened,  must  be  brought  into 
more  active  operation  for  the  public  good. 

The  divorce  laws  and  their  administration  being  corrected,  we  need 
more  stringent  laws  in  most  of  the  States  concerning  the  duty  of  the  hus¬ 
band  to  support  his  wife  and  family.  It  is  a  sad  commentary  upon  our 
legislation  that  in  most  of  the  States  of  the  union  a  husband  may  desert 
his  wife  and  family  and  refuse  to  aid  in  their  support,  provided  he  has  no 
visible  property  subject  to  the  process  of  the  law.  A  law  is  needed  which 
shall  provide  that  such  desertion  is  a  crime  and  whereby  such  men  may  be 
put  to  work  under  the  supervision  of  the  State  and  by  which  the  proceeds 
of  his  labor  may  be  applied  to  the  support  of  his  family.  In  nearly  every 
state  the  inmates  of  the  penitentiary  are  earning  money  which  goes  into 
the  State  treasury.  These  earnings  might,  under  proper  legislation,  be  ap¬ 
plied  to  the  support  of  those  dependent  upon  the  person  who  earns  the 
same.  We  need  a  law  and  a  public  sentiment  to  sustain  it  which  will 
brand  desertion  as  much  a  crime  as  horse-stealing,  and  we  need  more  con¬ 
siderate  regard  for  the  duties  which  the  husband  and  father  owes  to  wife 
■  and  children. 

The  demand  for  this  comes  from  the  mothers  of  the  land  who  labor 
hard  from  early  morn  until  late  at  night  to  support  starving  children.  It 
comes  from  the  almshouses  and  orphan  homes  where  may  be  found  the 
cruelly  deserted  offspring  of  unpunished  husbands.  It  comes  from  the 
insane  asylums  where  minds,  shattered  by  a  load  too  great  to  bear,  live  in 
dismal  misery.  It  comes  from  graves  all  over  the  land  where  weakened 
bodies  and  broken  hearts  have  sought  eternal  rest. 

The  State  should  provide  suitable  hospitals,  or  places  of  reform,  for 
drunkards.  Treatment  should  be  provided  looking  toward  a  cure,  and 
where  it  is  demonstrated  that  cure  is  impossible,  they  should  be  treated  as 
wards  of  society,  and  maintained  under  such  control  as  would  enable  them 
not  only  to  earn  sufficient  for  their  own  support,  but  also  to  aid  in  the  sup¬ 
port  of  their  families. 

I  do  not  believe  in  paternalism  in  government,  but  if  some  of  our  ardent 
socialists  would  exert  their  energies  in  bringing  government  to  a  proper 
exercise  of  the  legitimate  functions  of  the  state,  they  would  confer  a 
greater  favor  upon  the  world  than  by  painting  the  brightness  of  the  day  of 
universal  ownership.  If  some  of  the  money  expended  in  building  alms¬ 
houses  and  jails  were  applied  in  an  intelligent  effort  toward  the  prevention 
of  crime,  it  would  be  better  for  humanity,  and,  as  prevention  is  of  greater 
importance  than  punishment,  society  should  apply  the  remedies  at  the  very 
base  of  good  or  evil  for  society,  the  family.  The  integrity  of  the  family 
should  be  firmly  established,  and  everything  that  tends  toward  disintegra¬ 
tion  should  be  carefully  guarded  against. 

“The  solidity  and  health  of  the  social  body,”  says  William  E.  Gladstone, 
“depend  upon  the  soundness  of  its  unit;  that  unit  is  the  family,  and  the 
hinge  of  the  family  is  to  be  found  in  the  great  and  profound  institution  of 
marriage.”  Instead  of  protecting  this  great  “unit”  of  society,  the  Amer¬ 
ican  people  are  courting  national  danger  by  at  least  a  tacit  indorsement  of 
existing  divorce  laws  and  their  administration. 

To  the  thinking  men  and  women  of  the  time,  this  is  the  greatest  social 
question  of  the  age.  Others  there  are  which  require  attention,  but  they 
are,  in  a  certain  sense,  temporary,  or  due  to  local  causes.  The  evils  of 
divorce  are  as  widespread  as  our  land  and  they  hang,  like  a  dark  cloud,  not 
only  over  the  present,  but  dim  the  brightness  of  the  future. 

We  are  building  a  mighty  nation  for  the  present  and  for  the  ages  to 
come.  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes,  when  asked  at  what  time  the  training  of  a 
child  should  begin,  replied:  “A  hundred  years  before  he  is  born.”  We 
are  laying  the  foundation  of  the  education  of  children  of  the  next  century. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  RELIGION  ON  WOMEN. 


345 


We  are  creating  the  environments  of  future  generations.  Will  not  this 
thought  urge  the  people  of  this  generation  to  eliminate  everything  that  is 
a  menace  to  society  of  the  present  or  of  the  future? 

To  cope  with  an  evil  so  widespread  requires  the  active  co-Operation 
of  men  of  all  classes  and  all  creeds,  and,  therefore,  the  Catholic  Church 
holds  out  her  hands  to-day  to  all  men  and  women,  regardless  of  race  or 
creed,  and  implores  their  active  united  endeavors  in  behalf  of  a  mighty 
reform  in  the  divorce  legislation  of  the  country.  Arouse  a  healthy  public 
sentiment  which  will  till  the  air  with  the  voice  of  condemnation  of  legalized 
polygamy.  Let  it  enter  our  political  conventions,  go  boldly  into  our  legis¬ 
lative  halls,  seek  the  sanctum  of  our  editorial  writers,  touch  the  hearts 
of  judges  on  the  bench,  inspire  the  thoughtful,  sincere  men  in  the  pulpit, 
and,  above’ all,  let  it  reach  deep  down  into  the  hearts  of  the  men  and  women, 
the  husbands  and  wives  of  our  land.  Let  a  healthy  Christian  sentiment 
maintain  the  sanctity  of  marriage  against  the  devastating  inroads  of 
materialism. 

We  need  more  fatherly  advice  from  the  bench,  such  as  the  following 
from  the  Supreme  Court  of  Iowa,  speaking  by  Justice  Seevers: 

But  we  think  the  primary  cause  of  all  the  trouble  is  that  both  have  excitable 
temperaments  and  caustic  tongues,  neil  her  of  which  have  been  curbed  as  the 
love  and  respect  each  should  have  for  the  other  demanded.  But  due  inquiry 
should  have  been  made  as  to  these  matters  before  marrying.  The  law  does  not 
authorize  a  divorce  therefor.  Patience,  a  due  regard  for  the  rights  of  each  other, 
and  a  little  of  the  affection  they  once  no  doubt  had.  would  enable  these  parties  to 
live  happily  together  and  raise  a  family  of  children  they  both  will  take  pride  in. 
We  will  make  no  order  for  the  children  with  the  hope  that  all  will  soon  be  united 
and  the  past  forgotten. 

Or  the  following  from  the  same  court,  speaking  by  Justice  Reed: 

We  do  not  believe  that  there  were  any  reasonable  grounds  for  the  separation 
originally;  nor  does  it  appear  to  us  that  there  is  any  ground  for  its  continuance. 
If  the  parties  will  but  forget  the  unhappy  and  foolish  difference  that  led  to  the 
separation,  and  repose  in  each  other  something  of  the  trust  and  confidence  which 
for  more  than  twenty  years  existed  between  them,  and  take  counsel  of  their  own 
hearts  and  consciences,  instead  of  with  those  who  have  sowed  their  pathway  of 
life  thick  with  seeds  of  dissension  and  discord,  there  exists  no  reason  why  they 
may  not  spend  their  declining  years  in  peace  and  happiness  in  each  other’s 
society. 

Great  and  permanent  reforms  come  slowly.  Step  by  step  let  the  laws 
be  changed.  It  is  said,  and  it  is  true,  that  men  can  not  be  made  virtuous 
by  legislation,  but  it  is  also  true  that  it  is  difficult  to  make  men  believe  that 
what  is  lawful  is  not  right. 

Let  the  ax  first  be  applied  at  the  root.  Restrain  the  right  of  remar¬ 
riage  after  divorce,  and  slowly  but  surely  will  the  leaves  of  this  noxious 
weed  wither  and  die,  and  in  future  generations  our  divorce  legislation  will 
be  regarded  by  those  that  come  after  us  as  one  of  the  few  blots  upon  the 
history  of  our  young  republic.  But  the  knowledge  that  the  Christian 
American  sentiment  for  home  and  morality  was  strong  enough  to  wipe  it 
out  forever  will  be  a  source  of  gratification  and  will  be  an  incentive  to 
higher  aims  and  greater  achievements  to  the  men  and  the  women  of  the 
future  America. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  RELIGION  ON  WOMEN. 

REV.  ANNIS  F.  F.  EASTMAN. 

In  Eve,  the  mother  of  evil,  and  Mary,  the  Mother  of  God,  we  have  the 
two  extremes  of  religious  thought  concerning  woman.  It  is  worthy  of  note 
that  neither  of  these  conceptions  was  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew  mind.  In 
the  sacred  book  of  the  Hindus  we  have  a  counterpart  of  Eve  in  the  nymph 
Menaka,  of  whom  the  man  complains,  in  the  spirit  of  Adam:  “Alas,  what 
has  become  of  my  wisdom,  my  prudence,  my  firm  resolution?  Behold,  all 
destroyed  at  once  by  a  woman.” 


346 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


In  the  sacred  oracles  of  the  Chinese  we  find  these  words:  “All  was  sub¬ 
ject  to  man  in  the  beginning.  The  wise  husband  raised  up  a  bulwark  of 
walls,  but  the  woman,  by  an  ambitious  desire  of  knowledge,  demolished 
them.  Our  misery  did  not  come  from  heaven,  she  lost  the  human  race.” 
In  the  religious  annals  of  the  Greeks,  also,  we  have  Pandora,  the  author  of 
all  human  ills.  Everywhere  in  the  religious  history  of  mankind  you  will 
find  some  trace  of  the  divine  woman,  mother  of  the  incarnate  Deity.  On 
the  walls  of  the  most  ancient  temples  in  Egypt  you  may  see  the  goddess 
mother  and  her  child.  The  same  picture  is  veiled  behind  Chinese  altars, 
consecrated  in  Druid  groves,  glorified  in  Christian  churches,  and  in  all 
these  the  underlying  thought  is  the  same.  Before  entering  upon  an  inves¬ 
tigation  of  the  relation  of  religion  to  woman  we  must  decide  what  we 
mean  by  religion. 

If  we  mean  any  particular  form  of  faith,  body  of  laws,  institutions, 
organization,  whether  Hindu,  Greek,  Hebrew,  or  Christian,  then  we  are 
forced  to  the  conclusion  that  no  one  of  these  has  given  to  woman  an  equal 
place  with  man  as  the  full  half  of  the  unit  of  humanity,  for  every  organ¬ 
ized  religion,  every  religion  w'hich  has  become  a  human  institution  teaches 
the  headship  of  man  and  that  involves,  in  some  measure  and  degree,  the 
subjection  of  woman  and  her  consequent  inferiority. 

The  Vedas  declare  that  a  husband,  however  criminal  or  defective,  is  in 
the  place  of  the  supreme  to  his  wife.  Plato  presents  a  state  of  society 
wholly  disorganized  when  slaves  are  disobedient  to  their  masters  and  wives 
on  an  equality  with  their  nusbands.  Aristotle  characterized  women  as  being 
of  an  inferior  order,  and  Socrates  asks  the  pathetic  question:  “Is  there  a 
human  being  with  whom  you  talk  less  than  with  your  wife?”  Poor  Soc¬ 
rates  judged  the  sex,  we  may  imagine,  as  the  modern  sage  is  apt  to  do — by 
that  specimen  with  which  he  was  most  familiar.  Tertullian,  one  of  the 
most  spiritual  of  fhe  Christian  fathers,  said:  “Submit  your  head  to  your 
husband  and  you  will  be  sufficiently  adorned.” 

Luther,  dear  Father  Luther,  who  builded  better  than  he  knew,  said: 
“No  gown  worse  becomes  a  woman  than  that  she  should  be  wise.”  A 
learned  bishop  of  to-day  said:  “Man  is  the  head  of  a  family;  the  family  is 
an  organic  unity,  and  can  not  exist  without  subordination.  Man  is  the  head 
of  the  family  because  he  is  physically  stronger,  and  because  the  family 
grows  out  of  a  warlike  state,  and  to  man  was  intrusted  the  duties  of 
defense.” 

These  are  the  sentiments  of  leaders  of  the  great  systems  of  religious 
doctrine  and  they  reflect  the  spirit  of  organized  religion  from  the  beginning 
until  now.  If,  however,  by  religion  we  mean  that  universal  spirit  of  rever¬ 
ence,  fear,  and  worship  of  a  spiritual  being  or  beings,  believed  to  be  greater 
than  man,  yet  in  some  respects  like  man — if  we  mean  that  almost  universal 
conviction  of  the  race,  that  there  is  that  in  man  which  transcends  time  and 
sense — if  we  believe  that  religion  is  that  in  man  which  looks  through  the 
things  which  are  that  he  may  be  able  to  perceive  the  right  and  choose  it — 
if,  in  a  word,  religion  be  the  possibility  of  the  fellowship  of  the  spirit  of 
man  with  the  spirit  of  God,  then  its  relation  to  woman,  as  to  man,  has  been 
that  of  inspiring  guide  to  a  fuller  light. 

With  this  conception  of  religion  we  see  that  it  is  a  matter  of  growth; 
the  religious  life  of  the  race  is  a  matter  of  growth  and  education.  In  seek¬ 
ing  to  discern  what  part  religion,  thus  conceived,  has  played  in  the  advance¬ 
ment  oi  our  race  we  must  go  back  of  religion  to  man  because  religion  was 
made  for  man  and  by  man,  not  man  for  or  by  religion — first  that  which  is 
natural,  afterward  that  which  is  spiritual.  When  you  have  scanned  the 
earliest  written  records  of  mankind  you  have  not  yet  arrived  at  the  root  of 
things.  When  you  find  what  you  believe  are  the  conceptions  of  the  primi¬ 
tive  man  concerning  God  and  the  supernatural  world  you  have  not  arrived 
at  the  roots  of  things.  For  his  gods,  his  beliefs,  as  to  the  mystery  by  which 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  RELIGION  ON  WOMEN. 


he  is  encompassed,  were  born  of  his  effort  to  explain  and  account  for  that 
which  is  in  his  own  condition  and  circumstance. 

The  religions  of  various  peoples,  we  now  see,  were  not  superimposed 
upon  them  by  God  ;  they  were  the  outgrowth  of  the  actual  life  of  the  race. 
They  were  an  attempt  on  man’s  part  to  explain  himself  and  nature,  to  an¬ 
swer  the  question  asked  by  his  own  being  and  the  universe  without. 
Woman’s  religious  position,  therefore,  in  any  nation  is  only  the  supernat¬ 
ural  or  religious  sanction  put  upon  her  actual  position  in  that  nation. 
Among  primitive  peoples  she  is  always  a  drudge,  a  chattel,  a  mere  posses¬ 
sion,  her  only  actual  value  being  that  of  the  producer  of  man. 

This  state  of  things,  of  course,  had  its  antecedent  causes,  which  we  may 
trace  in  that  seemingly  blind  struggle  for  existence  which  prevailed  among 
the  owners  of  animals  below  man,  out  of  which  one  type  after  another 
emerged  because  of  superior  strength  or  more  perfect  adaptation  to 
environment.  Here  we  find  the  foundations  of  that  physical  and  mental 
inferiority  of  the  female  which  has  been  the  reason  of  woman’s  position  in 
human  society  in  all  times.  A  foremost  scientist  says  :  “  The  superiority 

of  male  mammals  is  a  remarkable  fact.  It  is  due  to  causes  litvle  creditable 
to  the  male  character  in  general.  Not  one  particle  of  it  is  attributable  to 
their  noble  efforts  in  protection  and  supporting  the  females  and  their  own 
offspring.  It  is  the  result  of  a  sexual  selection  growing  out  of  the  struggle 
between  the  males  for  the  possession  of  the  females.”  This  simple  scientific 
fact  might  well  be  commended  to  the  theologian  who  argues  the  natural 
subjection  of  woman  through  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  the  purposes  of 
nature  as  seen  in  the  lower  orders  of  life. 

You  are  familiar  with  the  argument  that  the  male  bird  sings  louder  and 
sweeter  than  the  female,  therefore  a  woman  can  not  be  a  poet.  In  most 
mammals  the  male  is  larger,  more  beautiful,  more  sagacious  than  the 
female,  and  is  exempt  from  most  of  the  unpleasant  labors  connected  with 
the  rearing  and  defense  of  the  young;  therefore  a  woman  can  not  under¬ 
stand  politics.  You  can  easily  find  instances,  if  you  like,  in  natural  history 
of  what  we  might  call  nature’s  favoritism  of  the  female.  Why  do  you  not 
speak  of  the  ostrich,  the  male  of  which  sits  on  its  eggs,  hatches  out  the 
young  and  takes  principal  care  of  them?  Why  do  you  not  instance  that 
line,  beautiful  variety  of  spider  of  which  the  female  invariably  devours  her 
consort  when  he  is  of  no  further  use  to  her?  What  if  that  custom  should 
become  prevalent  among  women? 

The  first  is  that  these  things  prove  nothing.  If  we  have  made  any 
progress  it  is  away  from  nature.  We  are  not  spiders,  nor  lions,  nor  birds. 
We  are  man,  male  and  female,  and  we  want  to  be  angels,  or  we  used  to 
when  we  went  to  Sunday  school.  It  is  unworthy  of  us  to  go  back  to  the 
conduct  of  life  among  the  lower  animals  to  bolster  up  any  of  the  remaining 
abuses  of  human  society.  The  point  is  just  here.  We  can  not  trace  the 
degraded  and  subject  position  of  woman  in  ancient  times  to  the  religious 
ideals  of  her  nature  and  place  in  the  creation,  but  the  reverse  is  true  in  a 
large  measure.  We  can  trace  her  religious  position  to  her  actual  position 
in  primitive  society  and  this  in  its  turn  back  to  those  beginnings  of  the 
human  animal  which  science  is  just  beginning  to  discover  and  which  will 
probably  always  be  matter  of  speculation. 

We  always  find  the  position  of  woman  improving  as  warlike  activities 
are  replaced  by  industrial  activities.  When  war  and  the  chase  were  the 
sole  questions  of  humankind  the  qualities  required  in  these  formed  their 
chief  measure  of  excellence.  The  position  of  woman  in  ancient  Egypt,  in 
her  most  brilliant  period,  was  higher  than  in  many  a  modern  state.  Egypt 
was  an  industrial  state  when  we  knew  it  first.  Herbert  Spencer  says: 
“  There  are  no  people,  however  refined,  among  whom  the  relative  position  of 
the  man  and  woman  is  more  favorable  than  with  the  Lapps.  It  is  because 
the  men  are  not  warriors.  They  have  no  soldiers;  they  fight  no  battles, 


348 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


either  with  outside  foreigners  or  between  the  various  tribes  and  families. 
In  spite  of  their  wretched  huts,  dirty  faces,  primitive  clothing,  their  igno¬ 
rance  of  literature,  art,  and  science,  they  rank  above  us  in  the  highest  ele¬ 
ment  of  true  civilization — the  moral  element — and  all  the  military  nations 
of  the  world  may  stand  uncovered  before  them.” 

The  same  writer  points  out  the  fact  that  woman’s  position  is  more  toler¬ 
able  when  circumstances  lead  to  likeness  of  occupation  between  the  sexes. 
Among  the  Cheroops,  who  live  upon  fish  and  roots,  which  the  women  get 
as  readily  as  the  men,  the  women  have  a  rank  and  influence  very  rare  among 
Indians.  Modern  history  also  teaches  us  that  when  women  become  valu¬ 
able  in  a  commercial  sense  they  are  treated  with  a  deference  and  respect 
which  is  as  different  from  the  sentimental  adoration  of  the  poet  as  from 
the  haughty  contempt  of  the  philosopher. 

Another  important  influence  in  the  advancement  of  woman  as  of  man 
is  the  influence  of  climate.  It  is  a  general  rule,  subject  of  course  to  some 
exceptions,  that  a  tropical  climate  tends  to  degrade  women  by  relaxing  her 
energy  and  exposing  her  purity.  The  relatively  high  regard  in  which 
woman  was  held  by  some  of  the  tribes  of  the  north  of  Europe,  the  strict¬ 
ures  of  the  marriage  bond  in  the  case  of  the  man  as  well  as  the  woman, 
may  be  jjartially  explained  by  climatic  influences,  though  among  these 
people,  as  among  all  barbarians,  woman  was  under  the  absolute  authority 
of  husband  or  guardian,  and  could  be  bought,  sold,  beaten,  and  killed. 
Yet  she  was  the  companion  of  his  labors  and  dangers — his  counsellor. 
She  had  part  of  all  his  wars,  encouraging  men  in  battle  and  inspiring  even 
dying  soldiers  with  new  zeal  for  victory. 

Every  religion  is  connected  with  some  commanding  personality  and 
takes  from  him  and  his  teachings  its  general  trend  and  spirit,  but  in  its 
onward  course  of  blessing  and  conquest  it  soon  incorporates  other  elements 
from  the  peoples  who  embrace  it.  Thus  Buddhism  is  not  the  simple  out¬ 
growth  of  the  teachings  of  Buddha.  Organized  Christianity  is  not  the 
mitation  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  Christ  among  his  followers.  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  plus  Judaism,  plus  the  Roman  spirit  of  law 
and  justice  and  Grecian  philosophy,  plus  the  ideals  of  medieval  art,  plus 
the  nature  of  the  Germanic  races,  plus  the  scientific  spirit  of  the  modern 
age. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  balance  the  gains  and  losses  of  a  religion  in 
their  various  transitions,  but  it  is  aside  from  our  purpose  to  get  at  the  true 
genius  of  a  religion.  We  must  go  back  to  the  teachings  of  its  founder,  and 
in  every  instance  we  find  these  teachings  far  in  advance  of  the  average  life 
of  the  peoples*  among  whom  they  arose. 

No  one  can  study  the  words  or  Buddha,  of  Zoroaster,  Confucius, 
Mohammed,  and  Moses  without  seeing  a  divine  life  and  spirit  in  them 
which  is  not  a  reflection  from  the  state  of  society  in  which  they  lived. 
Charity  is  the  very  soul  of  Buddhic  teaching.  “Charity,  courtesy,  benevo¬ 
lence,  unselfishness  are  to  the  world  what  the  linch-pin  is  to  the  rolling 
chariot.” 

Buddha  declared  the  equality  of  the  male  and  female  in  spiritual  things. 
The  laws  of  Moses  exalt  woman.  The  Elohistic,  or  more  strictly  Jewish 
account  of  creation,  puts  male  and  female  on  a  level.  So  God  created  man 
in  his  own  image — in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him — male  and  female 
created  he  them,  and  the  Lord  blessed  them.  Christ  said:  “Whosoever 
doth  the  will  of  God,  the  same  is  My  brother,  and  sister,  and  mother.”  Did 
He  not  teach  here  that  spiritual  values  are  the  only  real  and  elementary 
ones,  and  that  oneness  of  spirit  and  purpose  was  a  stronger  tie  than  that  of 
blood?  Is  not  this  also  the  teaching  when  He  says,  “  Call  no  man  father; 
one  is  your  father.  No  man  master;  one  is  you  master.” 

In  that  declaration  which  we  quoted  before,  “  The  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man,”  is  the  Magna  Charta  of  man’s  freedom  and  headship,  male  and 


INFLUENCE  OF  RELIGION  ON  WOMEN. 


349 


female.  The  Sabbath  was  the  chief  institution  of  the  J ews,  their  holy  of 
holies,  whose  original  significance  was  so  overlaid  with  the  priestly  laws 
and  prohibitions  that  it  had  become  a  hindrance  to  right.  It  was  a  machine 
in  which  the  life  was  caught  and  torn  and  destroyed.  Christ  says:  “Sab¬ 
bath  was  made  for  man.”  So  all  institutions,  all  creeds,  everything,  was 
made,  planned,  and  devised  for  man.  The  life  is  the  fruit,  and  if  any  insti¬ 
tution,  any  right,  or  form,  or  deed  is  found  to  be  hampering  and  hindering, 
the  growing  life  or  spirit  of  man  wants  to  cast  it  off,  even  as  Christ  defied 
the  man-made  laws  of  his  people  when  he  healed  the  man  with  the 
withred  hand. 

In  His  declaration  of  the  supremacy  of  love,  when  He  foretold  that  He, 
the  supreme  lover  of  the  soul,  once  lifted  up,  should  draw  all  men  unto  Him¬ 
self,  He  sounded  the  death  knell  of  the  reign  of  force  in  the  earth  and 
destroyed,  by  cutting  its  roots,  that  headship  of  man  which  grows  out  of 
the  warlike  state  of  human  society. 

If  Christ’s  speech  was  silver,  his  silence  was  golden.  He  simply  ignores 
the  distinctions  of  rank  and  class  and  race  and  sex  among  men.  He  has 
nothing  to  say  about  manly  virtues  and  womanly  Virtues,  but  “  Blessed  are 
the  meek,”  not  meek  women;  “Blessed  are  the  merciful,”  “  the  pure  in 
heart.”  Paul  commends  the  wife  to  submission  to  the  master  husband, 
which  was  the  sentence  of  the  world  upon  woman  in  his  day.  But  in  that 
gospel  which  gave  her  Christ,  her  lot  was  enfolded  with  the  germ  of  that 
independence  and  equality  of  woman  with  man  which  is  beginning  to 
blossom  and  bear  fruit  in  the  latter  half  of  the  19th  century. 

Christ  declared  eternal  principles.  He  did  not  invent  them,  they  were 
always  true.  Men  make  systems  good,  serving  a  valuable  purpose,  but  they 
have  their  day  and  cease  to  be.  If  it  be  urged  that  the  progress  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  since  Christ’s  day  has  often  seemed  to  be  backward  from  His  ideal, 
in  reference  to  the  man  and  the  woman,  there  is  but  one  answer — and  that 
is,  that  Christianity,  as  He  proclaimed  it,  soon  became  mingled  with  Jewish 
and  Grecian  philosophy,  and  received  the  impress  of  the  Romans  and  the 
different  peoples  that  embraced  it,  yet  all  the  time  it  was  slowly  moulding 
the  race  to  its  own  heavenly  pattern,  while  to-day  the  principles  of  Jesus 
are  finding  new  presentations  and  confirmations  in  the  scientific  spirit  of 
this  generation.  They  are  not  only  in  full  accord  with  the  revelations  of 
science  concerning  man’s  beginning,  but  when  science  and  religion  seek  to 
point  out  the  lines  on  which  the  farther  advance  of  the  race  must  be 
found,  they  say  at  once:  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law. 

There  are  two  ways  of  reading  history.  One  way  is  to  get  the  facts  and 
draw  your  conclusions  from  them.  The  other  is  to  make  your  case  first  and 
search  the  history  of  mankind  for  facts  to  support  it.  The  latter  is  the 
more  popular  way.  These  two  ways  place  themselves  before  me  as  I  endeavor 
to  trace  the  influence  of  Christianity  on  woman’s  development,  or  of  relig¬ 
ion  on  woman’s  development.  If  I  could  only  make  up  my  mind  that 
religion  had  been  her  greatest  boon  or  her  greatest  curse,  then  the  matter 
of  proving  either  might  be  easier.  When  I  began  the  research  on  this  sub¬ 
ject  my  mind  was  absolutely  unprejudiced.  I  studied  the  history  of  the 
religious  life  of  mankind  as  I  would  study  any  subject.  I  found  religion  to 
be  one  of  the  factors  in  the  human  problem,  like  war  or  like  climate.  I 
found  also  that  it  was  impossible  to  separate  the  influence  of  religion  upon 
woman  from  its  influence  upon  man.  For  neither  is  the  man  without  the 
woman  nor  the  woman  without  the  man.  There  is  no  man’s  cause  that  is 
not  woman’s,  and  no  woman’s  cause  that  is  not  man’s.  If  religion  has  been 
a  beneficent  influence  to  man,  it  has  been  to  woman  in  like  manner,  though 
it  could  not  raise  her  at  once  to  his  level,  because  it  found  her  below  him. 

That  woman’s  advancement  is  something  apart  from  man’s  is  one  of  the 
hurtful  errors  of  our  day.  How  our  theologians  have  adjured  women  to 
remember  the  debt  of  gratitude  they  owe  Christianity.  The  debt  of  the 


350 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


race  is  one,  whatever  it  is.  Women  were  raised  only  as  men  were  lifted  up. 
Indeed,  according  to  the  principle  of  Christ,  the  man’s  debt  is  the  greater, 
for  woman’s  degradation  and  misery  were  caused  by  man’s  oppression,  and 
surely  it  is  better  to  be  a  victim  than  an  oppressor;  it  is  nobler  to  suffer 
than  to  inflict  injury. 

The  fact  is  that  men  and  women  must  rise  or  sink  together.  It  is  true  in 
this  matter  as  in  all:  The  letter  killeth;  the  spirit  maketh  to  live.  The  let¬ 
ter  of  religion  as  contained  in  bodies  of  doctrine,  in  ceremonial  laws,  in  all 
those  things  pertaining  to  the  religious  life  which  come  with  observation, 
has  in  all  ages  been  hampering  and  hindering  man’s  progress,  male  and 
female.  But  the  spirit  of  religion  which  recognizes  religion  as  the  spirit  of 
man  and  binds  it  to  the  infinite  spirit,  which  acknowledges  the  obligation 
of  man  to  God,  and  to  his  fellows,  which  brings  man  finally  under  spiritual 
attunement  with  Him  who  is  neither  man  nor  woman,  the  Christ  of  God — 
this  is  at  once  the  most  perfect  flower  of  man’s  progress.  Of  the  relation  of 
woman  to  religion  as  the  interpreter  of  its  profoundest  truths,  there  is  no 
time  to  speak.  Of  the  growing  dependence  of  organized  Christianity  upon 
woman,  there  is  no  need  to  speak.  Her  works  speak  for  her. 


THE  DIVINE  ELEMENT  IN  THE  WEEKLY 

REST-DAY. 

EEV.  DR.  A.  H.  LEWIS. 

• 

No  subject  deserves  a  place  on  the  programme  of  this  parliament  which 
does  not  involve  truths  as  wide  as  the  world,  as  lasting  as  time,  and  hence 
vital  to  all  the  higher  forms  of  religion. 

The  theme  assigned  to  me  is  invested  with  unusual  importance  because 
of  the  various  and  vital  interests  which  now  cluster  around  the  Sabbath 
question.  The  demand  for  reconsideration  and  readjustment  of  that  ques¬ 
tion  is  increasing  and  imperative.  It  has  fully  entered  an  epoch  of  rapid 
transition. 

Experience  shows  that  the  idea  of  sacred  time,  and  hence  of  the  weekly 
rest-day,  is  vitally  connected  with  the  development  of  religion  in  individual 
life  and  in  the  world.  History  is  an  organic  unity.  No  event  is  isolated; 
nothing  is  fortuitous.  God  is  constantly  settling  questions  and  determining 
issues  through  events.  There  is  no  point  on  which  God  has  more  clearly 
uttered  His  verdict  through  history,  than  on  the  question  of  the  divine  ele¬ 
ment  in  the  weekly  rest-day.  He  expressed  them  in  the  spiritual  dearth  and 
disaster  which  blighted  ancient  Israel,  when  the  nation  turned  away  from 
doing  the  divine  will  in  regard  to  the  sacred  day.  Each  succeeding  century 
has  reiterated  these  verdicts  and  demonstrated  the  fact  that  those  who  disre¬ 
gard  the  divine  element  in  the  Sabbath  gather  ruin.  When  the  falsehood 
which  says,  “  no  day  is  sacred  ”  became  regnant  in  the  early  history  of 
Christianity,  spiritual  canker  and  decay  fastened  on  the  church  like  a 
deadly  fungus.  When  this  same  falsehood  ripened  in  the  French  Revolu¬ 
tion,  God  thundered  forth  his  verdict  again,  high  above  the  smoke  and  din 
of  national  suicide.  At  this  hour,  in  Europe  and  America,  in  Paris  and 
Chicago,  the  clouds  of  divine  retribution  are  gathering,  many- voiced, 
rebuking  human  disregard  for  sacred  time.  The  slight  regard  which  the 
world  pays  to  these  verdicts  is  as  foolish  as  it  is  futile  and  ruinous.  Facts 
do  not  cease  because  men  ignore  them.  Divine  decisions  are  not  removed 
because  men  invent  new  theories  to  show  that  they  ought  to  be  erroneous. 
God  and  truth  outlive  man’s  ignorance  and  his  experiments  in  disobedience. 

The  weekly  rest-day  is  not  an  accident  in  human  history.  It  is  not  a 
superficial  and  temporary  phenomenon.  It  springs  from  the  inherent 


DIVINE  ELEMENT  IN  THE  WEEKLY  REST-DAY.  351 


pnilosophy  of  time  and  from  man’s  relation  to  God  through  it.  Duration  is 
an  immediate  attribute  of  God.  It  is  an  essential  characteristic  of  the 
self-existing  Deity.  He  is  inconceivable  without  it.  “  Time  ”  is  measured 
duration  in  which  man  has  being.  Herein  is  it  true  that  men  “live,  move, 
and  have  their  being  ”  with  and  within  God.  He  is  forever  in  touch  with 
His  children  through  this  environment  of  duration,  as  definitely  as  the 
atmosphere  is  in  touch  with  their  physical  bodies.  Existence  within  this 
attribute  of  God  is  not  subject  to  man’s  volition.  We  can  not  remove  our¬ 
selves  from  continuous  living  contact  with  Him,  even  though  we  refuse  to 
commune  with  Him  through  love  and  obedience.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
loving  soul  can  not  hold  communion  with  God  without  this  medium  of 
time;  and  such  are  the  demands  of  life  on  earth  that  sacred  time  must  be 
definite  in  amount  and  must  recur  at  definite  periods.  This  is  doubly  true 
because  men  are  social  beings,  and  social  worship  and  united  service  are 
essential  factors  in  all  religions. 

In  accordance  with  these  fundamental  principles  and  demands  we  find 
that  the  idea  of  sacred  time,  in  some  of  its  many  forms,  is  universal.  It 
varies  with  religious  and  social  development  and  with  monotheistic  and 
polytheistic  tendencies.  The  supreme  expression  of  this  idea  is  found  in 
the.  week,  a  divinely  appointed  cycle  of  time,  measured,  identified,  and  pre¬ 
served  by  the  Sabbath.  It  is  not  a  week,  but  the  week;  a  uniform  and 
sacred  multiple  of  days,  which  has  endured,  unvariant  and  identical,  from 
the  prehistoric  period  to  the  present  hour.  All  other  divisions  of  time  are 
marked  wholly  by  the  planets,  or  are  so  connected  with  them  as  to  be  vari¬ 
able,  through  needful  adjustment  to  the  natural  order  of  things.  Imperfect 
imitations  of  the  week  like  the  “  nundine  ”  of  the  Romans,  and  the  inter¬ 
calated  lunar  weeks  of  the  Assyrians,  serve  only  to  emphasize  the  supra- 
natural  and  divine  order  of  the  week. 

The  weekly  rest-day  and  the  week  are  the  special  representatives  of 
God;  not  of  “  creation  ”  simply,  but  of  the  universal  Father,  Creator,  Helper 
and  Redeemer;  the  x\ll  in  All;  the  Ever-living  and  Ever-loving  one.  Spring¬ 
ing  from  such  universal  facts,  and  continuing  according  to  such  divine 
philosophy,  the  week  and  the  weekly  rest-day  are  integral  factors  in  the 
eternal  fitness  of  things.  The  foundations  of  religious  life  are  imperiled 
when  this  truth  is  disregarded  or  assailed.  The  consciousness  of  God’s 
ever-abiding  nearness  to  men  is  the  foundation  of  true  religion. 

Philology  is  a  department  of  history.  Language  is  embalmed  thought. 
It  is  an  archaeological  museum  of  crystallized  facts.  It  gives  unerring 
testimony  concerning  the  habits  and  practices  of  men  in  all  ages.  Names 
are  among  the  most  enduring  elements  of  language.  The  existence  of  a 
name  is  proof  that  the  thing  existed  as  early  or  earlier  than  the  name. 
Thus  the  so-called  “dead  languages”  preserve  the  life  of  the  people  who 
have  passed  away.  Nautical  terms  in  a  language  show  that  it  belonged  to 
a  seafaring  race.  If  a  language  be  filled  with  the  names  of  agricultural 
implements,  we  know  that  those  who  spoke  it  were  tillers  of  the  soil,  even 
though  the  land  they  inhabited  be  now  a  desert.  Under  this  universal  law 
of  philology  the  identity  of  the  week  in  its  present  order  is  placed  beyond 
question. 

A  table  of  days  carefully  prepared  by  Dr.  W.  M.  Jones  of  London, 
assisted  by  other  eminent  scholars,  shows  that  the  week  as  we  now  have  it 
exists  in  all  the  principal  languages  and  dialects  of  the  world.  This  philo¬ 
logical  chain  encircles  the  globe,  includes  all  races  of  men,  and  covers  the 
entire  historic  period.  It  proves  that  Infinite  Wisdom  provided  from  the 
earliest  time  and  as  an  essential  part  of  the  divine  order  of  creation  the 
weekly  rest-day,  by  which  alone  the  universal  week  is  measured.  Thus 
God  ordained  to  keep  constantly  in  touch  with  men  through  this  sacred 
attribute  of  Himself  within  which  His  children  exist. 

Being  founded  in  the  divine  order  and  created  to  meet  a  universal 


352 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


demand,  linking  earth  and  heaven  as  God’s  especial  representative,  the 
Sabbath  and  the  week  have  a  supreme  value  in  all  human  alfairs.  But  this 
value  is  fundamentally  and  pre-eminently  religious.  Rest  from  ordinary 
worldly  affairs  is  a  subordinate  idea.  It  has  little  value  except  as  a  means 
to  higher  spiritual  and  religious  ends.  The  blessings  which  come  to  the 
physical  side  of  life  through  rest  are  much,  mainly  or  only,  when  rest  comes 
through  religious  sentiment.  Irreligious  leisure  insures  holiday  ism  and 
dissipation.  These  defeat  all  higher  results.  But  when  men  give  the 
Sabbath  to  rest,  because  it  is  God’s  day,  because  of  reverence  for  Him,  and 
that  they  may  commune  with  Him,  all  their  higher  interests  are  served. 
Spiritual  intercourse  and  acquaintance  with  God  are  the  first  and  supreme 
results.  Worship  and  religious  instruction  follow. 

Under  the  behest  of  religion  the  ordinary  duties  of  life,  its  cares  and  per¬ 
plexities  are  really  set  aside,  not  simply  refrained  from.  Such  a  rest-day 
promotes  all  that  is  best;  it  is  not  merely  a  time  for  physical  inaction.  It 
raises  men  into  companionship  with  God  and  with  good.  It  is  not  burdened 
with  hair-splitting  distinctions  about  what  is  worldly,  what  may  be  done  or 
what  may  not  be  done.  Not  “  thou  shalt  not  do,”  but  “  I  delight  to  do  thy 
will,  O  God,”  is  its  language. 

Nothing  less  than  sacred  time  can  meet  such  demands.  Sacred  places 
and  sacred  shrines  can  not  come  to  them  as  time  does.  They  are  too  far 
removed  from  God  and  too  local  as  to  men.  They  can  not  speak  to  the  soul 
as  time  speaks.  Sacred  hours  are  God’s  unfolding  presence,  lifting  the 
soul  and  holding  it  in  heavenly  converse.  Social  worship  comes  only 
through  specified  time.  Religious  intercourse  among  men,  whereby  each 
stimulates  the  other’s  faith  and  aids  the  other’s  devotion,  is  an  inevitable 
result  of  sacred  time  and  is  unattainable  without  it.  Sacred  time  cul¬ 
tivates  religious  life  by  spiritual  communion,  by  wholesome  instruction 
and  by  healthful  sihritual  surroundings.  It  preserves  and  develops  religious 
life  by  continual  recurrence. 

God  drops  out  of  mind  when  the  practical  recognition  of  sacred  time 
ceases.  The  religious  sense  and  religious  tendencies  disappear  when  the 
consciousness  of  God’s  presence  is  lost.  On  the  other  hand,  all  that  is 
holiest  and  best  springs  into  life  and  develops  into  beauty  when  men 
realize  that  God  is  constantly  near  them.  The  sense  of  personal  obligation, 
awakened  by  the  consciousness  of  God’s  presence,  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
religious  life  and  of  worship.  God’s  day  is  a  perfect  symbol  of  His  pres¬ 
ence,  of  His  enfolding  and  redeeming  love.  The  lesser  blessings  which 
come  to  men  through  sacred  Jtime  need  not  be  catalogued  here,  but  it 
must  be  remembered  that  these  do  not  come  except  through  sacred  time, 
and  that  the  results  which  flow  from  irreligious  idleness  are  curses  rather 
than  blessings.  Holidayism  is  removed  from  Sabbathism. 

An  adequate  conception  of  the  problems  which  surround  the  Sabbath 
question  will  not  be  obtained  unless  we  consider  somethings  which  prevent 
these  higher  views  from  being  adopted.  First  among  hindrances  is  the 
failure  to  recognize  duration  as  an  attribute  of  God,  and  hence  the  Sabbath 
and  the  week,  as  necessary  parts  of  the  divine  and  everlasting  order  of 
things.  Without  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  sacred  time,  as  God’s irepre- 
sentative,  is  a  necessary  result  of  the  primal  and  fundamental  relations 
between  God  and  His  creatures,  there  is  no  adequate  basis  for  a  religious 
rest-day,  nor  for  any  permanent  conception  of  sacred  time.  If  time  is  but 
the  accident  of  man’s  earthly  existence,  Sabbathism  sinks  to  the  plane  of  a 
temporary  ceremony,  or  a  passing  rite  born  of  momentary  choice  or  per¬ 
sonal  desire.  Such  a  conception  is  too  low  to  awaken  conscience  or  to 
cultivate  spiritual  life.  The  absence  of  this  higher  conception  is  the  source 
of  the  present  widespread  non-religious  holidayism,  with  its  long  catalogue 
of  evils,  evils  which  perpetuate  the  falsehood — “  Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for 
to-morrow  we  die.” 


DIVINE  ELEMENT  IN  THE  M'EEKLY  REST-DAY.  353 


Any  conception  of  the  weekly  rest-day  which  does  not  recognize  it  as 
God’s  representative  in  human  life,  and  is  growing  out  of  the  universal 
relations  which  men  sustain  to  Him,  is  earthly,  sensuous,  and  fatal  to  relig¬ 
ion.  Conscience  finds  no  congenial  soil  in  such  low  ground.  Growth 
heavenward  cannot  take  root  in  the  falsehood  which  separates  the  Sabbath 
from  God  and  from  the  life  to  come.  There  can  be  no  religious  rest-day 
without  conscience.  There  is  no  conscience  where  God’s  authority  is  not. 
God  has  written  this  verdict  on  every  page  of  history. 

Another  great  hindrance  is  interposed  when  men  emphasize  and  exalt 
the  importance  of  physical  rest  as  the  reason  for  maintaining  Sabbath 
observance.  This  is  done  because  the  divine  element  is  unrecognized,  and, 
in  turn,  the  divine  element  is  obscured  in  proportion  as  physical  rest  is 
crowded  to  the  front.  This  reverses  the  true  order.  It  places  the  lowest 
highest.  It  exalts  the  material  and  temporary  above  the  spiritual  and 
eternal.  When  the  physical  needs  are  made  prominent,  the  spiritual  per¬ 
ceptions  are  benumbed  and  clouded.  Upon  such  a  basis  the  obligation  to 
rest  is  determined  by  the  extent  of  weariness,  and  the  manner  of  resting  by 
the  kind  of  weariness.  This  desabbatizes  the  rest-day  and  destroys  the 
religious  foundation  which  alone  can  uphold  it.  Let  it  be  repeated:  irrelig¬ 
ious  resting,  at  the  best,  is  holidayism.  It  usually  sinks  to  dissipation  and 
debauchery. 

Another  decided  hindrance  to  the  recognition  of  the  divine  element  in 
the  weekly  rest-day  is  reliance  on  the  civil  law  for  the  enforcement  of  its 
observance.  This  point  is  worthy  of  far  more  careful  and  scientific  consid¬ 
eration  than  it  has  yet  received.  The  vital  divine  element  in  the  weekly 
rest-day  is  eliminated  when  it  is  made  a  “civil  institution.”  The  verdict  of 
history  on  this  point  is  unmistakable,  uniform,  and  imperative.  Any  argu¬ 
ment  is  deceptive  and  destructive  if  it  jjlaces  the  rest-day  on  a  par  with 
those  civil  institutions  that  spring  from  the  relations  which  men  sustain  to 
each  other  in  organized  society,  The  fundamental  difference  is  so  great 
that  the  same  treatment  can  not  be  accorded  to  each.  Civil  institutions 
spring  from  earthly  relations  between  men.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  dura¬ 
tion  is  so  essentially  an  attribute  of  God  that  man’s  relations  to  it  and  to 
God  are  relations  supremely  religious.  Hence  it  is  that  when  civil  author¬ 
ity  is  made  the  ground  or  the  prominent  ground  of  obligation  to  observe 
the  weekly  rest-day,  the  question  ceases  to  be  a  religious  one.  It  is  taken 
out  of  the  realm  of  conscience,  and  of  spiritual  relations,  and  put  on  an 
equality  with  things  human  and  temporary.  This  brings  ruin,  and  nothing 
good  can  be  built  thereon  by  any  sort  of  indirection  or  by  comxjroniise. 

Men  inevitably  cease  to  keep  the  god  ward  side  of  the  question  in  sight, 
when  “  the  law  of  the  land  ”  is  presented  as  the  main  point  of  contact.  The 
ultimate  appeal  is  not  to  Caesar,  but  to  God;  to  conscience,  not  to  congress. 
Here  is  the  fatal  weakness  of  “  Modern  Sabbath  Reform.”  History  sus¬ 
tains  these  conclusions  with  one  voice.  No  weekly  rest-day  has  ever  been 
religiously  or  sacredly  kept  under  the  authority  of  the  civil  law  alone.  On 
the  contrary,  the  religious  element  is  always  destroyed  by  the  supposed 
protes.tion  of  civil  law.  When  conscience,  springing  from  the  recognition 
of  the  divine  element,  is  wanting,  nothing  higher  than  holidayism  can  be 
reached.  The  weekly  rest-day  loses  its  sacredness  and  its  power  to  uplift 
and  bless  whenever  divine  authority  and  the  sanctity  which  follows  there 
from  are  separated  from  it. 

Another  of  the  higher  elements  which  enter  into  the  weekly  rest-day 
must  be  noticed  here.  The  Sabbath  is  the  prophecy  of  everlasting  and 
perfected  rest  in  the  life  to  come.  Heavenly  life  is  the  second  stage  in  the 
existence  of  redeemed  men.  Secure  in  the  consciousness  of  immortality, 
religion  is  always  looking  forward  to  a  better  time  beyond.  Visions  of  this 
eternal  Sabbath,  untouched  by  care,  undimmed  by  sorrow,  and  filled  with 
delightsome  rest,  are  a  part  of  universal  religion.  These  are  not  baseless 


354 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


dreams.  They  are  the  most  real  of  realities.  Spiritual  vision  sees  them  in 
part  while  awaiting  the  hour  of  their  fuller  revelation.  Earthly  Sabbaths 
are  the  type  and  the  promise  of  eternal  rest.  They  are  pulse  throbs  from 
God’s  heart  of  love,  which  speed  along  the  arteries  of  immortality,  assur¬ 
ing  us  of  the  rest  which  remaineth  for  God’s  children  close  beyond  the  veil 
that  but  thinly  intervenes  between  the  loving  soul  and  the  fair  city  of 
eternal  light  and  joy.  Hence  it  is  that  the  Sabbath  is  not  sacred  because 
its  observance  is  commanded.  Its  observance  is  commanded  because  it  is 
intrinsically  sacred.  It  is  not  created  at  Sinai,  but  Sinai  was  made  glo¬ 
rious  by  the  presence  of  Him  from  whom  time  and  eternity  proceed,  and 
who  there  reannounced  this  representative  of  Himself  and  of  His  con¬ 
tinued  presence  among  men.  A  fountain  of  religion  opened  to  satisfy 
man’s  spiritual  nature,  it  is  far  more  than  a  “  memorial  of  creation.”  It  is 
God’s  accredited  ambassador  at  the  court  of  humanity,  always  saying  to 
men,  “  God  is  your  Father,  your  Preserver,  your  Spiritual  Head,  the  Bearer 
of  your  burdens,  the  Healer  of  your  sorrows ;  living  in  Him  your  salvation 
is  secured  and  your  joy  coeternal  with  your  immortality. 

Before  passing  to  consider  a  still  broader  and  possible  result  than  men 
have  yet  considered,  it  may  be  well  to  repeat  the  conclusions  already 
reached. 

1.  Duration,  eternity,  is  the  attribute  of  Deity.  Time  is  measured  duration 
within  which  man  exists  and  by  means  of  which  he  is  forever  living,  moving,  and 
being  ill  God.  It  is  the  divine  involucrum  within  which  man  is  created  and  devel¬ 
oped. 

2.  The  week,  created  and  bounded  by  the  Sabbath,  is  a  universal,  perduring, 
divine  cycle  of  time,  ordained  to  keep  God  in  mind  and  to  draw  men  into  spirit¬ 
ual  communion  with  Him.  Its  order  and  identity  are  coequal  with  history  and 
the  human  race 

3.  The  weekly  rest  day  can  not  serve  the  ends  for  which  it  was  created  on 
any  other  than  a  religious  basis.  That  basis  is  revealed  by  divine  command, 
divine  example,  and  human  needs,  all  springing  from  man’s  relation  to  God.  to 
time,  and  to  eternity.  Christ’s  precepts  and  example  repeated  and  intensified 
God’s  example  and  commandment,  while  His  sacrifice  magnified  and  re-estab¬ 
lished  the  divine  law. 

4.  Our  restless,  overworked  age  cries  out  with  deep  and  religious  ongings 
for  the  blessings  of  the  divinely  ordained  religious  rest-day.  All  nations  and  all 
individuals  need  these  blessings  to  lead  them  heavenward  and  to  lift  them  into 
spiritual  childship  and  communion  with  the  Father  and  Redeemer  of  all. 

5.  Reliance  upon  lower  considerations  and  earth-born  motives  increases 
existing  evils,  prevents  religious  development,  obscures  the  Godward  side  of  the 
question,  and  delays  genuine  reform.  The  closing  decade  of  the  19rh  century  has 
fully  entered  a  world-wide  transition  in  religious  thought,  and  hence  of  the  Sab¬ 
bath  question.  It  is  too  early  to  say  in  detail  what  the  final  readjustment  will 
bring. 

As  men  rise  to  this  higher,  this  true  conception  of  time,  of  the  week 
and  of  the  Sabbath,  and  come  to  observe  it — not  as  a  form,  a  ceremony,  a 
something  to  be  done,  but  in  recognition  of  their  existence  with  and  within 
the  Divine  One — it  is  not  too  much  to  hope  that  universal  Sabbatism, 
religious  Sabbatism,  according  to  God’s  commandment  to  continue  Sab- 
batisra,  is  neither  long  nor  unnatural.  It  is  rather  legitimate  and  ought 
to  be  expected.  Some  could  have  approached  this  in  all  ages,  but  the  masses 
are  yet  far  from  it,  mainly  because  the  treatment  of  the  Sabbath  question 
since  the  3d  century  of  the  Christian  era  has  obscured  or  destroyel^  the 
idea  of  sacred  time.  Real  Sabbatism  can  not  be  attained  on  any  ground 
lower  than  religious  and  spiritual  rest.  So  long  as  men  think  of  the  Sab¬ 
bath  as  a  temporary  institution,  belonging  to  one  “  dispensation,”  or  to  one 
people,  the  higher  conception  will  not  be  reached,  even  in  theory,  much  less 
in  fact.  Men  must  also  rise  above  the  idea  that  legislation,  divine  or  human, 
creates  or  can  preserve  the  Sabbath.  They  must  rather  learn  that  the  Sab¬ 
bath  is  a  part  of  the  eternal  order  of  things,  as  essential  an  element  of  true 
religion  as  the  sun  is  of  the  solar  system.  It  is  older  than  any  legislation, 
and  permanent  beyond  all  changes,  national  or  dispensational. 

When  men  rightly  apprehend  the  divine  element  in  the  weekly  rest-day 


THE  RELIGIOUS  TRAINING  OF  CHILDREN. 


355 


they  do  not  need  the  law  of  the  land  nor  the  fiat  of  the  church  to  induce 
obedience  to  this  blessed  provision  of  their  existence,  which  answers  their 
“crying  out  for  God.”  Until  they  do  apprehend  this  higher  idea  little 
value  is  gained  and  true  Sabbathism  is  unknown., 

What  is  the  final  conclusion?  It  is  plain  and  radical.  Since  the  nature 
of  the  Sabbath  is  fundamentally  religious,  all  considerations  as  to  authority, 
manner  of  observance,  and  future  character  must  be  remanded  to  the 
realm  of  religion.  Conscientious  regard  for  it  as  divinely  ordained,  sacred 
to  God  and  therefore  laden  with  blessings  for  men,  is  the  only  basis  for  its 
continuance.  It  is  not  an  element  of  ceremonialism  to  be  performed  for 
sake  of  a  ritual.  It  is  not  part  of  a  “  legal  system  ”  to  be  obeyed  under  fear 
of  punishment,  nor  is  it  to  be  kept  as  a  ground  of  salvation.  It  is  not  a 
passing  feature  of  ecclesiasticism  to  be,  or  not  to  be,  as  men  may  chance  to 
ordain. 

Furthermore  and  pre-eminently,  it  is  not  a  civil  institution  to  be  enforced 
by  penalties  enjoined  by  human  jurisprudence.  It  rises  far  above  all 
these.  It  reaches  deeper  than  any  of  these.  It  is  an  integral  part 
of  the  relation  which  God’s  immortal  children  sustain  to  him  within 
time  and  throughout  eternity.  It  began  to  be  when  these  fundamental 
relations  began,  and  while  its  earthly  side  ceases  with  earth  life,  the 
divine  side  can  never  cease.  In  a  word,  the  Sabbath  is  a  funda¬ 
mental  factor  in  the  religious  universe.  It  is  God’s  universal  repre¬ 
sentative  in  human  life  and  history.  It  is  the  source  of  countless  blessings 
to  earth’s  weary  multitudes  and  the  foreshadowing  of  eternal  and  perfected 
rest.  It  stands  next  to  Christ,  the  boon  of  boons,  the  gift  of  gifts,  match¬ 
less  in  blessings,  to  be  revered  as  we  revere  God,  and  to  be  preserved  by 
that  loyal  obedience  which  changes  Sinai’s  “Thou  shalt  not”  to  the 
redeemed  soul’s  glad  “  I  must.” 

The  “  morning  stars  ”  sang  at  its  birth  and  the  “  Sons  of  God  ”  answered 
with  glad  hallelujahs.  That  chorus  yet  welcomes  each  soul,  redeemed 
through  divine  love,  as  it  passes  from  earth’s  weariness  to  heaven’s  rest,  to 
the  true  “  Nirvana,”  the  everlasting  Sabbath  in  which  the  world’s  greater 
parliament  of  religions  is  yet  to  convene,  to  go  no  more  out  for  ever  and 
ever. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  TRAINING  OF  CHILDREN. 

BEOTHER  AZARIAS. 

He  completed  his  paper  a  little  before  his  death.  It  was  read 
by  his  brother,  Rev.  John  F.  Mullany,  pastor  of  St.  John’s 
Church,  Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

The  sincere  members  of  all  Christian  denominations  hold  religion  to  be 
an  ^sential  element  of  education.  They  are  convinced  that  they  would 
be  guilty  of  a  gross  breach  of  duty  were  they  to  neglect  this  important 
element  in  the  training  of  their  children.  And  they  are  right.  Conse¬ 
quently  any  system  of  education  from  which  religious  training  is  eliminated 
were  inadequate  and  incomplete,  and  an  injustice  to  the  child  receiving  it. 
Education  should  develop  the  whole  man.  Intellect  and  heart,  body  and 
soul,  should  all  be  cultivated  and  fitted  to  act,  each  in  its  own  sphere, 
with  most  efficiency.  And  so  the  inculcation  of -piety,  reverence,  and  relig¬ 
ious  doctrine  is  of  more  importance  than  training  in  athletic  sports  or 
mathematical  studies.  Moreover,  other  things  being  equal,  that  is  the 
best  education  which  gives  man,  so  to  speak,  the  best  orientation ;  which 
most  clearly  defines  his  relations  with  society  and  with  his  Creator,  and 


3o6 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


points  out  the  way  by  which  he  may  best  attain  the  end  for  which  he  was 
created. 

Now  it  is  only  religious  teaching  that  can  furnish  man  with  this  infor¬ 
mation,  and  it  is  only  in  religious  observances  that  man  can  best  attain  the 
aim  and  purpose  of  all  life  and  promote  the  interests  of  society.  Neither 
ancient  nor  modern  philosopher  has  found  a  better  solution  for  the  enigma 
of  life  than  is  to  be  found  in  religion.  Plato  could  never  imagine  such  a 
monstrous  state  of  affairs  as  education  without  religion.  “All  citizens,” 
says  this  philosopher,  “  must  be  profoundly  convinced  that  the  gods  are 
lords  and  rulers  of  all  that  exists,  that  all  events  depend  upon  their  word 
and  will,  and  that  mankind  is  largely  indebted  to  them.” 

Christianity  has  in  many  respects  changed  man’s  point  of  view.  The 
peojjle  of  the  ancient  world  made  trees  and  flowers  the  habitations  of  gods 
and  goddesses  and  earth-born  spirits.  Their  conception  of  nature  was  pan¬ 
theistic.  Christianity  threw  a  halo  of  tenderness  and  poesy  of  another 
kind  over  the  animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms  of  nature.  Its  Divine  Founder 
wove  the  lilies  of  the  fleld  and  the  vines  of  the  hillside  into  His  discourses. 
Christian  monks  made  smiling  gardens  and  flourishing  cities  out  of  dense 
forests  and  barren  deserts.  Christian  meekness  taught  men  to  look  upon 
every  creature  of  God  as  good.  A  St.  Anthony  tames  the  wild  beasts  of 
the  forests;  a  Frances  of  Assisi  sings  a  hymn  to  the  sun,  and  exhorts  all 
nature,  animate  and  inanimate,  to  love  and  give  thanks  to  God;  a  Francis 
de  Sales  makes  homilies  upon  the  habits  of  bird  and  beast  and  insect;  a 
Wordsworth  recognizes  this  material  universe  as  a  symbol  of  the  higher 
sjjiritual  aspect. 

The  Christian  aspect  is  no  less  distinct  from  the  pagan  aspect.  In  the 
ancient  civilizations  the  individual  was  absorbed  in  the  state,  which  was 
the  supreme  tribunal  that  decided  all  doubts  and  regulated  conscience  and 
conduct.  Christianity  reversed  all  this.  It  flashed  the  white  light  of 
revealed  truth  upon  man’s  nature,  lighting  up  its  intricacies  and  giving 
deeper  insight  into  the  secret  chambers  of  the  human  heart;  it  taught  man 
his  personal  dignity  and  his  sense  of  responsibility ;  it  showed  him  the 
temporal  and  the  eternal  in  their  jiroper  relations;  it  brought  home  to  him 
the  inflnite  price  of  his  soul,  and  thus  led  him  up  to  a  recognition  of  indi¬ 
vidual  rights  and  liberties  that  were  unknown  to  ancient  Greece  and 
Rome. 

We  may  trace  many  of  our  laws  and  customs  to  pagan  days,  but  in  all 
that  is  good  in  our  thinking,  in  our  literature,  in  our  whole  education,  there 
is  a  spirit  that  was  not  in  the  thought,  the  literature,  and  the  education  of 
pagan  people.  We  can  not  rid  ourselves  of  it.  We  can  not  ignore  it  if  we 
would.  The  opponents  of  Christianity  in  attempting  to  lay  down  lines  of 
conduct  and  establish  motives  and  principles  of  action  to  supersede  the 
teachings  of  the  Gospel  and  the  practices  of  the  Church  are  forced  to 
assume  the  very  principles  they  would  supersede.  Here,  let  it  be 
remarked,  lurks  the  fallacy  of  those  who  would  regulate  conduct  without 
religion.  Their  ideal  of  life  is  still  the  Christian  ideal  without  the  Chris¬ 
tian  soul — the  vital  principle- -that  made  that  ideal  an  actuality.  In  thought 
and  external  conduct  they  can  not  rid  themselves  of  that  ideal.  It  is  bred 
in  the  bone;  it  is  part  of  themselves.  Owing  to  the  care  and  earnestness  of 
our  Christian  ancestors,  who  prized  above  all  other  goods  and  gifts  the 
Christian  training  and  the  Christian  lives  of  their  children,  our  modern 
civilization,  look  at  it  how  we  will,  is  Christian  in  its  nature  and  in  its 
essence. 

Men  may  now  speculate  as  to  what  the  actual  state  of  the  world  would 
be  had  Christianity  not  entered  as  a  disturbing  element  deflecting  prog¬ 
ress  from  its  former  course.  Such  speculations  are  safe.  The  work  is  done. 
The  barbarian  who  despised  Roman  civilization  and  sought  its  destruction 
has  been  Christianized;  his  flerce  nature  has  been  curbed  and  tamed;  he 


n-DUDCOtlt 

2-CflAflLC5  mm 

PBEiALrarDUKIl'Bism” 

tffiVi.lt.LEWI5,ni)., 


EMINENT  SEVENTH  DAY  BAPTISTS 


/• 


/ 


/ 


/ 


THE  t  fBRiier 
OF  THE 
mmiK  /If 


i  . 


/•- 


(•»- 


/ 


If*  \  r 


V  V, 

,  " 

V 


;  • 

'<:  •>  S'ir 

*  .K  ‘  ■ 


-H- 


✓ 


.> 


^  * 

1 


THE  RELIGIOUS  TRAINING  OF  CHILDREN. 


357 


has  been  raised  up  into  a  plane  of  culture  and  refinement,  and  imbued  with 
an  ideal  of  life  that  no  formative  influence  outside  of  Christianity  could 
have  given  him.  If  there  still  crops  out  traces  of  our  heredity  from  the 
barbarian,  and  crime  is  rampant,  there  is  no  part  of  Christianity.  It  is 
rather  in  spite  of  Christian  influence.  Human  nature  at  all  times  and 
under  all  circumstances  remains  prone  to  evil.  Civilization,  considered  in 
itself,  only  places  more  effective  weapons  in  the  hands  of  the  criminal.  It 
is  a  natural  good,  and  as  such  is  subject  to  the  accidents  of  every  natural 
good;  therefore  to  evil,  therefore  to  abuse,  therefore  to  crime.  Civiliza¬ 
tion,  then,  possesses  in  itself  certain  elements  of  disintegration.  But  in 
Christianity  there  is  a  conservative  force  that  resists  all  decay.  Christian 
thought,  Christian  dogma,  and  Christian  morals  never  grow  old,  never  lose 
their  efficiency  with  the  advance  of  any  community  in  civilized  life.  Hence 
the  importance  for  the  conservation  of  the  Christian  family  of  impressing 
them  on  the  young  mind. 

John  Stuart  Mill  is  not  of  our  opinion.  To  his  mind  the  world  would 
have  got  on  all  the  better  were  there  no  Christian  religion.  It  set  up, 
according  to  him,  “  a  standard  of  ethics,  in  which  the  only  worth,  pro¬ 
fessedly  recognized,  is  that  of  obedience.”  In  this  patronizing  fashion  does 
he  summarize  his  judgment.  “  That  mankind  owes  a  great  debt  to  this 
morality  and  its  early  teachers  I  should  be  the  last  person  to  deny  ;  but  I 
do  not  scruple  to  say  it,  that  it  is  in  many  points  incomplete  and  one-sided, 
and  that,  unless  ideas  and  feelings  not  sanctioned  by  it  had  contributed  to 
the  formation  of  European  life  and  character,  human  affairs  would  have 
been  in  a  worse  condition  than  they  are  now.”  (Essay  on  Liberty,  page  94.) 

By  the  side  of  Mill’s  inadequate  estimate  of  Christianity,  let  us  place 
another  from  one  who  has  cast  from  him  the  last  shred  of  religious  dogmas. 
Mr.  Lecky,  in  a  more  enlightened  spirit,  bears  witness  to  the  perennial 
haracter  of  Christianity  as  a  conservative  force.  He  says : 

There  is  but  one  example  of  a  religion  which  is  not  naturally  weakened  by 
civilization,  and  that  example  is  Christianity.  •  ♦  *  But  the  great  character 
istic  of  Christianity,  and  the  great  moral  proof  of  its  divinity,  is  that  it  has  been 
the  main  source  of  the  moral  development  of  Europe,  and  that  it  has  discharged 
this  office,  not  so  much  by  an  inclination  of  a  system  of  ethics,  however  pure,  as 
by  the  assimilating  and  attractive  influence  of  a  perfect  ideal.  The  moral  r>rog- 
ress  of  mankind  can  never  cease  to  be  distinctively  and  intensely  Christian,  as 
long  as  it  consists  of  a  gradual  approximation  to  the  character  of  the  Christian 
Founder.  There  is,  indeed,  nothing  more  wonderful  in  the  history  of  the  human 
race  than  the  way  in  which  that  ideal  has  traversed  the  lapse  of  ages,  acquiring 
a  new  strength  and  beauty  with  each  advance  of  civilization,  and  infusing  its 
benefloent  influence  into  every  sphere  of  thought  and  SiQtiou..— Rationalism  in 
Europe,  1  pp.  311,  31. 

This  is  unstinted  praise;  here  is  at  least  one  chapter  of  the  world’s  his¬ 
tory  that  Mr.  Lecky  has  not  misread.  Thus  is  it  that  even  according  to 
the  testimony  of  those  who  are  not  of  us,  our  modern  civilization  has  in  it 
a  unique  element,  divine  and  imperishable  in  its  nature,  growing  out  of  its 
contact  with  the  Christ.  That  characterizing  element,  its  life,  its  soul,  is 
Christianity.  Individuals  may  repudiate  it,  but  as  a  people  we  are  still 
proud  to  call  ourselves  Christians.  We  have  not  come  to  that  pass  at 
which  we  are  ashamed  of  the  cross  in  which  St.  Paul  glorified.  The 
teachings  and  practices  of  Christianity  form  an  essential  part  of  our  educa¬ 
tion.  They  are  intimately  blended  with  our  whole  personal  life. 

Christian  influences  must  needs  preside  over  every  important  act  from 
the  cradle  to  the  grave.  So  the  church  thinks,  and  she  acts  accordingly. 
The  new-born  infant  is  consecrated  with  prayer  and  ceremonial  to  a  Chris¬ 
tian  line  of  conduct  when  the  saving  waters  of  baptism  are  poured  upon  its 
head,  and  it  is  thus  regenerated  in  Christ.  The  remains  of  the  Christians  are 
laid  in  the  grave  with  prayer  and  ceremonial.  At  no  time  in  the  life  of  man 
does  the  cliurch  relax  in  her  care  of  him.  Least  of  all  is  she  disposed  to 
leave  him  to  himself  at  that  period  when  he  is  most  amenable  to  impres¬ 
sion  and  when  she  can  best  lay  hold  upon  his  whole  nature  and  mould  it  in 


358  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

the  ideal  that  is  solely  hers.  Therefore  is  the  church  ever  jealous  of  any 
attempt  on  the  part  of  secularism  to  stand  between  her  and  the  child  she 
has  marked  for  her  own  with  the  sign  of  salvation  through  baptismal  rites. 
She  knows  no  compromise;  she  can  entertain  no  compromise;  she  has  no 
room  for  compromise,  for  she  has  ho  right  to  compromise  or  hesitate  for  a 
moment  when  the  salvation  of  the  child  is  at  stake. 

It  is  not  easy  to  understand  how  a  Christian  can  be  opposed  to  the 
thorough  Christian  education  of  the  child.  It  is  not  surprising  that  men 
like  Ernest  Renan,  who  abandoned  Christianity,  should  do  all  they  could 
to  oppose  it.  With  such  men  it  is  useless  to  argue.  M.  Ernest  Renan  has 
aired  his  views  upon  education.  It  goes  without  saying  that  M.  Renan 
excludes  what  he  calls  theology  as  an  educational  factor.  He  will  have 
none  of  it.  He  divides  all  educational  responsibility  between  the  family 
and  the  state.  He  considers  the  professor  competent  to  instruct  in  secular 
knowledge  only.  The  family  he  regards  as  the  true  educator.  True  is  it 
that  the  family  is  the  great  moulder  of  character.  The  sanctuary  of  a  good 
home  is  a  child’s  safest  refuge.  There  he  is  wrapped  in  the  panoply  of  a 
mother’s  love  and  a  mother’s  care.  This  love  and  this  care  are  the  sunshine 
in  which  his  moral  nature  grows  and  blossoms  into  goodness.  The  child, 
the  youth  blessed  with  a  Christian  home  in  which  he  sees  naught  but  good 
example  and  hears  naught  but  edifying  words,  has  indeed  much  to  be 
thankful  for;  it  is  a  boon  which  the  longest  life  of  gratitude  can  but  ill 
requite.  But  M.  Renan  wants  neither  home  nor  child  Christian.  He  would 
establish  a  religion  of  beauty,  of  culture,  indeed,  of  anything  and  everything 
that  is  not  religion.  The  refining  and  educating  influence  he  means  is  the 
“  eternally  womanly  ” — das  ewige  weibliche — of  Goethe.  It  is  a  sexual 
influence.  It  is  a  continuous  appeal  to  the  gallantry  and  chivalry  of  the 
boy  nature.  This  and  nothing  more. 

Is  it  sufficient  as  an  educational  influence  ?  Without  other  safeguards 
the  boy  soon  outgrows  the  deference  and  respect  and  awe  that  woman 
naturally  inspires.  That  is  indeed  a  superficial  knowledge  of  human  nature 
which  would  reduce  the  chief  factor  of  a  child’s  education  to  womanly 
influence  unconsecrated  by  religion,  unrestrained  by  the  sterner  authority 
of  the  father,  the  law,  the  social  custom. 

The  child  of  a  Christian  home,  where  some  member  of  the  family  is 
competent  and  v/illing  to  give  his  religious  instruction  regularly  and  with 
method,  might  attend  a  purely  secular  school  without  losing  the  Christian 
spirit,  but  these  coaditions  obtain  only  in  exceptional  cases.  What  has  M. 
Renan  to  say  to  the  home  in  which  the  father  is  absorbed  in  making  money 
and  the  mother  is  equally  absorbed  in  spending  that  money  in  worldly 
and  frivolous  amusements,  and  the  children  are  abandoned  to  the  care  of 
servants?  And  what  has  he  to  say  of  the  home  without  the  mother?  And 
the  home  in  which  example  and  precept  are  deleterious  to  the  growth  of 
manly  character?  And  then  consider  the  sunless  homes  of  the  poor  and 
the  indigent,  where  the  struggle  for  life  is  raging  with  all  intensity;  con¬ 
sider  the  home  of  the  workingman,  where  the  father  is  out  from  early 
morning  to  late  at  night,  and  the  mother  is  weighed  down  with  the  cares 
and  anxieties  of  a  large  family  and  drudging  away  all  day  long  at  house¬ 
hold  duties  never  done;  to  speak  of  home  education  and  delicacy  of  con¬ 
science  and  growth  of  character  anjong  such  families  and  under  such  con¬ 
ditions  were  a  mockery.  But  M.  Renan  has  as  happy  a  faculty  in  ignoring 
facts  as  in  brushing  away  whole  epochs  of  history. 

Why  should  the  state  dictate  what  shall  or  shall  not  be  taught  in  regard 
to  religion?  Let  us  never  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  people  do  not  belong 
to  the  state  and  that  the  machinery  we  call  the  state  is  the  servant  of  the 
people,  organized  to  do  the  will  of  the  people.  To  the  parent  belongs  the 
right  to  educate  the  child.  In  the  middle  ages,  when  certain  zealots  would 
compel  the  children  of  Jews  and  Mohammedans  to  be  educated  in  the 


THE  RELIGIOUS  TRAINING  OF  CHILDREN. 


359 


Christian  religion,  St.  ^homas  answered  them  thus:  “  In  the  days  of  Con¬ 
stantine  and  Theodosius  Christian  bishops  like  Saints  Sylvester  and 
Ambrose  would  not  neglect  to  advise  coercion  for  the  education  of  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  pagans  were  it  not  repugnant  to  natural  justice.  The  child  belongs 
to  the  father;  the  child  ought,  therefore,  to  remain  under  the  parent’s  con¬ 
trol.”  And  Pius  IX.  in  our  own  day,  April  25, 1868,  gave  out  to  our  bishops 
the  following  instructions:  “  We  forbid  non -Catholic  pupils  attending  Cath¬ 
olic  schools  to  be  obliged  to  assist  at  mass  or  any  other  religious  exercises. 
Let  them  be  left  to  their  own  discretion.”  If  the  parent  educates  his  child 
himself,  all  well  and  good.  School  laws  are  not  made  for  the  parent  who 
educates  his  own  child.  If  he  does  not  himself  educate  the  child,  it  is  for 
him  to  say  who  shall  replace  him  in  this  important  function.  In  making 
this  decision  the  Christian  parent  is  generally  guided  by  the  church. 

The  church  is  pre-eminently  a  teaching  power — that  teaching  power 
extending  chiefly  to  the  formation  of  character  and  the  development  of  the 
supernatural  man.  Her  Divine  Founder  said:  “  All  power  is  given  to  Me 
in  heaven  and  on  earth;  go,  therefore,  teach  all  nations.”  The  church 
holds  that  of  all  periods  in  the  life  of  man,  the  period  of  childhood  and 
youth,  when  the  heart  is  plastic,  and  character  is  shaping,  and  formative 
influence  leaves  an  indelible  impress,  is  the  one  in  which  religion  can  best 
mould  conduct,  and  best  give  color  to  thought;  and  therefore  the  church 
exhorts  and  encourages  the  Christian  parent  to  make  many  and  great  sac¬ 
rifices  in  order  to  procure  a  Christian  education  for  his  children.  It  is  the 
natural  right  of  every  Christian  child  to  receive  this  education.  It  is  the 
natural  right  and  bounden  duty  of  the  parent,  by  the  twofold  obligation  of 
the  natural  law  and  the  divine  law,  to  provide  his  child  with  this  education. 
And  the  right  being  natural,  it  is  inalienable;  being  inalienable,  it  is  con¬ 
trary  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  justice  to  attempt  to  force  upon  the 
child  any  other  form  of  education  or  to  hinder  the  child  in  the  pursuit  of 
this  education,  or  to  impose  upon  the  child  a  system  of  education  that  would 
in  the  least  tend  to  withdraw  him  from  the  light  and  sweetness  of  the  faith 
that  is  his  inheritance.  The  eminent  and  fair-minded  churchman,  Cardinal 
Manning,  says: 

Compulsory  education,  without  free  choice  in  matters  of  religrion  and  con¬ 
science,  is  and  ever  must  be  unjust  and  destructive  of  the  moral  life  of  a  people. 
—The  Forum,  March,  1887,  p.66. 

It  is  a  breach  of  the  social  pact  that  underlies  all  state  authority.  That 
pact  calls  for  the  protection  of  rights,  not  for  their  violation  or  usurpation. 
And  so,  if  the  Christian  parent  would  give  his  child  a  Christian  education, 
there  is  no  power  on  earth  entitled  or  privileged  to  stand  between  him  and 
the  fulfillment  of  his  wish. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  child  may  learn  the  truths  of  his  religion  in 
Sunday  school,  and  that  religion  is  too  sacred  a  thing  for  the  school-room. 
Can  you  imagine  an  hour  or  two  a  week  devoted  to  the  most  sacred  of  sub¬ 
jects  at  all  in  keeping  with  the  importance  of  that  subject?  Can  you 
imagine  a  child  able  to  realize  the  power,  the  beauty,  the  holiness  of  religion 
from  the  fact  that  he  is  required  to  give  only  an  hour  or  two  out  of  the 
whole  seven  times  twenty-four  hours  of  the  week  to  learn  its  truths?  Again 
let  us  quote  the  same  eminent  authority  whose  words  will  bear  more  weight 
with  them  than  any  we  could  utter:  “The  heartless  talk,”  says  Cardinal 
Manning,  “about  teaching  and  training  children  in  religion  by  their 
parents,  and  at  home,  and  in  the  evening  when  parents  are  worn  out  by 
daily  toil,  or  in  one  day  in  seven  by  Sunday  school,  deserves  no  serious 
reply.  To  sincere  common  sense  it  answers  itself.”  (National  Education: 
The  School  Rate,  page  28.)  “  Heartless  talk  deserves  no  serious  reply.”  Hard 
words  these,  but  their  fitness  is  all  the  more  apparent  the  more  we  study 
the  question. 

Even  our  secularists — those  of  them  the  most  radical — while  not  believing 


360 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


in  the  intrinsic  worth  of  religion  or  morality,  would  still  uphold  them 
both  to  a  certain  extent,  not  because  they  regard  them  as  true,  but  because 
they  consider  them  wholesome  fictions  for  the  people.  Strauss,  who  had 
spent  a  long  and  laborious  life  in  undermining  the  religion  of  Christ,  while 
claiming  for  individuals  the  right  to  accept  or  reject  all  forms  of  belief, 
recognizes  now,  and  far  into  the  future,  the  necessity  of  a  church  for  the 
majority  of  mankind.  He  who  believed  neither  in  a  church  nor  a  God,  who 
would  dry  up  the  sources  of  all  consolation  in  this  life  and  shut  out  every 
glimpse  of  hope  for  the  life  to  come,  still  considered  what  from  his  point 
of  view  was  a  myth  and  an  illusion  a  necessity  for  the  well-being  of  society. 
And  Renan  has  expressed  a  similar  opinion  in  regard  to  morality.  While 
denying  its  obligations  he  acknowledges  its  necessities.  “  Nature,”  he  says, 
“  has  needs  of  the  virtue  of  individuals,  but  this  virtue  is  an  absurdity  in 
itself;  men  are  duped  into  it  for  the  preservation  of  the  race.” 

What  a  shame  and  what  a  pity  that  men  of  genius  should  write  thus! 
This  mode  of  reasoning  will  never  do.  If  religion  and  morality  are  merely 
a  delusion  and  a  snare  then  had  they  better  not  be.  You  can  not  gather 
grapes  from  thorns.  You  can  not  sow  a  lie  and  reap  truth.  Think  of  all 
that  is  meant  by  such  statements  as  these.  Can  you  imagine  a  common¬ 
wealth  erected  upon  falsehood  or  deceit  entering  into  the  very  fabric  of  the 
universe?  It  is  all  implied  in  the  assumption  of  Renan  and  Strauss. 
Teach  a  child  that  religion  and  morality  are  in  themselves  meaningless, 
though  good  enough  for  the  preservation  of  society,  and  you  sow  in  his 
heart  the  seeds  of  pessimism  and  self-destruction.  Then,  there  are  those 
who,  believing  in  religion  and  morality,  still  maintain  in  all  sincerity  that 
these  things  may  be  divorced  in  the  school-room.  Dr.  Crosby  says: 

While  I  thus  oppose  the  teaching  of  religion  in  our  public  schools  I  uphold  the 
teaching  of  morality  there.  To  say  that  religion  and  morality  are  one  is  an  error. 
To  say  that  religion  is  the  only  true  basis  of  morality  is  true.  But  this  does  not 
prove  that  morality  can  not  be  taught  without  teaching  religion. 

It  proves  nothing  else.  The  distinction  between  religion  and  morality  is 
fundamental.  But,  be  it  remembered,  that  we  are  now  dealing  with  Chris¬ 
tian  children,  having  Christian  fathers  and  mothers  who  are  desirous  of 
making  those  children  thoroughly  Christian.  Now,  you  can  not  mould  a 
Christian  soul  upon  a  purely  ethical  training.  In  practice  you  can  not  sep¬ 
arate  religion  from  morality.  A  code  of  ethics  will  classify  one’s  passions, 
one’s  vices,  one’s  virtues,  one’s  moral  habits  and  tendencies,  but  it  is  quite 
unable  to  show  how  passion  may  be  overcome  or  virtue  acquired.  It  is  only 
from  the  revelation  of  Christianity  that  we  learn  the  cause  of  our  innate 
proneness  to  evil;  it  is  only  in  the  saving  truths  of  Christianity  that  we  find 
the  meaning  and  the  motive  of  resisting  that  tendency.  Let  us  not  deceive 
ourselves.  The  morality  that  is  taught  apart  from  religious  truth  and 
religious  sanction  isf'a  delusion. 

The  history  of  rationalism  is  strewn  with  wrecks  of  intellectual  pride. 
These  men  illustrate  the  revolt  of  reason  against  religion.  M.  Ernest  Renan 
is  a  case  in  point.  A  simple  Catholic  youth,  holding  his  articles  of  faith  all 
the  truths  taught  by  the  Catholic  church,  he  enters  upon  a  course  of 
studies  for  the  Catholic  priesthood.  He  prays  devoutly  with  his  companions 
of  the  Seminaries  of  Issy  and  St.  Sulpice;  he  receives  the  sacraments  with 
them;  he  follows  all  the  spiritual  exercises  with  them;  and  yet  a  day  comes 
when  he  finds  that  he  has  lost  the  faith  and  is  no  longer  a  believer  in  the 
revealed  religion.  Whence  comes  this  to  be  so?  The  truths  of  religion  are, 
many  of  them,  distinct  from  natural  truths;  they  are  above  natural  truths, 
and  yet  they  are  based  upon  them.  Faith  supposes  reason.  Now,  M. 
Renan  has  left  us  an  amusing  account  of  himself — M.  Renan  is  amusing  or 
nothing — and  therein  we  learn  that  he  began  by  sapping  the  natural  foun¬ 
dations  on  which  supernatural  truth  rests;  he  played  fast  and  loose  with 
philosophic  truth,  attempted  to  reconcile  the  most  contradictory  assump- 


THE  RELIGIOUS  TRAINING  OF  CHILDREN. 


361 


tions  of  Kant  and  Hegel  and  Schelling;  he  repudiated  the  primary  princi¬ 
ples  of  his  reason,  and  so  undermined  its  whole  basis  that  it  was  no  wonder 
to  see  the  superstructure  topple  over.  He,  a  boy  of  twenty,  with  very  little 
strength  of  intellect,  but  with  an  overweening  ambition  that  supplied  all 
other  deficiencies,  sat  in  judgment  upon  all  things  in  heaven  and  upon 
earth,  especially  upon  the  religion  which  he  had  professed  and  for  the  min¬ 
istry  in  which  he  was  preparing  himself.  From  that  moment  the  Christian 
religion  ceased  to  be  for  him  an  active  principle.  He  no  longer  believed 
in  the  truths  of  Christianity.  While  conforming  to  its  external  practices, 
the  warmth  and  the  life  of  it  had  vanished,  and  his  active  brain,  having 
nothing  else  to  feed  upon,  made  of  his  religion  a  mere  intellectual  exercise, 
and  finally  a  marketable  commodity,  the  means  by  which  to  create  unto 
himself  a  name.  He  placed  religious  truth  on  the  same  footing  with  nat¬ 
ural  science  and  tested  both  by  the  same  methods.  Naturally  truths  that 
are  deductive,  based  upon  authority  beyond  the  scope  of  reason,  vanish  into 
thin  air  when  one  attempts  to  analyze  them  as  one  would  the  ingredients 
of  salt  and  water.  They  are  effective  only  when  received  with  reverence, 
submission,  and  implicit  faith.  In  this  manner  did  Renan’s  faith  disappear 
before  his  intellectual  pride. 

“  In  a  scientific  age,”  says  Cardinal  Newman,  “  there  will  naturally  be  a 
parade  of  what  is  called  natural  theology,  a  widespread  profession  of  the 
Unitarian  creed,  an  impatience  of  mystery,  and  a  skepticism  about  mira¬ 
cles.”  Now,  if  this  intellectual  temper  is  to  be  looked  for  under  the  most 
favorable  auspices,  what  religious  dearth  may  we  not  expect  to  find  among 
young  men  out  of  whom  all  theological  habits  of  thought  have  been  starved, 
and  in  whom  all  spiritual  life  has  become  extinct?  The  school  from  which 
religious  dogma  and  religious  practices  have  been  banished  is  simply  pre¬ 
paring  a  generation  of  atheists  and  agnostics.  There  is  a  large  grain  of 
truth  in  the  remark  of  Renan,  that  if  humanity  was  intelligent  and  nothing 
else  it  would  be  atheistic.  And  yet  this  man,  whose  views  I  find  shadowy, 
shifting,  panoramic,  and  unreal,  this  maker  of  clever  phrases,  would  pro¬ 
mote  nothing  but  intellectual  culture,  soul  culture.  “  They  are,”  he  says, 
‘‘  not  simple  ornaments;  they  are  things  no  less  sacred  than  religion.  *  *  * 
Intellectual  culture  is  pre-eminently  holy.  *  *  *  It  is  our  religion.” 
(“La  Reforme,”  pp.  309,  310.)  Renan  holds  this  culture  sacred,  because  he 
hopes  thereby  to  make  men  atheistic. 

Will  any  intelligent  man  hold  that  youth  educated  thus  can  be  earnest 
Christians?  Does  not  experience  prove  that  family  influence  is  too  weak 
to  enable  them  to  resist  the  torrent  of  passion  and  unbelief?  No;  purely 
intellectual  culture  will  not  take  the  place  of  religion.  Where  men  aban¬ 
don  themselves  to  the  exclusive  cultivation  of  the  intellect ;  where  they  per¬ 
mit  pursuits  of  any  kind  to  monopolize  their  energies,  to  the  neglect  of  the 
spiritual  side  of  their  natures,  they  are  doing  thaiftselves  an  injustice. 
They  are  ignoring  their  supernatural  destiny.  They  are  making  of  them¬ 
selves  mere  human  machines  for  the  performance  of  certain  functions. 
They  are  missing  the  completeness  of  life  for  which'  they  were  created. 
Youth,  trained  on  these  lines,  are  putting  themselves  in  a  fair  way  to 
despise  that  which  they  have  systematically  neglected.  Knowledge  is,  in 
itself,  good  ;  it  is  a  great  power  ;  but  knowledge  is  not  all.  With  no  less 
truth  than  aptness  has  the  poet  sung  : 

Make  knowledg:e  circle  with  the  winds; 

But  let  her  herald,  Reverence,  fly 

Before  her  to  whatever  sky 

Bears  seeds  of  men  and  growth  of  minds. 

But  knowledge,  exclusively  cultivated,  will  lack  this  reverence.  Knowl¬ 
edge  is  only  too  prone  to  puff  up  the  unballasted  mind.  It  supplies  food 
for  the  intellect,  gives  it  strength  and  development  and  aptitude  upon 
definite  lines.  But  the  intellect  works  only  according  as  the  will  directs. 


362 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


It  is  a  pliant  tool  in  the  hands  of  the  will.  When  the  will  is  good  and  oper¬ 
ates  toward  right  doing,  intellectual  endowment  is,  indeed,  a  blessing ; 
when  the  will  is  depraved,  a  trained  intellect  becomes  all  the  more  mis¬ 
chievous.  Reason  enlightens  the  will  and  enables  it  to  indicate  the  motives; 
but  religion  alone  has  the  life-giving  power  that  nerves  and  fires  the  whole 
life  energies  of  man  for  good.  This  has  been  the  way  of  humanity  in  the 
past,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  so  in  the  future. 

Not,  then,  in  intellectual  culture  may  we  find  the  proper  substitute  for 
religious  training.  Nor  yet  in  the  culture  of  the  aesthetic  sense.  Love  of 
art  in  all  its  chief  departments,  enthusiasm  for  music  and  poetry,  and  the 
beautiful  in  life  and  conduct,  are,  one  and  all,  commendable.  But  that 
these  things  should  be  everything,  that  they  should  be  the  sole  barriers 
erected  against  vice  and  crime,  the  sole  motives  of  life,  the  sole  criterion  of 
conduct — is  out  of  question.  Sense  of  beauty  has  never  been  able  to  stand 
between  human  selfishness  and  the  gratification  of  any  passion.  When 
exclusively  cultivated,  its  tendency  is  to  render  men  and  women  rather 
effeminate  and  weak  before  temptation.  In  no  country  was  art  more 
thoroughly  cultivated,  or  did  art  enter  more  intimately  into  all  relations  of 
life  than  it  did  in  Greece  ;  but  at  no  time  in  the  history  of  Greece  did  men 
dream  of  substituting  art  culture  for  religious  prayer  and  ceremonial. 

Beauty  can  not  supplant  virtue;  it  can  not  stand  on  the  same  footing 
with  virtue.  Beauty  is  a  natural  gift,  pure  and  simple,  whereas  virtue  is 
based  upon  man’s  free  will  and  grows  out  of  man’s  relation  with  his  Cre¬ 
ator.  Make  the  sense  of  beauty  the  ideal  of  life  and  you  may  end  in  holding 
with  Renan  “that  beauty  is  so  superior,  talent,  genius,  virtue  itself,  are 
naught  in  its  presence  ” — a  proposition  bearing  on  its  face  its  own  refuta¬ 
tion.  Not  in  culture  of  the  aesthetic  sense  is  a  substitute  for  religious 
training  to  be  found. 

Neither  is  the  substitute  to  be  found  in  that  purely  ethical  culture 
which  has  in  these  days  been  made  a  religion.  You  can  not  make  such 
culture  the  basis  of  virtue.  Is  it  virtue  to  recognize  in  a  vague  manner 
-  distinctions  between  right  and  wrong,  or  to  know  what  is  graceful  and 
becoming  in  conduct?  By  no  means.  As  we  have  already  seen,  virtue  is 
made  of  sterner  stuff.  The  practice  of  virtue  is  based  upon  the  dictates  of 
conscience.  Conscience  has  sanction  in  its  recognition  of  the  fact  of  a  law¬ 
giver  to  whom  every  rational  being  is  responsible  for  his  acts.  What 
sanction  has  the  moral  sense  as  such?  None  beyond  the  constitution  of 
our  nature.  We  are  told  by  the  apostles  of  ethical  culture  that  the 
supreme  law  of  our  being  is  to  live  out  ourselves  in  the  best  and  highest 
sense.  But  what  is  best  and  highest?  If  we  consult  only  the  tendencies 
of  our  poor,  feeble,  erring  human  nature,  whither  will  they  lead  us?  There 
are  many  things  forbidden  by  the  laws  of  Christian  morality  as  injurious 
to  the  individual  and  destructive  of  society,  that  are  looked  upon  as  good 
by  those  who  have  drffted  from  Christian  faith.  You  may,  under  certain 
favorable  circumstances,  cultivate  in  the  child  a  sense  of  self-respect  that 
will  preserve  it  from  gross  breaches  of  morality,  but  you  are  not  thereby 
implanting  virtue  in  its  soul.  Now  the  Christian  parent,  the  Christian 
teacher,  and  the  Christian  clergyman  would  see  the  soul  of  every  child  a 
blooming  garden  abounding  in  every  Christian  virtue.  This  is  the  source 
of  all  real  social  and  personal  progress. 

There  is  no  true  moral  improvement  based  upon  purely  ethical  culture. 
Theory  is  not  practice;  knowing  is  not  doing.  The  world  was  never  reno¬ 
vated — the  world  would  have  never  been  renovated — by  the  ethical  codes 
of  Marcus  Aurelius  or  Epictetus.  The  morality  that  enters  into  men’s  con¬ 
victions,  that  becomes  part  of  their  very  existence,  that  influences  their 
lives  and  braces  them  up  to  resist  or  forbear  from  wrong-doing  under  the 
most  trying  circumstances,  has  a  higher  source  than  the  moral  teaching 
that  would  make  the  beautiful  in  conduct  the  sole  criterion  of  life.  Ethical 


THE  BELIGIOUS  TRAINING  OF  CHILDREN. 


3GP. 


culture  may  veneer  the  surface,  but  it  can  not  penetrate  to  the  depths  of 
the  human  heart.  With  a  certain  happy  combination  of  traits  in  the  nat¬ 
ural  disposition  of  the  soul,  it  may  lead  to  the  practice  of  natural  virtues; 
but  this  is  not  the  supernatural  life  of  the  Christian.  This  is  not  the  ideal 
life  laid  down  by  St.  Paul.  The  ideal  of  secularism  considers  only  the 
pleasant  and  the  agreeable;  the  fair  and  the  proper  are  the  secularist’s  chief 
objects  in  life. 

What  has  secularism  in  any  of  its  phases  to  do  with  the  saving  of  souls 
or  the  fear  of  hell,  or  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  grace,  and  redemption,  or 
the  theological  virtues  of  faith,  hope,  and  charity,  or  with  spiritual  life,  or 
the  reign  of  the  kingdom  of  .God  in  human  hearts?  This  is  a  world  ignored 
or  denied  altogether  by  secularism.  It  has  no  place  for  the  lesson  that  the 
cross  comes  before  the  crown,  that  men  must  sorrow  before  they  can  rejoice, 
that  pain  is  frequently  to  be  chosen  before  pleasure,  that  the  flesh  and  the 
spirit  are  to  be  mortified,  that  passions  are  to  be  resisted  and  man  must 
struggle  against  his  inferior  nature  to  the  death.  Now  this  doctrine  is 
to-day  as  hard  a  doctrine  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  St.  Paul,  when  men 
pronounced  it  a  stumbling  block  and  foolishness.  The  Christian  parent 
and  the  Christian  Church  are  convinced  that  it  is  only  by  placing  the 
Christian  yoke  upon  the  child  in  its  tender  years  that  the  child  will  after¬ 
ward  grow  up  to  manhood  or  womanhood  finding  that  yoke  agreeable — for 
the  Divine  Founder  of  Christianity  has  assured  us  that  His  yoke  is  sweet 
and  His  burden  light— and  will  afterward  persevere  in  holding  all  these 
spiritual  truths  and  practices  that  make  the  Christian  home  and  the  Chris¬ 
tian  life  a  heaven  upon  earth.  This  is  why  Christian  parents  make  so  many 
sacrifices  to  secure  their  children  a  Christian  education.  This  is  why  you 
find,  the  world  over,  men  and  women  religious  teachers  immolating  their 
lives,  their  comforts,  their  homes,  their  talents,  their  energies,  that  they 
may  cause  Christian  virtues  to  blossom  in  the  hearts  of  the  little  ones  con¬ 
fided  to  them.  This  is  why,  in  the  city  of  New  York  alone,  we  are  witnesses, 
this  very  year,  of  not  less  than  54,000  Catholic  children,  in  the  whole  State 
not  less  than  150,000,  and  in  the  United  States  nearly  800,000  attending  our 
parish  schools  at  great  sacrifices  for  pastors  and  parents  and  teachers.  The 
church  will  always  render  to  Cassar  the  things  that  are  Cmsar’s,  but  she 
will  continue  to  guard  and  protect  and  defend  her  own  rights  and  preroga¬ 
tives  in  the  matter  of  education.  She  can  not  for  a  single  moment  lose 
sight  of  the  supernatural  destiny  of  man  and  of  her  mission  to  guide  him 
from  the  age  of  reason  toward  the  attainment  of  that  destiny. 

We  know  not  how  forcibly  we  have  presented  the  plea  for  the  religious 
training  of  children,  but  we  know  that  we  have  sought  to  give  no  mere 
individual  impressions,  but  the  profound  convictions  with  which  Christian 
parents  act  when  insisting  upon  giving  their  children  a  Christian  education. 
Therefore,  sincere  Christiaus,  whether  Catholic,  Lutheran,  Baptist,  or 
Episcopalian,  be  they  named  what  they  may,  can  never  bring  themselves 
to  look  on  with  unconcern  at  any  system  of  education  that  is  calculated 
to  rob  their  children  of  the  priceleps  boon  of  their  Christian  inheritance. 
Prizing  their  souls  more  than  their  bodies,  they  would  rather  see  them 
dead  than  that  their  souls  should  be  pinched  and  starved  for  want  of  the 
life-giving  food  that  comes  of  Christian  revelation.  Therefore  it  is  that 
they  can  not  for  a  moment  tolerate  their  children  in  an  atmosphere  of 
secularism,  from  which  Christian  prayer  and  Christian  practices  havQ 
been  banished. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


eighth  day,  SEPTEMBER  18th. 


GREAT  TEACHERS  OF  RELIGION. 

Three  sessions  were  held  on  the  eighth  day  of  the  parliament, 
Dr.  Barrows  being  chairman  in  the  morning  and  afternoon, 
and  Dr.  Lawrence  of  the  Second  Baptist  Church,  Chicago,  In 
the  evening.  The  parliament  was  opened  by  silent  prayer, 
supplemented  by  the  universal  prayer  offered  by  Rev  Frank 
Bristol  and  repeated  by  the  audience. 


THE  SYMPATHY  OF  RELIGIONS. 

THOMAS  WENTWORTH  HIGGINSON. 

In  introducing  Colonel  Higginson,  Dr.  Barrows  said: 

It  seems  to  me  very  appropriate  that  the  speaker  of  the  next  half-hour 
should  have  been  invited  to  this  parliament  to  deliver  this  address,  for  the 
reason  that  for  many  years  his  own  heart  has  been  a  Parliament  of  Religions. 
Known  to  many  in  our  land,  Coloneh  Thomas  Wentworth  Higginson,  of 
Cambridge,  is  a  scholar  whom  we  delight  to  honor,  a  literary  man  among 
the  foremost  in  our  country,  an  American  of  Americans,  a  soldier  and  a 
patriot,  and  a  friend  of  humanity  who  will  now  address  you  on  “The  Sym¬ 
pathy  of  Religions.” 

Colonel  Higginson  was  greeted  with  great  enthusiasm  on 
rising  to  deliver  his  address. 

I  am  sorry  to  see  that  our  chairman  keeps  up  a  practice,  in  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  many  gentlemen  with  long  names  from  many  other  countries,  of 
heaping  injudicious  epithets  upon  them,  with  a  result  that  could  silence 
anybody  but  an  American.  It  is  interesting  to  think,  as  a  result  of  his 
great  labors  and  your  sympathy,  that  all  over  this  land,  probably  hundreds 
of  pulpits  were  making  this  Parliament  of  Religions  their  topic  for  discus¬ 
sion  yesterday.  All  over  this  land  there  were  discussions  varying  in  a 
range  only  to  be  equaled  by  the  range  of  the  parliament  itself.  Some  of 
those  discussions  had  a  breadth  and  grasp,  no  doubt,  worthy  of  their  sub¬ 
ject;  others,  among  those  discussions,  had  a  concentrated  narrowness  and 
pettiness  which  could  only  be  illustrated  by  what  a  Washington  lady  said 
about  the  English  statesman,  Mr.  Chamberlain,  after  his  residence  there. 

3G4 


THE  SYMPATHY  OF  RELIGIONS, 


3G5 


“He  is  a  nice  man,”  she  said,  “but  he  doesn’t  know  how  to  dance.  He  takes 
steps  so  small  that  you’d  think  he  had  practiced  on  a  postage  stamp.”  Amid 
all  that  range  of  discussion,  how  few  there  probably  were  who  recognized 
that  this  is,  after  all,  not  the  first  American  Parliament  of  Religions,  but 
that  the  first  parliament  was  coincident  with  the  very  foundation  of  this 
government  and  was  accepted  in  illustration  of  its  workings. 

When  in  1788  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  adopted,  and  a 
commemorative  procession  of  5,000  people  took  place  in  Philadelphia,  then 
the  seat  of  Government,  a  place  in  the  triumphal  march  was  assigned  to  the 
clergy,  and  the  Jewish  rabbi  of  the  city  walked  between  two  Christian 
ministers,  to  show  that  the  new  republic  was  founded  on  religious  tolera¬ 
tion.  It  seems  strange  that  no  historical  painter,  up  to  this  time,  has 
selected  for  his  theme  that  fine  incident.  It  should  have  been  perpetuated  in 
art,  like  the  “  Landing  of  the  Pilgrims  ”  or  “  Washington  Crossing  the  Dela¬ 
ware.”  And  side  by  side  with  it  might  well  be  painted  the  twin  event  which 
ocGured  nearly  a  hundred  years  later,  in  a  Mohammedan  country,  when  in 
1875  Ismael  Pasha,  then  Khedive  of  Egypt,  celebrating  by  a  procession  of 
200,000  people  the  obsequies  of  his  beloved  and  only  daughter,  placed  the 
Mohammedan  priests  and  Christian  missionaries  together  in  the  procession, 
on  the  avowed  ground  that  they  served  the  same  God,  and  that  he  desired 
for  his  daughter’s  soul  the  prayers  of  all. 

During  the  interval  between  these  two  great  symbolic  acts,  the  world  of 
thought  was  revolutionized  by  modern  science,  and  the  very  fact  of  religion, 
the  very  existence  of  a  divine  power,  was  for  a  time  questioned.  Science 
rose,  like  the  caged  afreet  in  the  Arabian  story,  and  filled  the  sky.  Then 
more  powerful  than  the  afreet,  it  accepted  its  own  limitations  and  achieved 
its  greatest  triumph  in  voluntarily  reducing  its  claims.  Supposed  by  many 
to  have  dethroned  religion  forever,  it  now  offers  to  dethrone  itself  and  to 
yield  place  to  imaginative  aspiration — a  world  outside  of  science — as  its 
superior.  This  was  done  most  conclusively  when  Professor  Tyndall,  at  the 
close  of  his  Belfast  address,  uttered  that  fine  statement,  by  which  he  will 
perhaps  be  longest  remembered,  that  religion  belongs  not  to  the  knowing 
powers  of  man,  but  to  his  creative  powers.  It  was  an  epoch-making 
sentence. 

If  knowing  is  to  be  the  only  religious  standard,  there  is  no  middle 
ground  between  the  spiritual  despair  of  the  mere  agnostic  and  the  utter 
merging  of  one’s  individual  reason  in  some  great  organized  church — the 
Roman  Catholic,  the  Greek  Catholic,  the  Mohammedan,  the  Buddhist. 
But  if  human  aspiration,  or  in  other  words  man’s  creative  imagination,  is  to 
be  the  standard,  the  humblest  individual  thinker  may  retain  the  essence 
of  religion  and  may,  moreover,  have  not  only  one  of  these  vast  faiths  but 
all  of  them  at  his  side.  Each  of  them  alone  is  partial,  limited,  unsatisfying. 

Among  all  these  vast  structures  of  spiritual  organization  there  is 
sympathy.  It  lies  not  in  what  they  know,  for  they  are  alike,  in  a  scientific 
sense,  in  knowing  nothing.  Their  point  of  sympathy  lies  in  what  they 
have  sublimely  created  through  longing  imagination.  In  all  these  faiths  is 
the  same  alloy  of  human  superstition;  the  same  fables  of  miracle  and 
prophecy;  the  same  signs  and  wonders;  the  same  perpetual  births  and 
resurrections.  In  point  of  knowledge  all  are  helpless;  in  point  of  credulity, 
all  puerile;  in  point  of  aspiration,  all  sublime.  All  seek  after  God,  if 
haply  they  might  find  him.  All,  moreover,  look  round  for  some  human  life 
more  exalted  than  the  rest  which  may  be  taken  as  God’s  highest  reflection. 
Terror  leads  them  to  imagine  demons,  hungry  to  destroy,  but  hope  creates 
for  them  redeemers  mighty  to  save.  Buddha,  the  prince,  steps  from  his 
station;  Jesus,  the  carpenter’s  son,  from  His,  and  both  give  their  lives  for 
the  service  of  man.  That  the  good  thus  prevails  above  the  evil  is  what 
makes  religion — even  the  conventional  and  established  religion — a  step 
forward,  not  backward,  in  the  history  of  man. 


366 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Every  great  medieval  structure  in  Christian  Europe  recalls  in  its  archi¬ 
tecture  the  extremes  of  hope  and  fear.  Above  the  main  doors  of  the 
Cathedral  of  Notre  Dame  in  Paris  strange  figures  imprisoned  by  one  arm 
in  the  stone  strive  with  agonized  faces  to  get  out;  devils  sit  upon  wicked 
kings  and  priests;  after  the  last  judgment  demons  like  monkeys  hurry  the 
troop  of  the  condemned,  still  including  kings  and  priests,  away.  Yet 
nature  triumphed  over  all  these  terrors,  and  I  remember  that  between  the 
horns  of  one  of  the  chief  devils,  while  I  observed  it,  a  swallow  had  built 
its  nest  and  twittered  securely.  And  not  only  did  humbler  nature  thus 
triumph  beneath  the  free  air,  but  within  the  church  the  beautiful  face  of 
Jesus  showed  the  victory  of  man  over  his  fears. 

In  the  same  way  a  recent  English  traveler  in  Thibet,  after  describing  an 
idol-room  filled  with  pictures  of  battles  between  hideous  fiends  and  equally 
hideous  gods,  many  headed  and  many  armed,  says: 

But  among  all  these  repulsive  faces  of  degraded  type,  distorted  with  evil  pas¬ 
sions,  we  saw  in  st'  iJring  contrast  here  and  there  an  image  of  the  contemplative 
Buddha,  with  beautiful,  calm  features,  pure  and  pitiful,  such  as  they  have  been 
handed  down  by  painting  and  sculpture  for  2,000  years,  and  which  the  lamas 
(priests)  with  all  their  perverted  imagination  have  never  ventured  to  change 
when  designing  an  idol  of  the  great  Incarnation, 

The  need  of  this  high  exercise  of  the  imagination  is  shown  even  by  the 
regrets  of  those  who,  in  their  devotion  to  pure  science,  are  least  willing  to 
share  it.  The  penalties  of  a  total  alienation  from  the  religious  life  of  the 
world  are  perhaps  severer  than  even  those  of  superstition. 

I  know  a  woman  who,  passing  in  early  childhood  from  the  gentleness  of 
a  Roman  Catholic  convent  to  a  severely  evangelical  boarding-school, 
recalls  distinctly  how  she  used  in  her  own  room  to  light  matches  and  smell 
of  the  sulphur,  in  order  to  get  used  to  what  she  supposed  to  be  her  doom. 
Time  and  the  grace  of  God,  as  she  thought,  saved  her  from  such  terrors  at 
last,  but  what  chance  of  removal  has  the  gloom  of  the  sincere  agnostic  of 
the  Clifford  or  Amberley  type,  who  looks  out  upon  a  universe  impoverished 
by  the  death  of  Deity? 

The  pure  and  high-minded  Clifford  said:  “We  have  seen  the  spring  sun 
shine  out  of  an  empty  heaven  upon  a  soulless  earth,  and  we  have  felt  with 
utter  loneliness  that  the  Great  Companion  was  dead.”  “In  giving  it  up” 
(the  belief  in  God  and  immortality),  wrote  Viscount  Amberley,  whom  I 
knew  in  his  generous  and  enthusiastic  youth,  with  that  equally  high-minded 
and  more  gifted  wife,  both  so  soon  to  be  removed  by  death,  “  we  are 
resigning  a  balm  for  the  wounded  spirit,  for  which  it  would  be  hard  to  find 
an  equivalent  in  all  the  repertories  of  science  and  in  all  the  treasures  of  phil¬ 
osophy.” 

It  is  in  escaping  this  dire  tragedy— in  believing  that  what  we  cease  to 
hold  by  knowledge  we  can  at  least  retain  by  aspiration — that  the  sympathy 
of  religions  comes  in  to  help  us.  That  sympathy  unites  the  kindred  aspir¬ 
ations  of  the  human  race.  No  man  knows  God;  all  strive  with  their  high¬ 
est  powers  to  create  him  by  aspiration;  and  we  need  in  this  vast  effort  not 
the  support  of  some  single  sect  alone,  like  Roman  Catholics  or  Buddhists, 
but  the  strength  and  sympathy  of  the  human  race.  What  brings  us  here 
to-day?  What  unites  us?  But  that  we  are  altogether  seeking  after  God, 
if  haply  we  may  find  Him. 

We  shall  find  Him,  if  we  find  Him  at  all,  individually,  by  opening  each 
for  himself  the  barrier  between  the  created  and  the  Creator.  If  supernat¬ 
ural  infallibility  is  gone  forever,  there  remains  what  Stuart  Mill  called  with 
grander  baptism  supernatural  hopes.  It  is  the  essence  of  a  hope  that  it 
can  not  be  formulated  or  organized  or  made  subject  or  conditional  on  the 
hope  of  another.  All  the  vast  mechanism  of  any  scheme  of  salvation  or 
religious  hierarchy  becomes  powerless  and  insignificant  besides  the  hope  in 
a  single  human  soul.  Losing  the  support  of  any  organized  human  faith 
we  become  possessed  of  that  which  all  faiths  collectively  seek.  Their  joint 


THE  HISTORIC  CHRIST, 


367 


fellowship  gives  more  than  the  loss  of  any  single  fellowship  takes  away. 
We  are  all  engaged  in  that  magnificent  work  described  in  the  Buddhist 
“  Dhammapada  ”  or  “  Path  of  Light.”  “  Make  thyself  an  island;  work  hard, 
be  wise.”  If  each  could  but  make  himself  an  island  there  would  yet 
appear  at  last  above  these  waves  of  despair  or  doubt  a  continent  fairer 
than  Columbus  won. 


THE  HISTORIC  CHRIST. 

ET,  KEY.  T.  \V.  DUDLEY,  BISHOP  OF  KENTUCKY. 

“  The  friends  of  this  Parliament  of  Religions,”  said  Dr. 
Barrows  in  introducing  Bishop  Dudley  of  Kentucky,  “are  not 
confined  to  those  who,  for  many  years,  like  Colonel  Higginson, 
may  be  said  to  have  anticipated  it.  The  friends  of  this  parlia¬ 
ment  number  in  their  ranks  a  large  number  of  the  most  eminent 
scholars  and  bishops  of  the  orthodox  churches  of  our  country. 
I  have  received  in  the  course  of  th'"  last  two  years,  from  more 
than  twenty  bishops  of  the  Anglis^aU  Church,  letters  and  some¬ 
times  elaborate  and  able  arguments  in  favor  of  this  meeting  of 
the  faiths,  and  I  have  been  cheered  from  the  very  beginning  by 
the  earnest  co-operation  of  the  eminent  Anglican  or  American 

bishop  who  is  now  to  speak  to  us. 

Beyond  a  controversy  in  or  about  the  year  750  of  the  building  of  the 
City  of  Rome,  a  man  named  Jesus  was  born  in  the  province  of  Judea. 
Equally  beyond  a  controversy  this  man  was  crucified  before  Pontius  Pilate, 
a  Roman  Governor  at  Jerusalem,  in  or  about  the  year  of  the  city,  783. 

Of  this  man  Jesus  millions  of  men  believe  that,  according  to  His  own 
sure  word  of  promise.  He  came  back  from  the  grave  on  the  third  day 
after  His  crucifixion;  that  forty  days  thereafter  in  the  presence  of  chosen 
witnesses  He  visibly  ascended  into  the  heavens;  that  there  He  liveth  to 
make  pepetual  intercession  with  the  one  God,  His  own  Father,  for  us  men 
whom  He  did  redeem ;  that  in  the  fullness  of  time  He  shall  come  again  with 
glory  to  judge  both  the  quick  and  the  dead;  and  that  of  His  kingdom 
there  shall  be  no  end.  They  believe  that,  of  His  bitter  suffering  prophecy 
had  spoken  continual  promise  for  thousands  of  years,  and  that  in  His  life 
and  death  was  realization  perfect  and  complete  of  all  that  had  thus  been 
foretold;  that  therefore  He  is  the  Christ,  the  Anointed  of  God.  Further 
that  in  the  fulfillment  of  His  own  prophetic  declarations  His  cloud,  which 
is  His  body,  should  be  animated  by  His  spirit.  Because  he  was  lifted  up 
upon  the  accursed  tree  He  has  drawn  unto  Himself  the  hearts  of  all  men 
who  have  looked  upon  Him ;  because  He  has  drawn  near  and  does  draw 
near  to  the  men  who  believe  in  Him;  because  He  has  not  left  men  comfort¬ 
less,  but  has  and  does  come  unto  them  and  comfort  them,  therefore  they 
believe  in  Him,  the  Historic  Christ — even  this  God  who  at  sundry  times 
and  in  diverse  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  proph¬ 
ets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  His  Son. 

Let  us  begin  our  consideration  of  the  claims  of  this  historic  personage 
with  the  briefest  enumeration  of  the  results  of  the  preaching  of  him  and  of 


368 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


the  consequent  discipleship  of  the  nations,  without  any  present  reference 
to  our  mention  of  his  nature.  Be  he  fallible  man  or  infallible  God,  be  he 
but  an  extraordinary  natural  development  of  humanity  or  the  miraculous 
incarnation  of  deity,  in  either  case  I  affirm  that  the  teaching  of  the  moral 
precepts  enunciated  by  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  uplifting  before  men’s  eyes 
and  hearts  of  the  portraiture  of  his  character,  the  proclamations  of  his 
image  of  hope  to  the  world,  the  gathering  into  organized  communities  of 
them  that  have  received  that  image,  that  have  been  won  by  that  ideal 
beauty  and  that  would  learn  those  precepts  and  be  conformed  to  that 
image,  this  agency  has  had  emphatic  results  in  the  education  and  develop¬ 
ment  of  mankind  more  than  all  others  of  which  we  can  take  cognizance. 
Remember  the  words  of  the  historian  of  rationalism  and  of  morals: 

It  has  been  reserved  for  Christianity  to  present  to  the  world  an  ideal  char¬ 
acter,  which  through  all  the  changes  of  eighteen  centuries  has  filled  the  hearts  of 
men  with  an  impassioned  love,  and  has  shown  itself  capable  of  acting  on  all  ages 
and  nations,  temperaments, and  conditions;  has  not  only  been  the  highest  pattern 
of  virtue,  but  the  highest  incentive  to  its  practice,  and  has  exerted  so  deep  an 
influence  that  it  may  be  truly  said  that  the  simple  record  of  these  short  years  of 
active  life  has  done  more  to  regenerate  and  to  soften  mankind  than  all  the  dis¬ 
pensatories  of  philosophy  and  than  all  the  exhortations  of  moralists. 

Who  will  deny  that  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  to  the  very  conception  of 
God  have  been  a  supreme  energy  in  the  uplifting  and  liberation  of  man¬ 
kind?  The  Roman  people  had  ceased  to  believe  ;  the  spiritual  quality  had 
gone  out  of  them.  The  noble  conception  of  beloved  God,  which  had  been 
the  inspiration  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  people,  had  been  overlaid  with  the 
subtleties  of  rabbinistic  speculations  until  it  remained  as  but  a  memory  of 
a  dead  faith,  guarded  by  a  great  tomb  of  protective  argument  rather  than 
a  living,  energizing  power. 

Yes,  mankind  is  sacred,  for  it  is  the  choice  of  the  Omnipotent  Father. 
And  see  in  a  glance  what  has  followed  and  what  must  follow.  All  human¬ 
ity  is  sacred,  but  to  the  masters  of  the  world  no  such  conception  has  come. 
The  law  which  controlled  the  great  empire  contained  no  protection  for  the 
life  of  a  child  from  the  capricious  fury  of  those  who  would  destroy  ^t.  “  The 
extermination  of  children,”  says  Gibbon,  “  was  the  prevailing  and  stubborn 
vice  of  antiquity,”  and  was  as  common  in  the  Hellenic  states  as  even  on 
the  Tiber,  but  “  Whoso  shall  receive  one  such  little  child  in  My  name 
receiveth  Me.” 

In  the  world  to  which  came  the  message  of  the  Historic  Christ  the  insti¬ 
tution  of  slavery  was  universal.  At  long  intervals  we  hear  the  protest  of 
some  philosopher  or  poet  against  the  unnatural  bondage  of  man  to  man, 
but  the  system  was  deep  rooted  in  human  society  everywhere. 

Often  the  slaves  wore  of  one  blood  with  their  masters,  captives  in  war 
or  paupers,  self -sold  to  gain  their  bread,  and  the  palaces  of  the  luxuriant 
Romans  of  the  empire  were  adorned  with  poets,  musicians,  actors,  authors, 
artists  of  every  kind,  all  alike  slaves  for  life  and  at  the  very  mercy  of  their 
masters,  whose  tenderest  mercy  was  cruel.  To  them  came  the  message  of 
the  historic  Christ  not  to  enjoin  the  effort  to  escape  by  violence  or  craft; 
no,  but  to  tell  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  universal  brotherhood  of 
man  which  can  not  but  abolish  slavery.  There  is  no  open  declared  hos¬ 
tility,  but  forces  are  set  to  work  by  whose  silent  action  every  bond  must  be 
broken.  The  Christ  has  said,  in  revealing  the  principles  of  the  crucial  pur¬ 
pose  at  the  end  of  the  world:  “I  was  an  hungered  and  ye  gave  Me  meat;  I 
was  thirsty  and  ye  gave  Me  drink;  I  was  a  stranger  and  ye  took  Me  in; 
naked  and  ye  clothed  Me;  I  was  sick  and  ye  visited  Me;  1  was  in  prison  and 
ye  came  unto  Me.  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of  the  least  of  these  My 
brethren,  ye  did  it  unto  Me.” 

Humanity  is  one,  for  all  are  the  children  of  the  one  Father;  all  joined  to 
this  man  Jesus,  to  Himself  in  mysterious  union;  all  must  minister  of  the 
abundance  unto  the  needy,  of  the  health  and  happiness  to  the  sickness  and 
sorrow  of  their  fellows.  It  must  be  so. 


A  NEW  TESTAMENT  WOMAN. 


309 


Again  the  influence  upon  individuals  has  of  necessity  extended  to  enfold 
the  nations  which  the  individuals  make  up.  And  the  nations  are  hearing 
and  have  been  hearing  the  message  of  the  human  Christ.  Arbitration  has 
asserted  its  right  .to  determine  international  differences  instead  of  the 
ancient  arbiter,  the  sword.  It  is  because  there  comes  sounding  down  the 
ages  His  word.  “  I  say  unto  ye  that  ye  resist  not  evil,  ”  and  the  echo  which 
follows  is  the  voice  of  this  great  expounder,  “  Be  not  overcome  with  evil, 
but  overcome  evil  with  good.  ”  What  marvelous  advances  since  the  historic 
Christ  began  his  teaching. 

The  march  is  onward,  the  flag  floats  in  advance,  the  trumpet  note  that 
sounded  at  Jerusalem  still  sounds,  “  Repent  ye  and  be  converted.” 

Beyond  all  controversy,  by  the  testimony  of  the  Roman  custodians  of  the 
period,  written  fifty  days  after  the  asserted  resurrection  of  Jesus,  the  little 
company  of  followers  had  been  reassembled  and  reorganized. 

I  would  not  be  understood  to  fail  to  recognize  and  give  thanks  for  the 
faith  and  the  labors,  the  zeal  and  the  devotion  of  Christians  of  every  name 
who,  under  the  influence  of  the  one  spirit,  have  presented  this  gospel  and 
borne  their  witness.  They  are  all  members  of  the  Catholic  Church  of 
Christ. 

There  is  more  evidence  for  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  than  any  other 
event  in  human  history.  The  historic  Christ,  the  redemption  of  humanity, 
the  supreme  energy  of  man’s  elevation  and  development,  the  highest 
manhood  is  the  incarnate  God,  equal  unto  the  Father,  and  therefore  their 
mighty  works  do  show  themselves  in  Him.  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  friend 
of  publicans  and  sinners,  homeless  and  penniless,  hungry  and  thirsty,  cold 
and  suffering,  scourged  and  spit  upon,  crucified.  Jesus,  the  historic 
Christ,  whom  we  worship,  yes,  worship  as  God,  all-blessed  forever,  became 
heaven  and  earth  and  full  of  the  majesty  of  their  glory.  The  glorious 
company  of  the  apostles  praise  Thee,  the  martyrs  praise  Thee,  that  Thou 
art  the  King  of  Glory,  oh  Christ! 


A  NEW  TESTAMENT  WOMAN  :  OR,  WHAT  DID 

PHCEBE  DO? 

MRS.  MARION  MURDOCK  OF  CLEVELAND. 

In  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Romans,  first  and  second  verses,  is  found  the 
following  :  I  commend  unto  you  Phoebe,  our  sister,  who  is  a  servant  (or 
deaconess)  of  the  church  that  is  at  Cenchrea  ;  that  ye  receive  her  in  the 
Lord  as  becometh  saints,  and  that  ye  assist  her  in  whatsoever  business  she 
hath  need  of  you  ;  for  she  hath  been  a  succorer  of  many,  and  of  mine  own 
self  also.” 

It  is  not  surprising  that  this  passage  in  Paul’s  epistle  to  the  Romans 
should  be  of  peculiar  interest.  Paul’s  reputation  as  an  opponent  of  the 
public  work  of  women  is  well  known.  For  many  centuries  he  has  been 
considered  as  the  chief  opposer  of  any  activity,  official  or  otherwise,  of 
women  in  the  churches.  They  were  to  keep  silence,  he  said.  They  were 
not  to  teach,  or  to  talk,  or  to  preach.  They  were  to  ask  no  questions, 
except  in  the  privacy  of  their  homes.  Paul  merely  shared  the  popular 
opinion  of  his  time  when  he  exclaimed,  with  all  his  customary  logic:  “Man 
is  the  glory  of  God,  but  woman  is  the  glory  of  the  man.”  Either  proposi¬ 
tion,  standing  by  itself,  meets  our  hearty  approval.  “  Man  is  the  glory  of 
God.”  Woman  is,  we  are  told,  “  the  glory  of  man.”  But  combining  them 
with  that  adversative  particle,  we  feel  that  Paul’s  doctrine  of  the  divine 
humanity  with  reference  to  woman  is  not  quite  sound  according  to  the 
present  standard.  Because  we  have  come  to  feel  that  woman  may  be  also 


370 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS 


the  glory  of  God,  we  call  Paul  prejudiced.  We  even  refuse  to  take  him  as 
authority  upon  social  questions,  and  skip  the  passages  in  the  epistles  where 
he  writes  upon  this  subject. 

But  here  in  this  sixteenth  chapter  of  Romans  we  notice  a  digression 
from  the  general  doctrines  of  Paul  in  this  direction.  “  I  commend  unto 
you  Phoebe,  our  sister,  who  is  a  servant  (or  deaconess)  of  the  church  which 
is  at  Cenchrea.”  I  use  the  word  deaconess  or  deacon  because  the  Greek 
term  is  the  same  as  that  translated  deacon  elsewhere,  and  the  committee 
on  the  New  Version  have  courageously  put  “  or  deaconess  ”  into  the  margin. 

By  Paul’s  own  statement,  then,  Phoebe  was  deaconess  of  Paul’s  church 
at  Cenchrea.  Cenchrea  was  one  of  the  ports  of  Corinth  in  Northern  Greece. 
This  epistle  to  the  Romans  was  written  at  Corinth  and  sent  to  Rome  by 
Phoebe.  It  was  nearly  a  thousand  miles  by  sea  from  Cenchrea,  and  this 
was  one  of  the  most  important  and  one  of  the  ablest  of  all  Paul’s  letters. 
Vet  he  sent  it  over  to  Rome  by  this  woman  official  of  the  church  and  said  : 
“  I  commend  unto  you  Phoebi.  Receive  her  in  the  Lord  as  becometh  saints 
and  assist  her  in  whatsoever  business  she  hath  need  of  you;  for  she  has 
been  a  succorer  of  many  and  of  myself  also.” 

I  have  thought  therefore  that  it  might  be  interesting  to  ask  ourselves 
the  question.  What  did  Phoebe  do?  supplementing  it  with  some  references 
to  the  Phoebes  of  to-day.  What  was  it  that  so  overcame  this  prejudice  of 
Paul’s  that  he  gave  her  a  hearty  testimonial  and  sent  her  over  on  impor¬ 
tant  business  to  the  church  at  Rome?  It  is  evident  that  notwithstanding 
all  the  obstacles  which  custom  had  placed  about  her,  she  had  been  actively 
at  work.  It  is  doubtful  whether  she  even  asked  if  popular  opinion  would 
permit  her  services  in  the  church. 

She  saw  that  help  was  needed  and  she  went  eagerly  to  work.  She  was, 
we  may  imagine,  a  worker  full  of  enthusiasm  for  the  faith,  active  and  eager 
to  lend  a  hand  in  the  direction  in  which  she  thought  her  service  was  most 
needed.  Knowing  the  prejudice  of  her  time  she  doubtless  acted  in  advance 
of  custom  rather  than  in  defiance  of  it.  Any  bold  or  defiant  attitude  would 
have  displeased  Paul,  for  he  must  have  been  very  sensitive  in  this  direction. 
She  was  wise  enough  to  know  that  if  she  quietly  made  herself  useful  and 
necessary  to  the  church,  custom  would  stand  back  and  Paul  would  come 
forward  to  recognize  her.  We  may  suppose  that  she  felt  a  deep  interest  in 
sustaining  this  church  at  Cenchrea.  She  knew  without  doubt  the  great 
aspirations  of  Paul  for  those  churches. 

Something  like  a  dream  of  a  church  universal  had  entered  the  mind  of 
this  apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  His  speech  at  Mars  Hill  was  a  prophecy  of  a 
Parliament  of  Religions.  And  his  earnest,  reproving  question,  “  Is  God  not 
the  God  of  Gentiles  also?  ”  has  taken  nearly  2,000  years  for  its  affirmative 
answer  by  Christendom,  in  America.  Yes.  Paul  recognized  that  all  the 
world  he  knew  had  some  perception  of  the  Infinite.  But  he  knew  that  this 
perception  must  have  its  effect  upon  the  moral  life  or  it  would  be  a  mock¬ 
ery  indeed.  And  there  was  much  wickedness  all  about.  We  see  by  the 
letters  of  Paul  as  well  as  by  history  how  corrupt  and  lawless  were  many  of 
the  customs  both  in  Greece  and  Rome.  Much  service  was  needed.  And 
here  was  a  woman  in  Cenchrea  who  could  not  sit  silent  and  inactive  and 
see  all  this.  She  too  must  work  for  a  universal  church.  She  too  must 
bring  religion  into  the  life  of  humanity.  Realizing  that  it  was  her  duty  to 
help  she  entered  into  this  beautiful  service,  we  doubt  not,  as  if  it  were  the 
most  natural  thing  in  the  world  to  do. 

‘  She  had  been  a  succorer  of  many,”  said  Paul.  In  what  ways  she  aided 
them  we  need  not  definitely  inquire.  It  may  have  been  by  kind  encourage¬ 
ment  or  sympathy,  it  may  have  been  by  pecuniary  assistance,  or  active 
social  or  executive  plans  for  the  struggling  church.  Whatever  it  was, 
Phoebe  possessed  the  secret.  “  She  has  been  a  succorer  of  many,  and  of 
myself  also,”  said  Paul.  To  Phoebe,  therefore,  has  been  accorded  the  honor 


A  NEW  TESTAMENT  WOMAN. 


37i 


of  aiding  and  sustaining  this  heroic  man,  whom  we  have  dreamed  was 
strong  enough  to  endure  alone  the  perils  by  land  and  sea,  poverty,  pain, 
temptation,  for  the  cause  he  loved. 

And  when  Paul  had  entrusted  her  with  this  letter  to  the  Romans,  how 
cordial  must  have  been  her  reception  by  the  church  at  Rome,  bearing,  as 
she  did,  not  only  this  epistle,  but  this  hearty  recognition  of  her  services  by 
their  beloved  leader.  Yet  with  what  a  smile  of  perplexity  and  incredulity 
must  the  grave  elders  of  the  church  have  looked  upon  this  woman-deacon 
whom  Paul  requested  them  to  assist  in  whatsoever  business  she  had  in 
hand.  This  business  transacted  by  the  aid  of  the  society  at  Rome,  Phoebe 
went  home  full  of  suggestions  and  plans,  we  may  imagine,  for  her  cher¬ 
ished  Grecian  church. 

We  must  remember  that  it  required  no  small  effort  and  skill  to  sustain 
societies  in  these  various  places.  Paul  often  preached  without  compensa¬ 
tion,  as  we  know,  working  at  his  trade  to  support  himself,  and  receiving 
contributions  from  interested  friends.  There  was  constant  need  of  money 
and  effort.  What  did  Phoebe  do  in  such  a  case?  Did  she  sit  quietly  and 
helplessly  down  because  she  was  a  woman,  with  a  church  needing  service, 
and  Paul  needing  money? 

If  she  was  not  able  to  assist  financially,  I  am  sure  she  went  out  to  urge 
the  people  to  action  and  to  insist  upon  united  effort  and  to  show  each  and 
every  one  that  he  or  she  should  have  a  personal  responsibility  in  the  matter. 
X  can  imagine  that  she  even  arose  in  church  meeting,  after  the  final 
adjournment,  out  right  in  the  presence  of  Paul,  and  told  the  people  the 
blessedness  of  giving  and  serving.  “Nothing  good,”  she  would  say,  “  can 
be  sustained  without  effort.  Let  us  work  together,  women  and  men,  for 
our  cause  and  our  children’s  cause  here  in  Cenchrea.”  Such  v/as  undoubt¬ 
edly  this  woman  whom  Paul  was  constrained  to  honor.  In  spite  of  all 
restrictions  and  social  obstacles,  in  the  face  of  unyielding  custom  and 
prejudice,  she  could  yet  arise  to  work  earnestly  for  her  church,  transact  its 
business,  extend  its  influence,  and  be  recognized  as  one  of  its  most  efficient 
servants. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  this  public  work  of  a  woman  and  Paul’s  plain 
encouragement  of  it,  the  letter  of  his  law  was  the  rule  of  the  churches  for 
many  centuries,  and  it  forbade  the  sisters  from  uttering  their  moral  or 
religious  word  in  the  sanctuaries  or  doing  public  service  of  any  sort  for 
their  own  and  their  brother’s  cause.  But  here  and  there  arose  the  Phcebes 
who  asked  no  favors  of  custom,  but  insisted  on  giving  the  service  they  could 
in  every  way  they  could;  giving  it  with  such  zeal  and  spirit  that  people  for¬ 
got  that  there  was  sex  in  sainthood,  and  whispered  that  perhaps  they  also 
were  called  of  God. 

“  It’s  easy  enough,”  said  Angy  Plummer  in  that  charming  story  of  the 
“  Elder’s  Wife.”  “  It’s  ea^  enough  to  know  how  it  is,  Sis  Kinney  is  a  kind  of 
daughter  of  God,  something  as  Jesus  Christ  was  His  Son.  It’s  just  the  way 
Jesus  used  to  go  round  among  folks,  as  near  as  I  can  make  out.  And  I  for 
one  don’t  believe  that  God  just  sent  Him  once  for  all,  and  ain’t  never  sent 
anybody  else  near  us  all  this  time.  I  reckon  He’s  sending  down  sons  and 
daughters  to  us  oftener  than  we  think.” 

“Angy  Plummer!  ”  exclaimed  her  mother,  “  I  call  that  down-right  blas¬ 
phemy.”  “Well,  call  it  what  you’re  a  mind  to,”  said  Angy,  “  It’s  what  I 
believe./ 

And  so,  as  the  years  went  on,  there  came  a  growing  recognition  of  the 
“  Daughters  of  God.”  The  world  gradually  accepted  the  thought  expressed 
by  our  new  translators  in  that  tender  letter  of  John.  “  Beloved,  now  are  we 
sons  of  God,”  was  the  good  old  way ;  “  Beloved,  now  are  we  the  children  of 
God,”  is  the  better  new  one.  The  recognition  grew  greater  in  word  as  well 
as  spirit,  the  call  was  more  earnest  for  the  active  co-operation  of  the  Phoebes 
in  all  the  non-official  work  of  the  churches,  and  the  Phoebes  everywhere 
responded  to  the  call. 


372 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


But  not  until  the  inauguration  of  a  radically  new  movement  in  religion 
were  the  official  barriers  in  some  degree  removed.  Not  until  the  emphasis 
was  put  upon  that  divine  love  of  God  which  would  save  all  creatures,  upon 
that  mother  heart  of  Deity  which  would  enfold  all  its  children;  not  until 
the  emphasis  was  put  upon  the  spirit  rather  than  the  letter  of  Bible  litera¬ 
ture,  upon  the  free  rather  than  the  restricted  revelations  of  God,  upon  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  human  soul,  without  regard  to  sex,  or  time,  or  place,  not 
until  all  this  was  proclaimed  and  emphasized  did  the  Phoebes  ask  or  receive 
official  recognition  in  the  ministry. 

And  it  was  better  so.  Under  the  old  dispensation  they  would  have  been 
strangely  out  of  place,  under  the  new  it  is  most  fitting  that  they  should  be 
called  and  chosen.  Our  modern  Paul-s  are  now  gladly  ordaining  them,  and 
the  brethren  are  receiving  them  in  the  Lord — as  becomes  the  saints.  Now 
may  they  also  be  the  glory  of  God  and  partakers  of  the  spirit;  now  may 
the  words  of  Joel  be  at  last  fulfilled:  “And  it  shall  come  to  pass  afterward 
that  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  upon  all  flesh,  and  your  sons  and  your  daught¬ 
ers  shall  prophesy.” 

Still  there  are  limitations  and  restrictions  in  words.  Reforms  in  words 
always  move  more  slowly  than  reforms  in  ideas.  It  is  wonderful  how  we 
fear  innovations  in  language.  Even  in  appellations  of  the  all-spirit  that 
John  reverently  named  Love,  including  in  that  moment  of  his  inspiration 
the  all-human  in  the  all-divine  heart,  even  here  we  are  often  sternly  limited 
to  certain  gender.  Dr.  Barlot,  of  Boston,  says  reprovingly,  “  Many  hold  that 
the  simple  name  of  Father  is  enough.  They  seem  unconscious  that  there 
is  in  their  moral  idea  of  Deity  any  desideratum  or  lack.  But  does  this 
figure,  drawn  from  a  single  human  relation,  cover  the  whole  ground?  Is 
there  no  motherhood  in  God?” 

But,  thank  heaven,  it  is  no  longer  heresy,  as  it  was  in  Boston  less  than 
a  century  ago,  to  say  with  Theodore  Parker,  “  God  is  our  Infinite  Mother. 
She  will  hold  us  in  her  arms  of  blessedness  and  beauty  forever  and  ever.” 

But  what  matter  the  name,  so  we  cling  to  the  idea,  the  ideal  of  strength 
and  tenderness  for  the  all-spirit  and  for  the  children  of  the  all-spirit? 
What  matter  so  we  remember  that  it  is  not  man  nor  woman  in  the  Lord,  nor 
man  nor  woman  in  the  spirit,  neither  in  the  ministry  of  the  spirit?  It  is 
divine,  it  is  human  unity. 

I  have  referred  to  the  official  ministry  for  the  Phoebes  as  an  assured 
fact  in  our  growing  civilization,  but  this  only  a  small  part  of  the  work 
which  they  are  called  upon  to  do.  It  is  found  that  many,  very  many, 
in  our  churches  are  as  capable  of  efficient  work  as  this  woman 
helper  of  Cenclinea,  and  as  truly  ministers  and  apostles  as  any  that 
were  ever  ordained  to  the  formal  ministry.  It  is  found  that  there  is 
is  needed  not  only  woman’s  large  moral  and  jpiritual  influence,  but  her 
large  tact  and  management  in  many  directions.  In  philanthropic  vork 
woman  has  always  been  active.  “  In  the  broad  field  of  human  helplcdsness,” 
says  Mr.  Hale,  “  her  empire  is  like  that  of  the  Queen  of  Palmyra,  one  that 
knows  no  natural  limits,  but  is  broad  as  the  genius  that  can  devise  and  the 
power  that  can  win.”  But  this  church  of  the  new  dispensation  includes 
all  philanthropy  in  religion.  It  includes  everything  that  reforms  and 
purifies  and  strengthens  home  and  society.  To  the  Phoebes,  then,  should 
it  be  dear  as  life,  because  it  sustains  and  enables  life,  sacred  as  home, 
because  it  beautifies  and  sanctifies  the  home. 

Here  are  we  to-day  in  the  era  of  a  great  reformation.  It  is  a  reforma¬ 
tion  not  local,  not  limited  to  a  section  or  a  sect.  It  reaches  over  the  civil¬ 
ized  world  and  into  the  various  activities  of  life.  It  is  a  reformation  which, 
while  it  breaks  many  idols,  is  to  bring  about  a  pure  and  more  enlightened 
worship;  it  is  to  give  freedom  to  reason  and  faith;  it  is  to  proclaim  a  con¬ 
stant  revelation  of  God;  it  is  to  make,  by  its  doctrine  of  the  divine  human¬ 
ity,  a  sanctuary  of  every  home  and  of  every  heart.  It  is  to  show  that  the 


jEwim  conthibutions  to  civilization. 


373 


ideal  of  Eternity  must  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  and  the  kingdom 
of  earth  as  well ;  that  Theology  must  have  for  its  highest  thought  the  sym¬ 
bol  of  both  fatherhood  and  motherhood;  that  incarnated  Divinity  must 
include  in  every  sense  woman  as  well  as  man.  Not  until  we  have  this 
co-operation  of  men  and  women  in  all  the  sacred  services  and  offices  of  the 
church  and  of  life  will  the  real  unity  in  religion  be  realized.  Woman  must 
stand  at  the  pulpit  and  behind  the  altar  of  God  before  we  shall  hear  all 
sides  of  sacred  and  secret  moral  questions.  If  we  have  women  at  the  con¬ 
fessional  under  the  new  order  we  shall  have  women  to  receive  the  confes¬ 
sion.  We  shall  have  no  dividing  of  the  virtues. 

Upon  all  the  sacred  events  of  life,  in  birth,  in  marriage,  in  death,  we 
shall  have  woman’s  divine  benediction;  we  shall  have  co-operation  along  all 
the  lines  of  life  and  society;  we  shall  have  a  full  realization  of  that  unity, 
human  and  divine,  which  this  Parliament  of  Religions  has  so  grandly 
indorsed. 


JEWISH  CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  CIVILIZATION. 

D.  G.  LYON,  A  PEOFESSOR  OF  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY. 

In  this  glad  Columbian  year,  when  all  the  world  is  rejoicing  with  us, 
and  in  this  hall  consecrated  to  the  greatest  idea  of  the  century,  I  could 
perform  no  task  more  welcome  than  that  to  which  I  have  been  assigned — 
the  task  of  paying  a  tribute  based  on  history.  I  shall  use  the  word  Jew, 
not  in  the  reliiiious,  but  in  the  ethical  sense.  In  so  doing,  the  antithesis  to 
“Jew”  is  not  Christian,  but  non- Jew,  or  gentile.  The  position  of  the  Jews 
in  the  world  is  peculiar.  They  may  be  Englishmen,  German,  American,  and, 
as  such,  loyal  to  the  land  of  their  birth.  They  mayor  may  not  continue  to 
adhere  to  a  certain  phase  of  religion.  But  they  can  not  avoid  being  known 
as  the  scattered  fragments  of  a  nation.  Most  of  them  are  as  distinctly 
marked  by  mental  traits  and  by  physiognomy  as  is  an  Englishman,  German, 
or  Chinaman. 

The  JeWj  as  thus  described,  is  in  our  midst  an  American,  and  has  all 
reasons  to  be  glad  which  belong  to  the  community  at  large,  but  his 
unique  position  to-day  and  his  importance  in  history  justify  the  inquiry, 
whether  he  may  not  have  special  reasons  for  rejoicing  in  this  auspicious 
year.  Such  ground  for  rejoicing  is  seen  in  the  facts  that  the  discovery 
and  settlement  of  America  were  the  work  of  faith.  Columbus  believed  in 
the  existence  and  attainableness  of  that  which  neither  he  nor  his  fellows 
had  ever  seen.  Apart  from  his  own  character  and  his  aims  in  the  voyage 
of  discovery,  it  was  this  belief  that  saved  him  from  discouragement  and  held 
his  bark  true  to  its  western  course.  What  though  he  found  something 
greater  than  he  thought,  it  was  his  belief  in  the  smaller  that  made  the 
greater  discovery  possible.  What  is  true  of  the  discovery  is  true  of  the 
settlement  of  America.  This,  too,  was  an  act  of  faith.  The  colonists  of 
Chesapeake  and  of  Massachusetts  Bay  left  the  comforts  of  the  Old  World, 
braved  the  dangers  of  sea  and  cold,  and  savage  population,  because  they 
believed  in  something  which  could  be  felt,  though  not  seen,  the  guidance 
of  a  hand  which  directs  the  destiny  of  individuals  and  of  empires. 

Now  the  Jews,  as  a  people,  stand  in  a  pre-eminent  degree  for  faith. 
They  must  be  judged,  not  by  those  of  their  number  who  in  our  day  give 
themselves  over  to  a  life  of  materialism,  but  by  their  best  representatives 
and  by  the  general  current  of  their  histories.  At  the  fountain  of  their 
being  they  place  a  man  whose  name  is  a  synonym  of  faith.  Abraham,  the 
first  Jew,  nurtured  in  the  comforts  and  refinements  of  a  civilization  whose 
grandeur  is  just  beginning  to  find  due  appreciation,  hears  an  inward  com¬ 
pelling  voice  bidding  him  forsake  the  land  of  his  fathers  and  to  go  forth. 


374 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


he  knows  not  whither,  to  lay  in  the  distant  w^est  the  foundations  of  the 
empire  of  faith.  The  hopes  of  the  entire  subsequent  world  encamped  in 
the  tent  of  the  wanderer  from  Ne,  of  Chaldea.  The  migration  was  a 
splendid  adventure,  prophetic  of  the  great  development  of  which  it  was 
the  beginning. 

What  was  it  but  the  audacity  of  faith  which,  in  later  times,  enabled 
an  Isaiah  to  defy  the  most  powerful  army  in  the  world  and  Jeremiah  to  be 
firm  in  his  convictions  in  the  midst  of  a  city  full  of  enemies?  What  but 
faith  could  have  held  together  the  exiles  in  Babylon  and  could  have  in¬ 
spired  them  once  more  to  exchange  this  home, of  ease  and  luxury  for  the 
hardships  and  uncertainties  of  their  devastated  Palestinian  hills?  It  was 
faith  that  nerved  the  arm  of  the  Maccabees  to  their  heroic  struggle  and 
the  sublimity  of  faith  when  the  dauntless  daughter  of  Zion  defies  the 
power  of  Rome.  The  brute  force  of  Rome  won  the  day,  but  the  Jews  dis¬ 
persed  throughout  the  world  have  still  been  true  to  the  foundation  prin¬ 
ciple  of  their  history.  They  believe  that  God  has  spoken  to  their  fathers 
and  that  he  has  not  forsaken  the  children,  and  through  that  belief  they 
endure. 

A  second  ground  for  Jewish  rejoicing  to-day  is  that  America,  in  its 
development,  is  realizing  Jewish  dreams.  A  bolder  dreamer  than  the 
Hebrew  prophet  the  world  has  not  known.  He  reveled  in  glowing  pictures 
of  home  and  prosperity  and  brotherhood  in  the  good  times  that  were  yet 
to  be.  The  strength  of  his  wing  as  poet  is  seen  in  this  ability  to  take  these 
flights  at  times  when  all  outward  appearances  were  a  denial  of  his  hopes. 
It  was  not  the  prosperous  state  whose  continuance  he  foresaw,  but  the 
decaying  state,  destined  to  be  shattered,  then  buried,  then  rebuilt,  then  to 
continue  forever.  It  was  not  external  force,  but  external  power,  in  alliance 
with  inward  goodness,  whose  description  called  forth  his  highest  genius. 
His  dream,  it  is  true,  had  its  temporal  and  its  local  coloring.  His  coming 
state,  built  on  righteousness,  was  to  be  a  kingdom,  because  this  was  a  form 
of  government  with  which  he  was  familiar.  The  seat  of  this  empire  was  to 
be- Jerusalem,  and  his  patriot  heart  could  have  made  no  other  choice.  We 
are  now  learning  to  distinguish  the  essential  ideas  of  a  writer  from  a  phrase¬ 
ology  in  which  they  find  expression. 

The  Jewish  empire  does  not  exist  and  Jerusalem  is  not  the  mistress  .of 
the  world.  And  yet  the  dream  of  the  prophet  is  true.  A  home  for  the 
oppressed  has  been  found;  a  home  where  prosperity  and  brotherhood  dwell 
together.  Substitute  America  for  Jerusalem,  and  a  republic  for  a  king¬ 
dom,  and  the  correctness  of  the  prophet’s  dream  is  realized.  Let  us  exam¬ 
ine  the  details  of  the  picture. 

The  prophet  forsees  a  home.  In  this  he  is  true  to  one  of  the  marked 
traits  of  his  people.  Who  has  sung  more  sweetly  than  the  Hebrew  poet  of 
home,  where  every  man  shall  “  sit  under  his  vine  and  under  his  fig  tree  and 
none  shall  make  there  afraid  ”  ;  where  the  father  of  a  large  family  is  like 
the  hunter  whose  quiver  is  full  of  arrows,  where  the  children  are  likened 
to  the  olive  plant  around  the  father’s  table,  and  where  the  cardinal  virtue 
-  of  childhood  is  honor  to  father  and  mother?  And  where  shall  one  look 
to-day  for  finer  types  of  domestic  felicity  than  may  be  found  in  Jewish 
homes?  Or,  taking  the  word  “  home  ”  in  its  large  sense,  where  shall  one 
surpass  the  splendid  patriotism  of  the  Hebrew  exile: 

If  1  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem, 

Let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning. 

Let  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth, 

If  1  remember  thee  not; 

If  I  prefer  not  Jerusalem 
Above  my  chief  joy. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  this  love  of  local  habitation,  the  Jew  has  been  for 
many  cruel  centuries  a  wanderer  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  nations 


JEWISH  CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  CIVILIZATION. 


^75 


have  raged,  the  kings  of  the  earth  have  set  themselves,  and  their  rulers 
have  taken  counsel  together,  and  the  standing  miracle  of  history  is  that  the 
Jew  has  not  been  ground  to  powder  as  between  the  upper  and  the  nether 
millstone.  But  these  hardships  are  now,  let  us  hope,  near  their  end.  This 
young  republic  has  welcomed  the  Jew  who  has  tied  from  the  oppression 
of  the  old  world.  Its  constitution  declares  the  equality  of  men,  and  expe¬ 
rience  demonstrates  our  power  to  assimilate  all  comers  who  desire  to  be  one 
with  us.  Here  thought  and  its  expressions  are  free.  Here  is  a  restful 
haven,  which  realizes  the  prophet’s  dream.  Not  the  Jew  only,  but  all  the 
oppressed  of  earth  may  here  find  welcome  and  home. 

The  inspiring  example  of  Columbia’s  poi-tals,  always  open  to  the  world, 
is  destined  to  alleviate  the  ills  and  check  the  criihes  of  man  against  man 
throughout  all  lands.  And  what  though  here  and  there  a  hard  and  unphil- 
anthropic  soul  would  bolt  Columbia’s  door  and  recall  her  invitation  or 
check  her  free  intercourse  with  nations!  This  is  but  the  eddy  in  her 
course,  and  to  heed  these  hard  advisers  she  must  be  as  false  to  her  own 
past  as  to  her  splendid  ideal.  Geary  exclusion  acts  and  some  of  the  current 
protective  doctrines  are  as  un-American  as  they  are  inhuman. 

But  the  Jewish  dream  was  no  less  of  prosperity  than  of  home.  America 
realizes  this  feature  of  the  dream  to  an  extent  never  seen  before.  Where 
should  one  seek  for  a  parallel  to  her  inexhaustible  resources  and  to  her 
phenomenal  material  development?  No  element  of  a  community  has  under¬ 
stood  better  than  the  Jewish  to  reap  the  harvest  which  has  ever  tempted 
the  sickles  of  industry.  J ewish  names  are  numerous  and  potent  in  all  the 
exchanges  and  in  all  great  commercial  enterprises.  The  spirit  that  schools 
itself  by  hard  contact  with  Judean  hills,  that  has  been  held  in  check  by 
adversity  for  twenty-five  centuries,  shows  in  this  free  land  the  elasticity  of 
the  uncaged  eagle.  Not  only  in  trade,  but  all  other  avenues  of  advance, 
are  here  open  to  men  of  endowments  of  whatsoever  race  and  clime.  In 
journalism,  in  education,  in  philanthropy,  the  Jews  will  average  as  well  as 
the  Gentiles,  perhaps  better,  while  many  individual  Jews  have  risen  to  an 
enviable  eminence. 

A  third  feature  in  the  Jewish  dream — an  era  of  brotherhood  and  good 
feeling — is  attaining  here  a  beautiful  realization.  Nowhere  have  we  finer 
illustrations  of  this  than  in  the  attitude  toward  the  Jews  of  the  great  seats 
of  learning.  The  oldest  and  largest  American  university  employs  its 
instructors  without  applying  any  test  of  race  or  religion.  In  its  faculty 
Jews  are  always  found.  To  its  liberal  feast  of  learning  there  is  a  constant 
and  increasing  resort  of  our  ambitious  Jewish  youth.  Harvard  is,  of  course, 
not  peculiar  in  this  regard.  There  are  other  seats  of  learning  where  wisdom 
invites  as  warmly  to  her  banquet  halls,  and  notably  the  great  Chicago 
University.  The  spectacle  of  Harvard  is,  however,  especially  gratifying, 
because  it  seems  to  be  pathetically  embodied  in  her  seal:  “Christo  et 
Ecclesial,”  an  acknowledgment  of  her  obligations  to  the  Jew  and  the 
dedication  of  her  powers  to  a  Jewish  carpenter  and  to  a  Jewish  institution.” 

The  era  of  brotherhood  is  also  seen  in  the  co-operation  of  Jew  and 
Gentile  to  further  good  causes.  To  refer  again,  by  permission  to  Harvard 
University,  one  of  its  unique  and  most  significant  collections  is  a  scientific 
museum,  fostered  by  many  friends,  but  chiefiy  by  a  Jew.  And  it  is  a 
pleasure  to  add  here  that  one  of  the  great  departments  of  the  library  of  the 
Chicago  University  has  been  adopted  by  the  Jews.  Although  taxed  to  the 
utmost  to  care  for  their  destitute  brethren  who  seek  our  shores  to  escape 
old-country  persecution,  the  Jews  are  still  ever  ready  to  join  others  in  good 
works  for  the  relief  of  human  need.  If  Baron  Hirsch’s  colossal  benefac¬ 
tions  distributed  in  America  are  restricted  to  Jews,  it  is  because  the 
philanthropist  sees  in  these  unfortunate  refugees  the  most  needy  subjects 
of  benefaction. 

But  most  significant  of  all  is  the  fact  that  we  are  beginning  to  under- 


376 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


stand  one  another  in  a  religious  sense.  When  Jewish  rabbis  are  invited  to 
deliver  religious  lectures  at  great  universities,  and  when  Jewish  congrega¬ 
tions  welcome  Columbian  addresses  from  Christian  ministers,  we  seem  to 
have  made  a  long  step  toward  acquaintance  with  one  another.  The  discus¬ 
sion  now  going  on  among  Jews  regarding  the  adoption  of  Sunday  as  the  day 
of  public  worship  and  the  Jew’s  recognition  of  the  greatness  of  Jesus,  which 
finds  expression  in  synagogue  addre  ses — such  things  are  prophecies  whose 
significance  the  thoughtful  hearer  will  not  fail  to  perceive. 

Now  what  is  the  result  of  this  closer  union,  of  which  I  have  instanced 
a  few  examples  in  learning,  in  philanthropy,  and  in  affairs  religious?  Is  it 
not  the  removal  of  mutual  misunderstandings?  So  long  as  J udaism  and  Amer¬ 
ican  Christianity  stand- aloof,  each  will  continue  to  ascribe  to  the  other  the 
vices  of  its  most  unworthy  representatives.  But  when  they  meet  and  learn 
to  know  one  another,  they  find  a  great  common  standing-ground.  Judging 
each  by  its  best,  each  can  have  for  the  other  only  respect  and  good  will. 

The  one  great  exception  in  the  tenor  of  these  remarks  is  in  matters 
social.  There  does  not  exist  that  free  intercourse  between  Jews  and  non- 
Jews  which  one  might  reasonably  expect.  One  of  the  causes  is  religious 
prejudice  on  both  sides,  but  the  chief  cause  is  the  evil  already  mentioned, 
of  estimating  Jews  and  non-Jews  by  the  least  worthy  members  of  the  two 
classes.  The  Jew  who  is  forced  to  surrender  all  his  goods  and  flee  from 
Russian  oppression,  or  who  purchases  the  right  to  remain  in  the  czar’s 
empire  by  a  sacrifice  of  his  faith,  can  hardly  be  blamed  if  he  sees  only  the 
bad  in  those  who  call  themselves  Christians.  If  one  of  these  refugees  pros¬ 
pers  in  America,  and  carrier  himself  in  a  lordly  manner,  and  makes  himself 
distasteful,  even  to  the  cultivated  among  his  co-religionists,  can  it  be  won¬ 
dered  at  that  others  transfer  his  bad  manners  to  other  Jews? 

A  third  and  main  reason  why  the  Jew  should  rejoice  in  this  Columbian 
year  is  that  American  society  is,  in  an  important  sense,  produced  and  held 
together  by  Jewish  thought.  The  justification  of  this  assertion  forces  on  us 
the  question,  “What  has  a  Jew  done  for  civilization?  ”  First  of  all,  he  has 
given  us  the  Bible,  the  scriptures,  old  and  new.  It  matters  not  for  this 
discussion  that  the  Jews,  as  a  religious  sect,  have  never  given  to  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  the  dignity  of  canonicity.  It  suffices  that  these  books, 
with  one  or  possibly  two  exceptions,  were  written  by  men  of  J ewish  birth. 

And  where  shall  one  go,  if  not  to  the  Bible,  to  find  the  noblest  literature 
of  the  soul?  Where  shall  one  find  so  well  expressed  as  in  the  Psalms  the 
longing  for  God  and  a  deep  satisfaction  in  his  presence?  Where  is  burning 
indignation  against  wrong-doing  more  strongly  portrayed  than  in  the 
prophets?  Where  such  a  picture  as  the  gospel  gives  of  love  that  consumes 
itself  in  sacrifice?  The  highest  hopes  and  moods  of  the  soul  reached  such 
attainment  among  the  Jews  2,000  years  ago  that  the  intervening  ages  have 
not  yet  shown  one  step  in  advance. 

Viewed  as  a  handbook  of  ethics,  the  Bible  has  a  power  second  only  to 
its  exalted  position  as  a  classic  of  the  soul.  The  “ten  words,”  though 
negatively  expressed,  are,  in  the  second  half,  an  admirable  statement  of  the 
fundamental  relations  of  man  to  man.  Paul’s  eulogy  of  love  is  an  unmatched 
masterpiece  of  the  foundation  principle  of  right  living.  The  adoption  of  the 
golden  rule  by  all  men  would  banish  crime  and  convert  earth  into  a 
paradise. 

The  characters  depicted  in  the  Bible  are  in  their  way  no  less  effective 
than  the  teachings  regarding  ethics  and  religion.  Indeed,  that  which  is 
so  admirable  in  these  characters  is  the  rare  combination  of  ethics  and  relig¬ 
ion,  which  finds  in  them  expression.  In  Abraham  we  see  hospitality  and 
faith  attaining  to  adequate  expression.  Moses  is  the  pattern  of  the  unself¬ 
ish,  state-building  patriot,  who  despised  hardships  because  “  he  endured 
as  seeing  Him  who  is  invisible.”  Jeremiah  will  forever  be  inspiration  to 
reformers  whose  lot  is  cast  in  degenerate  days.  Paul  is  the  synonym  of 


JEWISH  CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  CIVILIZATION. 


377 


self-denying  zeal,  which  can  be  content  with  nothing  less  than  a  gigantic 
effort  to  carry  good  news  to  the  entire  world. 

And  Jesus  was  a  Jew.  How  often  is  this  fact  forgotten,  so  completely 
is  he  identified  with  the  history  of  the  world  at  large.  We  say  to  ourselves 
that  such  a  commanding  personality  is  too  universal  for  national  limita¬ 
tions.  We  overlook  perchance  the  Judean  birth  and  the  Galilean  training. 
Far  be  it  from  me  to  attempt  an  estimate  of  the  significance  of  the  charac¬ 
ter  and  work  of  Jesus  for  human  progress.  Nothing  short  of  omniscience 
could  perform  such  a  task.  My  purpose  is  attained  by  reminding  myself 
and  others  anew  of  the  nationality  of  Him  whom  an  important  part  of  the 
world  has  agreed  to  consider  the  great  and  best  of  human  kind.  I  do  not 
forget  that  the  Jews  have  not  yet  in  large  number®  admitted  the  greatness 
of  Jesus,  but  this  failure  may  be  largely  explained  as  the  effect  of  certain 
theological  teachings  concerning  His  person,  and  of  the  sufferings  which 
Jews  have  endured  at  the  hands  of  those  who  bear  His  name.  But  in  that 
name  and  in  that  personality  rightly  conceived  there  is  such  potency  to 
bless  and  to  elevate  that  I  can  see  no  reason  why  Jesus  should  not  become 
to  the  Jews  the  greatest  and  most  beloved  of  all  their  illustrious  teachers. 

Along  with  the  sacred  writings  have  come  to  the  race  through  the  Jew 
certain  great  doctrines.  Foremost  of  these  is  the  belief  in  one  God.  Greek 
philosophy,  it  is  true,  was  also  able  to  formulate  a  doctrine  of  monotheism, 
but  the  monotheism  that  has  perpetuated  itself  ic  that  announced  by 
Hebrew  seer  and  not  by  Greek  philosopher.  Somethir^  was  wanting  to 
make  the  doctrine  more  than  a  cold  formula,  and  that  something  the  J ew 
supplied.  This  God,  who  is  one,  is  not  a  blind  force,  workinr  on  lines  but 
half  defined.  His  government  is  well  ordered  and  right.  Chance  and  fate 
have  here  no  place.  No  sparrow  falls  without  him.  The  very  hairs  of 
your  head  are  numbered.  Righteousness  is  the  habitation  o^  his  throne. 
“  Shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right  ?  ” 

Whence  comes  our  day  of  rest,  one  in  seven,  this  beneficent  provision 
for  recreation  of  man  and  beast;  this  day  consecrated  by  the  experience  of 
centuries  to  good  deeds  and  holy  thoughts?  Wc  meet  with  indications  of 
a  seven-day  division  of  time  in  an  Assyrian  calendar  tablet,  but  we  are  able 
to  assert  definitely,  by  a  study  of  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  commercial 
records  that  these  peoples  had  nothing  which  corresponded  to  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  the  very  name  of  which  means  reat.  The  origin  of  the  Sabbath 
may  well  have  to  do  with  the  moon’s  phases.  But  the  Jew  viewed  the  day 
with  such  sacredness  that  he  makes  its  institution  coeval  with  the  work  of 
creation.  From  him  it  has  become  the  possescion  of  the  Western  world 
and  its  significance  for  our  well-being,  physical,  moral,  and  spiritual,  is 
vaster  than  can  be  computed. 

Many  causes  have  united  together  to  insure  the  victory  which  Christian¬ 
ity  has  won  in  the  world.  But  those  who  are  filled  with  its  true  spirit  and 
who  are  thoughtful  can  never  forget  the  Judean  origin.  To  the  same  source 
we  must  likewise  trace  institutional  Christianity,  the  church.  The  first 
church  was  at  Jerusalem.  The  first  churches  were  among  devout  Jews 
dispersed  in  the  great  Gentile  centers  of  population.  The  ordinances  of 
the  church  have  an  intimate  connection  with  Jewish  religious  usages.  In 
the  course  of  a  long  development  other  elements  have  crept  in.  Butin  her 
main  features  the  church  bears  ever  the  stamp  of  her  origin.  The  service 
is  Jewish.  We  still  read  from  the  Jewish  pir  alter,  we  still  sing  the  themes 
of  I  he  psalmist  and  apostle,  the  aim  of  the  sermon  is  still  to  rouse  the  list¬ 
ener  to  the  adoption  of  Jewish  ideas,  we  pray  in  phraseology  taken  from 
J e wish  scriptures  Our  Sunday  schools  have  for  their  prime  object  acquaint¬ 
ance  with  Jewish  writings.  Our  missions  are  designed  to  tell  men  of  God’s 
love  as  revealed  to  them  through  a  Jew.  Our  church  and  Christian  chari¬ 
ties  are  but  the  embodiment  of  the  golden  rule  as  uttered  by  a  Jew. 

It  may  furthermore  be  fairly  said  that  the  Jew,  through  these  writings, 


378 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


doctrines,  and  institutions  has  bequeathed  to  the  world  the  highest  ideals 
of  life.  On  the  binding  and  title  page  of  its  books  the  Jewish  Publication 
Society  of  America  has  pictured  the  lion  and  the  lamb  lying  down  together 
and  the  child  playing  with  the  asp,  while  underneath  the  picture  is  written 
the  words,  “  Israel’s  mission  is  peace.”  The  picture  tells  what  Israel’s 
prophet  saw  more  than  twenty-five  centuries  ago.  The  subscription  tells 
less  than  the  truth.  Israel’s  mission  is  peace,  morality,  and  religion,  or, 
better  still,  Israel’s  mission  is  peace  through  morality  and  religion.  This 
is  the  nation’s  lesson  to  the  world.  This  is  the  spirit  of  the  greatest  charac¬ 
ter  in  Israel’s  history.  To  live  in  the  same  spirit,  in  a  word,  to  become 
like  the  foremost  of  all  Israelites — this  is  the  highest  that  any  man  has  yet 
ventured  to  hope. 

I  have  catalogued  with  some  detail,  though  by  no  means  with  fullness, 
Jewish  elements  in  our  civilization.  In  most  cases  I  have  passed  no  judg¬ 
ment  on  these  elements.  If  one  were  disposed  to  inquire  into  their  value, 
he  might  answer  this  question  by  trying  to  conceive  what  we  should  be 
without  the  Bible,  its  characters,  doctrines,  ethics,  institutions,  hopes,  and 
ideals.  To  think  these  elements  absent  from  our  civilization  is  im^possible, 
because  they  have  largely  made  us  what  we  are.  Not  more  closely  inter¬ 
locked  are  the  warp  and  woof  of  a  fabric  than  are  these  elements  with  all 
that  is  best  and  highest  in  our  life  and  thought.  If  the  culture  of  our  day 
is  a  fairer  product  than  that  of  any  preceding  age,  we  can  not  fail  to  see 
how  far  we  are  injjebted  for  this  to  the  Jew.  It  can  hardly  be  that  a  peo¬ 
ple  of  such  glory  in  the  past  and  of  such  present  power  shall  fail  to  attain 
again  to  that  eminence  in  the  highest  things  for  which  they  seem  to  be 
marked  out  by  their  unique  history. 


THE  LAW  OF  CAUSE  AND  EFFECT  AS  TAUGHT 

BY  BUDDHA, 

SHAKU  SOYEN  OF  JAPAN. 

If  we  open  our  eyes  and  look  at  the  universe  we  observe  the  sun  and 
moon  and  the  stars  in  the  sky;  mountains,  rivers,  plants,  animals,  fishes, 
and  birds  on  the  earth.  Cold  and  warm  come  alternately;  shine  and  rain 
change  from  time  to  time  without  ever  reaching  an  end.  Again  let  us  close 
our  eyes  and  calmly  refiect  upon  ourselves.  From  morning  to  evening  we 
are  agitated  by  the  feelings  of  pleasure  and  pain,  love  and  hate;  sometimes 
full  of  ambition  and  desire,  sometimes  called  to  the  utmost  excitement  of 
reason  and  will.  Thus  the  action  of  mind  is  like  an  endless  issue  of  a  spring 
of  water.  As  the  phenomena  of  the  external  world  are  various  and  marvel¬ 
ous,  so  is  the  internal  attitude  of  human  mind.  Shall  we  ask  for  the 
explanation  of  these  marvelous  phenomena?  Why  is  the  universe  in  a 
constant  fiux?  Why  do  things  change?  Why  is  the  mind  subjected  to  a 
constanf  agitation?  For  these.  Buddhism  offers  only  one  explanation, 
namely,  the  law  of  cause  and  effect. 

Now  let  us  proceed  to  understand  the  nature  of  this  law,  as  taught  by 
Buddha  himself: 

1.  The  complex  nature  of  cause. 

2.  An  endless  progression  of  the  causal  law. 

The  causal  law,  in  terms  of  the  three  worlds. 

4.  Self-formation  of  cause  and  effect. 

5.  Cause  and  effect  as  the  law  of  nature. 

1.  The  complex  nature  of  cause— A  certain  phenomena  can  not  arise 
from  a  single  cause,  but  it  must  have  several  conditions;  in  other  words,  no 
effect  can  arise  unless  several  causes  combine  together.  Take,  for  example,  a 
case  of  fire.  You  may  say  its  cause  is  oil  or  fuel;  but  neither  oil  nor  fuel 


CAUSE  AND  EFFECT  AS  TAUGHT  BY  BUDDHA,  379 

alone  can  give  rise  to  a  flame.  Atmosf)here,  space,  and  several  other  con¬ 
ditions,  physical  or  mechanical,  are  necessary  for  the  rise  of  a  flame.  All 
these  necessary  conditions  combined  together  can  be  called  the  cause  of  a 
flame.  This  is  only  an  example  for  the  explanation  of  the  complex  nature 
of  cause,  but  the  rest  may  be  inferrecT. 

2.  An  endless  progression  of  the  causal  law — A  cause  must  be  preceded 
by  another  cause;  and  an  effect  must  be  followed  by  another  effect.  Thus, 
if  we  investigate  the  cause  of  a  cause,  the  past  of  a  past,  by  tracing  back 
even  to  an  eternity,  we  shall  never  reach  the  first  cause.  The  assertion  that 
there  is  the  first  cause  is  contrary  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  nature, 
since  a  certain  cause  must  have  an  origin  in  some  preceding  cause  or  causes, 
and  there  is  no  cause  which  is  not  an  effect.  From  the  assumption  that  a 
cause  is  an  effect  of  a  preceding  cause,  which  is  also  preceded  by  another, 
thus,  ad  infinitum,  we  infer  that  there  is  no  beginning  in  the  universe.  As 
there  is  no  effect  which  is  not  a  cause,  so  there  is  no  cause  which  is  not  an 
effect.  Buddhism  considers  the  universe  as  no  beginning,  no  end.  Since, 
even  if  we  trace  back  to  an  eternity,  absolute  cause  can  not  be  found,  so  we 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  no  end  in  the  universe.  Like  as  the 
waters  ofrivers  evaportae  and  form  clouds,  and  the  latter  change  their 
form  into  rain,  thus  returning  once  more  into  the  original  form  of  waters, 
causal  law  is  in  a  logical  circle  changing  from  cause  to  effect,  effect  to 
the  cause. 

3.  The  causal  law  in  terms  of  three  worlds,  namely,  past,  present,  and 
future — All  the  religions  apply  more  or  less  the  causal  law  in  the  sphere  of 
human  conduct,  and  remark  that  the  pleasure  and  happineseof  one’s  future 
life  depend  upon  the  purity  of  his  present  life.  But  what  is  peculiar  to 
Buddhism  is,  it  applies  the  law  not  only  to  the  relation  to  present  and 
future  life  but  also  past  and  present.  As  the  facial  expressions  of  each 
individual  are  different  from  those  of  others,  men  are  graded  by  the  differ¬ 
ent  degrees  of  wisdoni,  talent,  wealth,  and  birth.  It  is  not  education  nor 
experience  alone  that  can  make  a  man  wise,  intelligent,  and  wealthy,  but  it 
depends  upon  one’s  past  life.  What  are  the  causes  or  conditions  which 
produce  such  a  difference?  To  explain  it  in  a  few  words,  I  say,  it  owes  its 
origin  to  the  different  quality  of  actions  which  we  have  done  in  our  past 
life,  namely,  we  are  here  enjoying  or  suffering  the  effect  of  what  we  have 
done  in  our  past  life.  If  you  closely  observe  the  conduct  of  your  fellow- 
beings  you  will  notice  that  each  individual  acts  different  from  the  others. 
From  this  we  can  infer  that  in  future  life  each  one  will  also  enjoy  and  suffer 
the  result  of  his  own  actions  done  in  this  existence.  As  the  pleasure  and 
pain  of  one’s  present  actions,  so  the  happiness  or  misery  of  our  future  world 
will  be  the  result  of  our  present  action. 

4.  Self-formation  of  cause  and  effect — We  enjoy  happiness  and  suffer 
misery,  our  own  actions  being  'causes;  in  other  words,  there  is  no  other 
cause  than  our  own  actions  which  make  us  happy  or  unhappy.  Now  let  us 
observe  the  different  attitudes  of  human  life;  one  is  hajjpy  and  others  feel 
unhappy.  Indeed,  even  among  the  members  of  the  same  family  we  often 
notice  a  great  diversity  in  wealth  and  fortune.  Thus  various  attitudes  of 
human  life  can  be  explained  by  the  self-formation  of  cause  and  effect. 
There  is  no  one  in  the  universe  but  oneself  who  rewards  or  punishes  him. 
The  diversity  in  future  stages  will  be  ex^jlained  by  the  same  doctrine.  This 
is,  termed  in  Buddhism  the  “  self -deed  and  self -gain,”  or  “self-make  and 
self -receive.”  Heaven  and  hell  are  self-made.  God  did  not  provide  you 
with  a  hell,  but  you  yourself.  The  glorious  happiness  of  future  life  will  be 
the  effect  of  present  virtuous  actions. 

5.  Cause  and  effect  as  the  law  of  nature — According  to  the  different 
sects  of  Buddhism  more  or  less  different  views  are  entertained  in  regard  to 
the  law  of  Causality,  but  so  far  they  agree  in  regarding  it  as  the  law  of 
nature,  independent  of  the  will  of  Buddha,  and  much  less  of  the  will  of 


380 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


human  beings.  The  law  exists  for  an  eternity,  without  beginning,  without 
end.  Things  grow  and  decay,  and  this  is  caused,  not  by  an  external  power, 
but  by  an  internal  force  which  is  in  things  themselves  as  an  innate  attri- 
bute.  This  internal  law  acts  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  cause  and 
effect,  and  thus  appear  immense  phenomena  of  the  universe.  Just  as  the 
clock  moves  by  itself  without  any  intervention  of  any  external  force,  so  is 
the  progress  of  the  universe. 

We  are  born  in  the  world  of  variety;  some  are  poor  and  unfortunate 
others  are  wealthy  and  happy.  The  state  of  variety  will  be  repeated  again 
and  again  in  our  future  lives.  But  to  whom  shall  we  complain  of  our 
misery?  To  none  but  ourselves!  We  reward  ourselves;  so  shall  we  do  in 
our  future  life.  If  you  ask  me  who  determined  the  length  of  our  life,  I  say, 
the  law  of  causality.  Who  made  him  happy  and  made  me  miserable?  The 
law  of  causality.  Bodily  health,  material  wealth,  wonderful  genius, 
unnatural  suffering  are  the  infallible  expressions  of  the  law  of  causality 
which  governs  every  particle  of  the  universe,  every  portion  of  human  con¬ 
duct.  Would  you  ask  me  about  the  Buddhist  morality?  I  reply,  in 
Buddhism  the  source  of  moral  authority  is  the  causal  law.  Be  kind,  be 
just,  be  humane,  be  honest,  if  you  desire  to  crown  your  future.  Dishonesty, 
cruelty,  inhumanity,  will  condemn  you  to  a  miserable  fall. 

As  I  have  already  explained  to  you,  our  sacred  Buddha  is  not  the  creator 
of  this  law  of  nature,  but  he  is  the  first  discoverer  of  the  law  who  led  thus 
his  followers  to  the  height  of  moral  perfection.  Who  shall  utter  a  word 
against  him?  Who  discovered  the  first  truth  of  the  universe?  Who  has 
saved  and  will  save  by  his  noble  teachings  the  millions  and  millions  of  the 
falling  human  beings?  Indeed,  too  much  approbation  could  not  be  uttered 
to  honor  his  sacred  name! 


CHRISTIANITY  AN  HISTORICAL  RELIGION. 

PROF.  GEORGE  PARK  FISHER,  D.  D.,  OF  YALE  COLLEGE. 

In  saying  that  Christianity  is  an  “  Historical  Religion  ”  more  is  meant, 
of  course,  than  that  it  appeared  at  a  certain  date  in  the  world’s  history. 
This  is  true  of  all  the  religions  of  mankind,  except  those  which  grew  up  at 
times  prior  to  authentic  records  and  sprung  up  through  a  spontaneous, 
gradual  process.  The  significance  of  the  title  of  this  paper  is  that,  in  dis¬ 
tinction  from  every  system  of  religious  thought  or  speculation,  like  the 
philosophy  of  Plato  or  Hegel,  and  from  every  religion  which  consists  exclu¬ 
sively  or  almost  exclusively,  like  Mohammedanism,  of  doctrines  and  pre¬ 
cepts,  Christianity  incorporates  in  its  very  essence  facts  or  transactions  on 
the  plane  of  historical  action. 

These  are  not  accidents,  but  are  fundamental  in  the  religion  of  the 
gospel.  The  preparation  of  Christianity  is  indissolubly  involved  in  the 
history  of  ancient  Israel,  which  comprises  a  long  succession  of  events.  The 
gospel  itself  is,  in  its  foundations,  made  up  of  historical  occurrences,  with¬ 
out  which,  if  it  does  not  dissolve  into  thin  air,  it  is  transformed  into  some¬ 
thing  quite  unlike  itself.  Moreover,  the  postulates  of  the  gospel,  or 
conditions  which  make  it  a  function  in  the  world  of  mankind  possible  and 
rational,  are  likewise  in  the  realm  of  fact,  as  contrasted  with  theoretic  con¬ 
viction  or  opinion.  We  can  best  illustrate  and  confirm  the  foregoing 
remarks  by  referring  to  a  passage  in  one  of  the  writings  of  the  great  Chris¬ 
tian  Apostle,  St.  Paul.  It  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  XVth  Chapter  of 
his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 

■  The  state  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  disgraced  as  it  was  by  controversies 
upon  the  relative  merits  of  the  teachers  from  whom  they  had  received  the 
gospel,  was  the  occasion  which  l^d  St.  Paul  to  bring  out  in  bolder  relief 


CHRISTIANITY  AN  HISTORICAL  RELIGION. 


381 


the  essential  principles  of  Christianity.  These  would  put  to  flight  all  radi¬ 
cal  errors,  and  at  the  same  time  cast  into  the  shade  minor  topics  of  conten¬ 
tion.  A  due  regard  to  fundamental  truth  would  quell  dissension. 

The  apostle  begins  th'^  passage  with  announcin;^  his  Intention  to  describe 
the  gospel  which  ho  had  preached  to  the  Corinthians  which  they  had 
embraced,  in  which  they  stood,  indeed,  ::s  l  vain  thing,  an  idea  that  none 
for  a  moment  would  admit.  After  this  preface,  he  proceeds  to  give  a 
formal  statement  of  that  which  constitutes  the  gospel,  and  thtj  point  which 
challenge^  attention  is  this;  that  the  gospel,  as  Paul  here  describes  it,  is 
made  up  of  a  series  of  facts. 

It  is  the  story  of  Jesus  Christ — of  His  death  and  resurrection.  And  all 
the  proofs  to  which  he  makes  allusions  are  also  matters  of  fact.  These 
circumstances  in  the  Savior’s  lifo  were  “according  to  the  scriptures” — that 
is,  in  agreement  with  the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament.  They  are 
vouched  for  by  witnesses,  and  the  grounds  of  their  credibility  are  stated. 
Not  only  James  and  Peter  and  the  other  Apostles  were  still  alive,  but  the 
greater  part  of  tho  500  disciples  v/ho  were  in  the  company  with  Jesus  after 
His  resurrection  were  also  living,  and  could  be  appealed  to.  And,  Anally, 
he  himself  had  been  suddenly  converted  from  bitter  enmity  by  a  specific 
occurrence,  by  seeing  Jesus,  and  had  set  about  the  work  of  a  teacher,  not 
of  his  own  notion,  but  by  the  Savior’s  express  command— a  command  to 
which  he  war:  not  disobedient. 

Into  this  part  ox  tli©  Ocissage,  however,  which  touches  on  the  evidence 
that  satisfied  Paul  of  the  historical  reality  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus  we  need  not  here  enter.  We  simply  remark  that  the  nature  of  these 
proofs  accords  with  the  whole  spirit  of  the  passage.  It  is  more  the  con¬ 
tents  of  the  gospel  as  here  given  than  the  peculiar  character  of  the  evidence 
for  the  truth  of  it  that  at  present  calls  for  consideration. 

Christianity  is  distinctly  set  forth  as  a  religion  of  facts.  Be  it  observed 
that  in  asserting  that  Christianity  is  composed  of  facts  wo  do  not  mean  to 
deny  it  to  be  a  doctrine  and  a  system  of  doctrine.  These  facts  have  all  an 
import,  a  significance  which  can  be  more  oj*  less  perfectly  defined.  That 
Christ  was  sent  into  the  world  is  not  a  bare  fact,  but  He  was  sent  into  the 
world  for  a  purpose,  and  the  end  of  His  mission  can  be  stated. 

The  death  of  J esus  has  certain  relations  to  the  divine  administration 
and  to  ourselves.  Thus,  in  the  passage  referred  to,  it  is  said,  “  He  died 
for  our  sins,”  or  to  procure  for  us  forgiveness.  And  of  all  the  facts  of  the 
gospel,  they  have  a  theological  meaning.  The  benefit  which  flows  from 
them  corresponds  to  the  character  and  situation  of  men,  and  this  condi¬ 
tion  in  which  we  are  placed  is  one  that  can  be  described  in  plain  prop¬ 
ositions.  “Sin”  is  not  some  unknown  thing,  we  can  not  tell  what,  but 
is  “  the  transgression  of  the  law,”  and  the  meaning  of  the  law  and  meaning 
of  transgression  can  be  explained. 

Nor  is  there  any  valid  objection  to  saying  that  the  gospel  is  a  system  of 
doctrine.  These  truths,  of  which  we  have  just  given  examples,  are  not 
isolated  and  disconnected  from  each  other,  but  they  are  related  to  one 
another.  If  we  are  unable  in  all  cases  to  combine  them  and  adjust  their 
relations,  if  there  are  gaps  in  the  structure  not  filled  out,  parts  that  even 
appear  to  clash,  the  same  is  true  of  almost  every  branch  of  knowledge. 
The  physiologist,  the  chemist,  the  astronomer  will  confess  just  this  imper¬ 
fection  in  their  respective  sciences.  For  who,  for  example,  will  pretend 
that  he  understands  the  human  body  so  thoroughly  that  he  has  nothing  to 
learn  and  no  difficulties  to  explain?  If  all  human  knowledge  is  defective, 
and  if,  in  every  department  of  research,  barriers  are  set  at  some  point  to 
the  progress  of  discovery,  how  unreasonable  to  cry  out  against  Christian 
theology  because  the  Bible  does  not  reveal  everything,  and  because  every¬ 
thing  that  the  Bible  does  not  reveal  is  not  yet  ascertained! 

In  affirming,  then,  that  the  gospel  is  pre-em'nently  a  religion  of  facts, 


382 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


there  is  no  design  to  favor,  in  the  slightest  degree,  the  sentimental  pietism 
or  the  indifference  to  objective  truth,  whatever  form  it  may  take,  which 
would  ignore  theological  doctrine.  But  there  is  a  sort  of  explanation  and 
a  sort  of  science  which  men,  especially  in  these  days,  are  prone  to  demand, 
which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  impossible;  and  the  state  of  mind  in 
which  this  demand  originates  is  a  fata*  disqualification  for  receiving  or 
even  comprehending  the  gospel. 

There  is  a  disposition  to  overlook  this  grand  peculiarity  of  Christianity, 
that  whatever  is  essential  and  most  precious  in  it  lies  in  the  sphere  of  spirit 
— of  freedom.  We  are  taken  out  of  the  region  of  metaphysical  necessity 
and  placed  among  personal  beings  and  among  events  which  find  their  solu,. 
tion  and  all  the  solution  of  which  they  are  capable,  in  the  free  movement 
of  the  will  and  affections.  To  seek  for  an  ulterior  cause  can  have  no  other 
result  than  to  blind  us  to  the  real  nature  of  the  phenomena  which  we  have 
to  explain.  In  order  to  present  the  subject  in  a  clear  light  let  me  ask  the 
reader  to  reflect  for  a  moment  on  the  nature  of  sin.  Look  at  any  act, 
whether  committed  by  yourself  or  another,  which  you  feel  to  be  iniquitous. 
This  verdict,  with  the  self-condemnation  and  shame  that  attend  it,  imply 
that  no  good  reason  can  be  given  for  such  an  act.  Much  more  do  they 
imply  that  it  forms  no  part  of  that  natural  development  and  exercise  of 
our  faculties  over  which  we  have  no  control.  It  is  an  act — a  free  act — a 
breaking  away  from  reason  and  law — having  no  cause  behind  the  sinner’s 
will,  and  admitting  of  no  further  explanation. 

Do  you  ask  why  one  sins?  The  only  answer  to  be  given  is  that  he  is 
foolish  and  culpable.  You  strike  upon  an  ultimate  fact  and  you  will  stay  by 
that  fact,  but  to  endeavor  to  make  it  rational  or  inevitable  you  must  deny 
morality,  deny  that  sin  is  sin,  and  guilt  is  guilt,  and  pronounce  the  simple 
belief  in  personal  responsibility  a  delusion.  What  we  have  said  of  a  single 
act  of  wrong-doing  holds  good,  of  course,  of  morally  evil  habits  and  prin¬ 
ciples. 

Suppose  again  an  act  of  love  and  self-sacrifice.  A  man  resolves  to  give 
up  his  life  for  a  religious  cause,  or  a  woman,  like  Florence  Nightingale,  to 
forsake  her  pleasant  home  for  "the  discomforts  and  exposures  of  a  soldiers’ 
hospital.  What  shall  be  said  of  these  actions?  Why,  plainly  you  have 
done  with  the  explanation  when  you  come  back  to  that  principle  of  free 
benevolence — to  the  noble  and  loving  heart — from  which  they  spring.  To 
make  them  links  in  some  necessary  process  by  which  they  no  longer  origin¬ 
ate  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word,  in  a  free  preference  lying  in  a  sphere  apart 
from  natural  development  and  inevitable  causation,  would  be  an  insult  to 
the  soul  itself. 

Or  take  a  benevolent  act  of  another  kind — the  forgiveness  of  an  injury. 
A  man  whom  you  nave  grievously  injured  magnanimously  foregoes  his  right 
to  exact  the  penalty,  though  if  he  were  to  exact  it  you  would  have  no  right 
to  complain.  His  forgiveness  is  an  act,  the  beauty  of  which  is  due  to  it's 
being  a  preresolve  on  his  part,  a  willing  gift,  a  voluntary  love.  The  sup¬ 
position  of  an  exterior  cause  which  reduces  this  act  to  a  mere  effect  of 
organization  or  mental  constitution  or  anything  else  destroys  the  very 
thing  which  you  take  in  hand  to  explain.  And  the  consequence  would 
follow  if  the  injury  which  calls  forth  pardon  were  resolved  into  something 
besides  an  unconstrained,  inexcusable,  unreasonable,  and,  in  this  sense, 
unaccountable  act. 

So  that  in  the  sphere  of  spirit  we  come  to  facts  in  which  we  have  to  rest, 
there  being  no  further  science  conceivable.  Here  the  bands  of  necessity 
which  we  find  in  the  material  world,  and  up  to  a  certain  point  in  the  opera¬ 
tions  of  the  human  mind,  have  no  place.  We  do  not  account  for  events 
here  as  in  the  material  world  by  going  back  to  forces  which  evolved  them 
and  the  laws  which  necessitated  them.  Enough  that  here  has  been  a 
choice  to  sin,  there  has  been  a  holy  will  and  a  love  that  flinches  from  no 


CHRISTIANITY  AN  HISTORICAL  RELIGION. 


383 


sacrifice.  Our  solutions  are,  to  use  technical  language,  moral,  not  meta¬ 
physical. 

We  have  to  do,  not  with  puppets  moving  about  under  the  pressure  of  a 
blind  compulsion,  but  with  personal  beings,  endued  with  a  free  spiritual 
nature. 

The  preceding  remarks  will  suggest  our  meaning  when  we  afiirm  that 
Christianity  is  a  religion  of  facts.  We  may  even  go  back  of  the  method  of 
solution  to  the  first  truth  of  religion — that  of  God,  the  Creator. 

To  give  existence  to  the  world  was  the  act  of  a  personal  being,  who  was 
not  constrained  to  create,  but  freely  put  forth  His  power,  being  infiuenced 
by  motives  such  as  His  desire  to  communicate  good  and  increase  the  sum 
of  blessedness.  The  existence  of  the  will  of  God  is  a  fact  which  admits  of 
no  further  explication,  and  he  who  seeks  to  go  behind  the  free  will  of  God 
in  quest  of  some  anterior  force  out  of  which  he  fancies  the  world  to  have 
been  derived  lands  in  a  dreamy  pantheism,  satisfying  neither  his  reason  nor 
his  heart. 

But  let  us  come  to  the  gospel  itself.  The  starting  point  is  in  fact  con¬ 
cerning  our  character  and  condition — the  fact  of  sin,  or  alienation  from  fel¬ 
lowship  with  God.  Refuse  to  look  upon  sin  in  this  light,  just  as  the  unper¬ 
verted  conscience  looks  upon  it,  and  the  gospel  has  no  longer  any  intelligi¬ 
ble  purpose.  Unless  sin  brings  a  separation  from  God,  with  whom  we  ought 
to  be  in  fellowship,  and  a  union  with  whom  is  our  true  life,  there  is  no  sig¬ 
nificance  in  the  gospel. 

Here,  then,  wo  begin  not  with  an  abstract  theory  or  first  proof  of  philos¬ 
ophy,  but  with  a  naked  fact,  which  memory  and  consciousness  testify  to.  Sin 
is  something  done.  It  is  a  hard  fact,  to  be  compared  to  the  existence  of  a 
disease  in  the  human  frame,  whose  pains  are  felt  in  every  nerve.  And  sin, 
be  it  observed,  is  no  part  of  the  healthy  process  of  life,  but  of  the  process  of 
death. 

To  presume  to  think  of  it  as  a  necessary,  normal  transition  point  to  the 
true  life  of  the  soul  is  to  annihilate  moral  distinctions  at  a  single  stroke. 
And  what  is  salvation  regarded  as  the  work  of  God?  It  is  a  work.  It  is 
not  a  form  of  knowledge,  but  is  a  deed  emanating  from  the  love  of  God.  It 
is  an  act  of  His  love.  Christ  is  a  gift  to  the  world.  He  teaches,  to  be  sure, 
but  He  also  goes  about  doing  good,  and  rises  from  the  dead,  opening  by  what 
He  does  a  way  of  reconciliation  with  God.  The  method  of  salvation  is  not 
a  philosophical  theorem,  but  a  living  friend  of  sinners,  suffering  in  their 
behalf,  and  inviting  them  to  a  fellowship  with  Himself.  It  is  the  reconcil¬ 
iation  of  an  offender  with  the  government  whose  laws  he  has  broken,  and 
with  the  Father  whose  house  ue  has  deserted. 

In  like  manner  the  reception  of  the  gospel  is  not  by  the  knowing 
faculty,  moving  through  thought.  It  is  rather  an  act  of  the  will  and  heart. 
It  is  the  acceptance  of  the  gifh  Repentance  toward  God  and  faith  in  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  each  an  act,  as  much  so  as  repentance  for  a  wrong 
done  an  earthly  friend  and  faith  in  his  forgiveness.  What  is  repentance? 
To  cease  to  do  evil  and  begin  to  do  well,  to  cease  to  live  to  ourselves  and  to 
begin  to  live  to  God.  And  what  is  faith?  It  is  an  act  of  confidence  by 
which  we  commit  ourselves  to  another  to  be  saved  by  him.  When  you  wit¬ 
ness  the  rescue  of  a  drowning  man  who  is  struggling  in  the  waves  by  some 
one  who  goes  to  his  assistance  you  do  not  call  this  a  philosophy.  Here  is 
not  a  series  of  conceptions  evolved  from  one  another  and  resting  on  some 
ultimate  abstraction,  but  here  is  life  and  action.  There  was  distress  and 
extreme  peril  and  fear  on  the  one  side  with  no  means  of  help;  there  was 
compassion,  courage,  and  self-sacrifice  on  the  part  of  him  who  did  the  good 
deed. 

And  the  metaphysics  of  the  matter  end  when  you  see  this.  So  it  is  with 
Christianity,  though  the  knowledge  of  it  is  preserved  in  a  book.  It  is  not, 
properly  speaMng,  a  philosophy.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  made  up  of  the 


384 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


actions  of  personal  beings  and  of  the  effect  of  these  upon  their  relations  to 
(5ach  other.  There  is  ill-desert,  there  is  love,  there  is  sacrifice,  there  is 
trust  and  sorrow  for  sin.  The  story  of  the  alienation  of  a  son  from  an 
earthly  parent,  of  his  penitence  and  return,  of  his  forgiveness  and  restora¬ 
tion  to  favor,  is  a  parallel  to  the  realities  which  make  up  Christianity. 

The  gospel  being  thus  the  very  opposite  of  speculation,  being  historical 
in  its  very  foundations,  being  simply,  as  the  term  imports,  the  good  news 
of  a  fact,  everything  depends  upon  our  regarding  it  from  the  right  point  of 
view.  For  if  we  expect  to  find  in  the  Bible  that  which  the  Bible  does  not 
profess  to  furnish,  and  to  get  from  Christianity  that  which  Christianity 
does  not  undertake  to  provide,  we  shall  almost  invariably  be  misled.  Let 
us  suppose,  for  example,  that  a  person  comes  to  the  Bible,  having  pre¬ 
viously  persuaded  himself  that  the  verdict  of  conscience  and  the  general 
voice  of  mankind  respecting  moral  evil  are  mistaken. 

There  has  been  no  such  jar  in  the  original  creation  as  the  doctrine  of 
sin  implies.  There  is  no  such  perversion  of  the  soul  from  its  true  destina¬ 
tion  and  true  life,  no  such  violation  of  law  is  assumed.  But  there  is  noth¬ 
ing  save  the  regular  unfolding  of  human  nature  passing  through  various 
stages  of  progress  affording  to  the  primordial  design.  It  seems  strange 
that  anyone  who  has  looked  into  his  own  heart  and  looked  out  for  a 
moment  upon  the  world  can  hold  such  a  notion  as  this.  Yet  the  disbelief 
which  presents  itself  in  the  garb  of  philosophy  at  the  present  day  plants 
itself  on  this  theory  that  the  system  of  things  or  the  cause  of  things,  as  we 
experience  it  and  behold  it,  is  the  ideal  system.  There  has  been  no  trans¬ 
gression  in  the  proper  sense,  but  only  an  upward  movement  from  a  half¬ 
brute  existence  to  civilization  and  enlightenment,  the  last  step  of  advance¬ 
ment  being  the  discovery  that  sin  is  not  guilt,  but  a  point  of  development, 
and  that  evil  really  is  good.  And  the  forms  of  unbelief  which  do  not  bring 
forward  distinct  theories  generally  approximate  more  or  less  nearly  to  the 
view  just  mentioned.  The  effect  upon  the  mind  of  denying  the  simple 
reality  of  sin,  as  it  is  felt  in  the  conscience,  is  decisive.  One  who  erfibraces 
such  a  speculation  can  make  nothing  of  Christianity,  but  must  either 
reject  it  altogether  or  lose  its  real  contents  in  the  effort  to  translate  them 
into  metaphysical  notions  of  his  own. 

A  living  God,  a  living  Christ,  with  a  heart  full  of  compassion,  offering 
forgiveness,  calling  to  repentance  and  his  redemption  can  have  no  signifi¬ 
cance.  What  call  for  a  Divine  interposition  in  a  system  already  ideally 
perfect,  with  all  its  harmonies  undisturbed?  Why  break  upon  a  strain  of 
perfect  music?  Why  give  medicine  to  them  who  are  not  ill?  They  that 
are  whole  need  not  a  physician.  How  evident  that  the  failure  to  recognize 
sin  as  a  perverse  act  proceeding  from  the  will  of  the  creature  incapacitates 
one  from  receiving  Christianity? 

Now,  suppose  the  case  of  a  person  who  abides  by  the  plain  and  well- 
nigh  inevitable  declarations  of  his  conscience  respecting  good  and  evil  and 
the  utter  hostility  of  one  to  the  other.  He  has  committed  sin.  His  mem¬ 
ory  recurs  in  part  to  the  occasions.  Every  day  adds  to  the  number  of  his 
transgressions.  His  motives  have  not  been  what  they  ought  to  be.  A  sense 
of  unworthiness  weighs  him  down  and  separates  him,  as  he  feels,  from  fel- 
lo  (vship  with  every  holy  being.  He  is  not  suffering  so  much  from  lack  of 
knowledge.  He  needs  light,  it  may  be,  but  he  has  a  profounder  want,  a  far 
deeper  source  of  distress.  He  desires  something  to  be  done  for  him  to 
restore  his  spiritual  integrity  and  take  him  up  another  plane  where  he  can 
find  inward  peace. 

It  is  just  the  case  of  a  child  who  has  fallen  under  the  displeasure  of  a 
parent  and  under  the  stains  conscience.  The  want  of  the  soul  in  this  situa¬ 
tion  is  life.  The  cry  is:  “  Oh,  wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  shall  deliver  me?” 
We  will  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  this  state  of  feeling  represents  the  truth 
or  not;  but  suppose  it  to  exist — how  will  a  man,  thus  feeling,  come  to  the 
Bible  or  to  the  gospel?  He  is  not  concerned  to  explain  the  universe  and 


CHRISTIANITY  AN  HISTORICAL  RELIGION. 


385 


enlarge  the  bounds  of  his  knowledge  by  exploring  the  mysteries  of  being.  He 
feels  that  no  intellectual  acquisition  would  give  him  much  comfort — that 
none  could  be  of  much  value,  as  long  as  this  canker  of  sin  and  guilt  is  within. 
He  craves  no  illumination  of  the  intellect;  at  least,  this  desire  is  subordinate. 
But  how  shall  this  burden  be  taken  from  the  spirit?  How  shall  he  come 
to  peace  with  God  and  himself? 

It  is  the  bread  of  life  he  longs  for.  Nothing  can  satisfy  him,  in  the 
least,  that  does  not  correspond  to  his  necessities  as  a  moral  being.  He 
needs  no  argument  to  prove  to  him  that  he  is  not  what  he  was  made  to  be, 
and  that  his  misery ,is  his  fault.  To  him  Christianity,  announcing  redemp¬ 
tion  through  Jesus  Christ,  God’s  love  to  sinners,  and  His  method  of  justify¬ 
ing  the  ungodly,  is  adopted,  and  is,  therefore,  likely  to  be  welcome.  A  sin 
is  a  deed,  so  it  is  natural  that  redemption  should  be. 

As  sin  breaks  the  original  order,  so  it  is  natural  to  expect  that  the  sys¬ 
tem  will  be  restored  from  the  top.  A  penitent  sinner  is  prepared  to  meet 
God  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  to  himself ;  and  this  fact  is  sweeter 
and  grander  in  his  view  than  all  philosophies  which  profess,  whether  truly 
or  falsely,  to  gratify  a  speculative  curiosity.  Were  it  his  chief  desire  to  be 
a  knowing  man,  he  would  feel  differently,  but  his  intense  and  absorbing 
desire  is  to  be  a  good  man. 

It  is  not  strange  that  among  Protestants  there  should  imperceptibly 
spring  up  the  false  view  concerning  the  gospel  on  which  I  have  commented. 
We  say  truly  that  the  Bible  is  the  religion  of  Protestants.  Our  attention 
is  directed  to  the  study  of  a  book.  A  one-sided,  intellectual  bent  leads  to 
the  idea  that  the  sole  or  the  principal  object  of  Christ  is  that  of  a  teacher. 
He  does  not  come  to  live  and  die  and  rise  again  and  unite  us  to  Himself 
and  God,  imparting  a  new  principle  or  moral  and  spiritual  life  to  loving, 
trusting  souls;  but  He  comes  to  teach  and  explain.  If  this  be  so,  the  next 
step  is  to  drop  Him  for  a  consideration  as  a  person,  and  to  fasten  the  atten¬ 
tion  on  the  contents  of  His  doctrine;  and  who  shall  say  that  this  step  is 
not  logically  taken?  As  the  intellectual  clement  obtains  a  still  stronger 
sway,  the  interest  in  His  doctrine  is  merely  on  the  speculative  side. 

Historical  Christianity,  with  its  great  and  moving  events  and  the  august 
personage  who  stands  in  the  center,  disappear  from  view  and  naught  is  left 
but  a  residium  of  abstractions — a  perversion  and  caricature  of  gospel  ideas. 
This  proceeding  may  be  compared  to  the  course  of  one  who  should  endeavor 
to  resolve  the  American  Revolution  into  an  intellectual  process.  Redemp¬ 
tion  is  made  up  of  events  as  real  as  the  battles  by  which  independence  was 
achieved.  We  need  some  explanation  of  the  purport  of  those  battles  and 
their  bearing  on  the  end  which  they  secure.  And  so  in  the  Bible,  together 
with  the  record  of  what  was  done  by  God,  there  is  given  an  inspired  inter¬ 
pretation  from  the  Redeemer  HimseL',  and  from  those  who  stand  near  Him 
on  whom  the  events  that  secured  salvation  made  a  fresh  and  lively  impres¬ 
sion.  The  import  of  these  events  is  set  forth.  And  the  conditions  of  attain¬ 
ing  citizenship  in  this  new  state  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  is  provided 
through  Christ,  are  defined. 

From  the  views  which  have  been  presented,  perhaps,  it  is  possible  to  see 
the  foundation  on  which  Christians  hereafter  may  unite,  and  also  how  the 
gospel  will  finally  prevail  over  mankind.  If  redemption,  looked  at  as  the 
work  of  God,  is  thus  historical,  consisting  in  a  series  of  events  which  cul¬ 
minates  in  the  Lord’s  resurrection  and  the  mission  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
first  thing  is  that  these  events  should  be  believed. 

So  that  Christianity,  in  both  fact  and  doctrine,  will  become  a  thing 
perfectly  established;  as  much  so  in  our  minds  and  feelings  as  are  now  the 
transactions  of  the  American  Revolution,  with  the  import  and  results  that 
belong  to  them.  It  is  every  day  becoming  more  evident  that  the  facts  of 
Christianity  can  not  be  dissevered  from  the  Christian  system  of  doctrine; 
that  the  one  can  not  be  held  while  the  other  is  renounced;  that  if  the 


386 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


doctrine  is  abandoned  the  facts  will  be  denied.  So  that  the  time  approaches 
when  the  acknowledgment  of  the  evangelical  history,  carrying  with  it,  as 
it  will,  a  faith  in  the  scriptural  exposition  of  it,  will  be  a  sufficient  bond  of 
union  among  Christians,  and  the  church  will  return  to  the  apostolic  creed 
of  the  early  days,  which  recounts  an  epitome  of  the  facts  of  religion. 


THE  NEED  OF  A  WIDER  CONCEPTION  OF  REVELA¬ 
TION. 

PROF.  J.  ESTLIN  CARPENTER  OF  OXFORD. 

t 

The  congress  which  I  have  the  honor  to  address  in  this  paper  is  a  unique 
assemblage  It  could  not  have  met  before  the  19th  century,  and  no  coun¬ 
try  in  the  world  possesses  the  needful  boldness  of  conception  and  organiz¬ 
ing  energy  save  the  United  States  of  America.  History  does  indeed  record 
other  endeavors  to  bring  religions  of  the  world  into  line.  The  Christian 
fathers  of  the  4th  century  credited  Demetrius  Phalereus,  the  large-minded 
librarian  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  about  250  B.  C.,  with  the  attempt  to 
procure  the  sacred  books  not  only  of  the  Jews,  but  also  of  the  Ethiopians, 
Indians,  Persians,  Elamites,  Babylonians,  Assyrians,  Chaldeans,  Romans, 
Phoenicians,  Syrians,  and  Greeks.  The  great  Emperor  Akbar,  (the  contem- 
poray  of  Queen  Elizabeth)  invited  to  his  court  Jews,  Christians,  Moham¬ 
medans,  Brahmans  and  Zoroastrians.  He  listened  to  their  discussions,  he 
weighed  their  argument  until  (says  one  of  the  native  historians)  there 
grew  gradually  as  the  outline  on  a  stone  the  conviction  in  his  heart  that 
there  were  sensible  men  in  all  religions.  Different  indeed  is  this  from  the 
court  condemnation  by  the  English  lexicographer,  Samuel  Johnson,  who 
said  a  hundred  years  ago:  “  There  are  two  objects  of  curiosity,  the 
Christian  world  and  the  Mohammedan  world,  all  the  rest  may  be  consid¬ 
ered  barbarous,”  This  congress  meets,  I  trust,  in  the  spirit  of  that  wise  old 
man  who  wrote:  “  One  is  born  a  pagan,  another  a  Jew,  a  third  a  Mussul¬ 
man.  The  true  philosopher  sees  in  each  a  fellow  seeking  after  God.”  With 
this  conviction  of  the  sympathy  of  religions  I  offer  some  remarks  founded 
on  the  study  of  the  world’s  sacred  books. 

I  will  not  stop  to  define  a  sacred  book,  or  distinguish  it  from  those 
which,  like  the“Imitatio  Christi,”  the  “Theologia  Germanica,”  or  “Pil¬ 
grim’s  Progress,”  have  deeply  influenced  Christian  thought  or  feeling..  It 
is  enough  to  observe  that  the  significance  of  great  collections  of  religious 
literature  can  not  be  overestimated.  As  soon  as  a  faith  produces  a  scripture, 
i.  e.,a  book  invested  with  legal  or  other  authority,  no  matter  on  how  lowly  a 
scale,  it  at  once  acquires  an  element  of  permanence.  Such  permanence  has 
both  advantages  and  dangers.  First  of  all,  it  provides  the  great  sustenance 
for  religious  affection;  it  protects  a  young  and  growing  religion  from  too 
rapid  change  through  contact  with  foreign  influences;  it  settles  a  base  for 
future  internal  development;  it  secures  a  certain  stability;  it  fixes  a  stand¬ 
ard  of  belief;  consolidates  the  moral  type. 

It  has  been  sometimes  argued  that  if  the  gospels  had  never  been  writ¬ 
ten,  the  Christian  church  which  existed  for  a  generation  ere  they  were 
composed,  would  still  have  transmitted  its  orders  and  administered  its  sac¬ 
raments,  and  lived  on  by  its  great  tradition.  But  where  would  have  been 
the  image  of  Jesus  enshrined  in  these  brief  records?  How  could  it  have 
sunk  into  the  heart  of  nations  and  served  as  the  impulse  and  the  goal  of 
endeavor;  unexhausted  in  Christendom  after  eighteen  centuries?  The 
diversity  of  the  religions  of  Greece,  their  tendency  to  pass  into  one  another, 
the  ease  with  which  new  cults  obtained  a  footing  in  Rome,  the  decline  of 
any  vital  faith  during  the  last  days  of  the  republic,  supply  abundant  illus- 


NEED  OF  A  WIDEE  CONCEPTION  OF  REVELATION.  387 


trations  of  the  religious  weakness  of  a  nation  without  scriptures.  On  the 
other  hand  the  dangers  are  obvious.  The  letter  takes  the  place  of  the  spirit, 
the  transitory  is  confused  with  the  permanent,  the  occasional  is  made  uni¬ 
versal,  the  local  and  temporal  is  erected  into  the  everlasting  and  absolute. 

The  sacred  book  is  indispensable  for  the  missionary  religion.  Even 
Judaism,  imperfect  as  was  its  development  in  this  direction,  discovered  this 
as  the  Greek  version  of  the  seventy  made  its  way  along  the  Mediterranean. 
Take  the  Koran  from  Islam  and  where  would  have  been  its  conquering 
power?  Read  the  records  of  the  heroic  labors  of  the  Buddhist  missionaries 
and  of  the  devoted  toil  of  the  Chinese  pilgrims  to  India  in  search  of  copies 
of  the  holy  books;  you  may  be  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  enthusiasm  with 
which  they  gave  their  lives  to  the  reproduction  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Great  Master;  you  will  see  how  clear  and  immediate  was  the  jjerception 
that  the  diffusion  of  the  new  religion  depended  on  the  translation  of  its 
scriptures. 

And  now,  one  after  another,  our  age  has  witnessed  the  resurrection  of 
ancient  literatures.  Philology  has  put  the  key  of  language  into  our  hands. 
Shrine  after  shrine  in  the  world’s  great  temple  has  been  entered;  the  songs 
of  praise,  the  commands  of  law,  the  litanies  of  penitence,  have  been  fetched 
from  the  tombs  of  the  Nile  or  the  mounds  of  Mesopotamia,  or  the  sanctu¬ 
aries  of  the  Ganges.  The  Bible  of  humanity  has  been  recorded.  What  will 
it  teach  us?  I  desire  to  suggest  to  this  congress  that  it  brings  home  the 
need  of  a  conception  of  revelation  unconfined  to  any  particular  religion,  but 
capable  of  application  in  diverse  modes  to  all.  Suffer  me  to  illustrate  this 
very  briefly  under  three  heads:  1.  Ideas  of  Ethics.  2.  Ideas  of  Inspira¬ 
tion.  3.  Ideas  of  Incarnation. 

The  sacred  books  of  the  world  are  necessarily  varied  in  character  and 
contents.  Yet  no  group  of  scriptures  fails  to  recognize  in  the  long  run  the 
supreme  importance  of  conduct.  Here  is  that  which,  in  the  control  of 
action,  speech,  and  thought  is  of  the  highest  significance  for  life.  This 
consciousness  sometimes  lights  up  even  the  most  arid  wastes  of  sacrificial 
detail. 

All  nations  do  not  pass  through  the  same  stages  of  moral  evolution 
within  the  same  periods  or  mark  them  by  the  same  crises.  The  develop¬ 
ment  of  one  is  slower,  of  another  more  swift.  One  people  seems  to  remain 
stationary  for  millenniums,  another  advances  with  each  century.  But  in  so 
far  as  they  have  both  consciously  reached  the  same  moral  relations  and 
attained  the  same  insight,  the  ethical  truth  which  they  have  gained  has  the 
same  validity.  Enter  an  Egyptian  tomb  of  the  century  of  Moses’  birth 
and  you  will  find  that  the  soul  as  it  came  before  the  judges  in  the  other 
world,  summoned  to  declare  its  innocence  in  such  words  as  these :  “  I  am 
not  a  doer  of  what  is  wwong,  I  am  not  a  robber,  I  am  not  a  murderer, 
I  am  not  a  liar,  I  am  not  unchaste,  I  am  not  the  causer  of  others’  tears.” 
Is  the  standard  of  duty  here  implied  less  noble  than  that  of  the  deca¬ 
logue?  Are  we  to  depress  the  one  as  human  and  exalt  the  other  as 
divine?  More  than  five  hundred  years  before  Christ  the  Chinese  sage, 
Lao-Tsze,  bade  his  disciples,  “Recompense  injury  with  kindness,”  and  at 
the  same  great  era,  faithful  in  noble  utterance,  Gautama,  the  Buddha, 
said,  “  Let  man  overcome  anger  by  liberality  and  the  liar  by  truth.”  Is 
this  ess  revelation  of  a  higher  ideal  than  the  injunction  of  Jesus,  “Resist 
not  evil,  but  whosoever  smiteth  thee  on  thy  right  cheek  turn  to  him  the 
other  also?”  The  fact  surely  is  that  we  can  not  draw  any  partition  line 
through  the  phenomena  of  the  moral  life  and  affirm  that  on  one  side  lie 
,  the  generalizations  of  earthly  reason,  and  on  the  other  the  declarations  of 
heavenly  truth.  The  utterances  in  which  the  heart  of  man  has  embodied 
its  glimpses  of  the  higher  vision  are  not  all  of  equal  merit,  but  they 
must  be  explained  in  the  same  way.  The  moralists  of  the  Flowery  Land, 
even  before  Confucius,  were  not  slow  to  perceive  this,  though  they  could 


THE  Parliament  of  religions. 


not  apply  it  over  so  wide  a  range  as  that  now  open  to  us.  Heaven,  in 
giving  birth  to  the  multitudes  of  the  people  to  every  faculty  and  rela¬ 
tionship  affixed  its  law.  The  people  possess  this  normal  virtue. 

In  the  ancient  records  gathered  up  in  the  Shu  King  the  Duke  of  Chow 
related  how  Hea  would  not  follow  the  leading  of  Shang  Ti — supreme  ruler 
of  God.  “In  the  daily  business  of  life,  and  the  most  common  actions,” 
wrote  the  commentator,  “  we  feel  as  it  were,  an  influence  exerted  on  the 
intelligence,  the  emotions,  and  the  heart.  Even  the  most  stupid  are  not 
without  their  gleams  of  light.”  This  is  the  leading  idea  of  Ti,  and  there  is 
no  place  where  it  is  not  felt.  Modern  ethical  theory,  in  the  forms  which  it 
has  assumed  at  the  hands  of  Butler,  Kant,  and  Martineau,  recognizes  this 
element.  Its  relation  to  the  whole  philosophy  of  religion  will  no  doubt  be 
discussed  by  other  speakers  at  this  congress. 

Suffer  me  in  brief  to  state  my  conviction  that  the  authority  of  con¬ 
science  only  receives  its  full  explanation  when  it  is  admitted  that  that  dif¬ 
ference  which  we  designate  in  forms  of  “  higher  ”  and  “  lower  ”is  not  of  our 
own  making.  It  issues  forth  from  our  own  nature  because  it  has  first  been 
implanted  within  it.  It  is  a  speech  to  our  souls  of  a  loftier  voice,  growing 
clearer  and  more  articulate  as  thought  grows  wider  and  feelings  more  pure. 
It  is  in  fact  the  witness  of  God  within  us;  it  is  the  self -manifestation  of  His 
righteousness,  so  that  in  the  common  terms  of  universal  moral  experience 
lies  the  first  and  broadest  element  of  Revelation.  But  may  we  not  apply 
the  same  tests,  the  worth  of  belief,  the  gentleness  of  feeling,  to  more  special 
cases?  If  the  divine  life  shows  itself  forth  in  the  development  of  coscience, 
may  it  not  be  traced  also  in  the  slow  rise  of  a  nation’s  thought  of  God,  or 
in  the  swifter  response  of  nobler  minds  to  the  appeal  of  heaven?  The  fact 
is  that  man  is  so  conscious  of  his  weakness  that  in  his  earlier  days  all  higher 
knowledge,  the  gifts  of  language  and  letters,  the  discovery  of  the  crafts,  the 
inventions  of  civilization,  poetry  and  song,  art,  law,  philosophy,  bear  about 
them  the  stamp  of  the  superhuman.  “Prom  Thee,”  sang  Pindar  (nearest 
of  Greeks  to  Hebrew  prophecy),  “  cometh  all  high  excellence  to  mortals.” 
Such  love  is  in  fact  the  teaching  of  the  unseen,  the  manifestation  of  the 
infinite  in  our  mortal  ken.  If  this  conception  of  providential  guidance  be 
true  in  the  broad  sphere  of  human  intelligence,  does  it  cease  to  be  true  in 
the  realm  of  religious  thought?  Read  one  of  the  Egyptian  hymns  laid  in 
the  believer’s  coffin  ere  Moses  was  born: 

Praise  to  Amen-Ka.  the  good  G^d  beloved,  the  ancient  of  heavens,  the  oldest 
of  the  earth,  Lord  of  Eternity,  Maker  Everlasting.  He  is  the  causer  of  pleasure 
and  light,  maker  of  grass  for  the  cal  t  le,  and  of  fruit  trees  for  man,  causing  the  fish 
to  live  in  the  river  and  the  birds  to  fill  the  air,  lying  awake  when  all  men  sleep  to 
seek  out  the  good  of  His  creatures.  We  worship  Thy  spirit  who  alone  hast  made 
us ;  we,  whom  Thou  hast  made,  thank  Thee  that  Thou  has  given  us  birth;  we  give 
Thee  praises  for  Thy  meicy  to  us. 

Is  this  less  inspired  than  a  Hebrew  psalm?  Study  that  antique  record 
of  all  the  Zarathustra  in  the  Gathas,  which  all  scholars  receive  as  the  old¬ 
est  part  of  the  Zend  Avesta.  Does  it  not  rest  on  a  religious  experience 
similar  in  kind  to  that  of  Isaiah? 

Theologies  may  be  many,  but  religion  is  but  one.  It  was  after  this  that 
the  Vedic  seers  were  groping  when  they  looked  at  the  varied  worship 
around  them  and  cried:  “They  call  him  India,  Mitra,  Varuna,  Agni; 
sages  name  variously  him  who  is  but  one”;  or,  again,  “  the  sages  in  their 
hymns  give  many  forms  to  him  who  is  but  one.”  It  was  this  essential  fact 
with  which  the  early  Christians  were  confronted  as  they  saw  that  the 
Greek  poets  and  philosophers  had  reached  truths  about  the  being  of  God 
not  at  all  unlike  those  of  Moses  and  the  prophets.  Their  solution  was 
worthy  of  freedom  and  universality  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus.  They  were  for 
recognizing  and  welcoming  truth  wherever  they  found  it,  and  they  referred 
it  without  hesitation  to  the  ultimate  source  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  the 
Logos,  at  once  the  minor  thought  and  the  uttered  word  of  God.  The  martyr 


NEED  OF  A  WIDER  CONCEPTION  OF  REVELATION.  389 


Justin  affirmed  that  the  Logos  had  worked  through  Socrates,  as  it  had 
been  present  in  Jesus;  nay,  with  a  wider  outlook,  he  spoke  of  the  seed  of 
the  Logos  implanted  in  every  race  of  man.  In  virtue  of  this  fellowship, 
therefore,  all  truth  was  revelation  and  akin  to  Christ  Himself.  “  What¬ 
soever  things  were  said  among  all  men  are  the  property  of  us  Christians.” 
The  Alexandrian  teachers  shared  the  same  conception.  The  divine  intelli¬ 
gence  pervaded  human  life  and  history  and  showed  itself  in  all  that  was 
best  in  beauty,  goodness,  truth.  The  way  of  truth  was  like  a  mighty  river 
ever  flowing,  and  as  it  passed  it  was  ever  receiving  fresh  streams  on  this 
side  and  that.  Nay,  so  clear  in  Clement’s  view  was  the  work  of  Greek  phil¬ 
osophy  that  he  not  only  regarded  it  like  law  and  gosijel  as  a  gift  of  God, 
it  was  an  actual  covenant,  as  much  as  that  of  Sinai,  possessed  of  its  own 
justifying  power,  or  following  the  great  generalization  of  St.  Paul.  The 
law  was  a  tutor  to  bring  the  Jews  to  Christ.  Clement  added  that  philos¬ 
ophy  wrought  the  same  heaven-appointed  service  for  the  Greeks.  May 
we  not  use  the  same  great  conception  over  other  fields  of  the  history  of 
religion  ?  “  In  all  ages,”  affirmed  the  author  of  the  wisdom  of  Solomon, 

“  wisdom  entering  into  holy  soul  maketh  them  friends  of  God  and 
l^rophets.”  So  we  may  claim,  in  its  widest  application,  the  saying  of 
Mohammed  :  “  Every  nation  has  a  creator  of  the  heavens — to  which  they 

turn  in  prayer — it  is  God  who  turneth  them  toward  it.  Hasten,  then,  emu- 
lously  after  good,  wheresoever  ye  be.  God  will  one  day  bring  you  all 
together.” 

We  shall  no  longer,  then,  speak  like  a  distinguished  Oxford  professor  of 
the  three  chief  false  religions — Brahmanism,  Buddhism,  Islam.  Insofar  as 
the  soul  discerns  God,  the  reverence,  adoration,  trust,  which  constitutes 
the  moral  and  spiritual  elements  of  its  faith,  are  in  fact  identical  through 
every  variety  of  creed.  They  may  be  more  or  less  clearly  articulate,  less  or 
more  crude  and  confused,  or  pure  and  elevated,  but  they  are  in  substance 
the  same. 

“  In  the  adoration  and  benedictions  of  righteous  men,”  said  the  poet  of 
the  Masnavi-i-Manavi,  “  the  praises  are  mingled  into  one  stream;  all  the 
vessels  are  emptied  into  one  ewer;  because  he  that  is  praised  is  in  fact  only 
one.  In  this  respect  all  religions  are  only  one  religion.”  Can  the  same 
thought  be  carried  one  step  farther?  If  inspiration  be  a  world- wide  proc¬ 
ess  unconfined  by  specific  limits  of  one  peeple,  or  one  book,  may  the  same 
be  said  of  the  idea  of  incarnation?  The  conception  of  incarnation  has 
many  forms,  and  in  different  theologies  serves  various  ends.  But  they  all 
possess  one  feature  in  common.  Among  the  functions  of  the  manifestation 
of  the  divine  man  is  instruction;  his  life  is  in  some  sense  or  other  a  mode 
of  revelation.  Study  the  various  legends  belonging  to  Central  America  of 
which  the  beautiful  story  of  the  Mexican  Quetzalcoatl  may  be  taken  as  a 
type — the  virgin  born  who  inaugurates  a  reign  of  peace,  who  establishes 
arts,  institutes  beneficent  laws,  abolishes  all  human  and  animal  sacrifices 
and  suppresses  war— they  all  revolve  around  the  idea  of  disclosing  among 
men  a  higher  life  of  wisdom  and  righteousness  and  love,  which  is  in  truth 
an  unveiling  of  heaven.  Or  consider  a  much  more  highly  developed  type, 
that  of  the  Buddhas  in  Theistic  Buddhism,  as  the  manifestation  of  the 
self-existent  everlasting  God.  Not  once  only  did  he  leave  his  heavenly 
home  to  become  incarnate  in  his  mother’s  womb. 

Eepeatedly  am  I  born  in  the  land  of  the  living.  And  what  reason  should  I  have 
to  manifest  myself V  When  men  have  become  unwise,  unbelieving,  ignorant, 
careless,  then  1,  who  know  the  course  of  the  world,  declare  “I  am  so-and-so,”  and 
consider  how  I  can  incline  them  to  enlightenment,  how  they  can  become  partakers 
of  the  Budda-nature. 

To  become  partakers  of  the  divine  nature  is  the  goal  also  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  believer.  But  may  it  not  be  stated  as  already  implicitly  a  present  fact? 
When  St.  Paul  quoted  the  words  of  Aratus  on  Mars  Hill,  “  For  we  also  are 
his  offspring,”  did  he  not  recognize  the  sonship  of  man  to  God  as  a  uni- 


390 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


versal  truth?  Was  not  this  the  meaning  of  Jesus  when  he  bade  bis  followers 
pray,  “Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven”?  Once  more  Oreek  wisdom  may 
supply  us  with  a  form  for  our  thought.  The  Logos  of  God  which  became 
flesh  and  dwelt  in  Christ,  wrought,  so  Justin  tells  us,  in  Socrates  as  well. 
Was  its  ]:)urpose  or  etfect  limited  to  those  two?  Is  there  not  a  sense  in 
which  it  appears  in  all  men?  If  there  is  a  true  light  which  lighteueth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,  will  not  every  man  as  he  lives  by 
the  light  himself  also  show  forth  God?  The  Word  of  God  is  not  of  single 
application.  It  is  boundless,  unlimited.  For  each  man  as  he  enters  into 
being,  there  is  an  idea  in  the  divine  mind — may  we  not  say  in  our  poor 
human  fashion?— of  what  God  means  him  to  be;  that  dwells  in  every  soul, 
and  realizing  itself  not  in  conduct  only,  but  in  each  several  highest  forms 
of  human  endeavor.  It  is  the  fountain  of  all  lofty  thought,  it  utters  itself 
through  the  creatures  of  beauty  in  x^oetry  and  art,  it  prompts  the  investi¬ 
gation  of  silence,  it  guides  the  inquiries  of  i>hilosophy.  There  are  so  many 
kinds  of  voices  in  the  world,  and  no  kind  is  without  signification.  So  many 
voices!  So  many  words!  Each  soul  a  fresh  word  with  a  new  destiny  con¬ 
ceived  for  it  by  God,  to  be  something  which  none  that  has  preceded  has 
ever  been  before;  to  show  forth  some  purpose  of  the  Divine  Being  just  then 
and  there  which  none  else  could  make  known. 

Thus  conceived  the  history  of  religion  gathers  up  into  itself  the  history 
of  human  thought  and  life.  It  becomes  the  story  of  God’s  continual 
revelation  to  our  race.  However  much  we  may  mar  or  frustrate  it;  in  this 
revelation  each  one  of  us  may  have  part.  Its  forms  may  change  from  age 
to  age;  its  institutions  may  rise  and  fall;  its  rights  and  usages  may  grow  and 
decline.  These  are  the  temporary,  the  local,  the  accidental;  they  are  not 
the  essence  which  abides.  To  realize  the  sympathy  of  religions  is  the  first 
step  toward  grasping  this  great  thought.  May  this  congress,  with  its  noble 
representation  of  so  many  faiths,  hasten  the  day  of  mutual  understanding 
when  God  by  whatever  name  we  hallow  him  shall  be  all  and  all. 


CHRIST  THE  REASON  OF  THE  UNIVERSE. 

KEY.  JAMES  \V.  LEE  OF  PARK  STREET  CHURCH,  ATLANTA,  GA. 

The  human  mind  uses  three  words  to  shelter  and  house  all  its  ideas. 
These  are  nature,  man,  and  God.  All  ideas  of  the  maternal  universe  are 
put  into  the  word  nature.  All  ideas  of  humanity  are  lodged  in  the  word 
man.  All  ideas  of  the  unseen,  the  infinite,  the  eternal,  are  domiciled  in 
the  word  God. 

The  realms  for  which  these  terms  stand  are  so  vast  and  so  difficult  of 
access  that  the  human  race,  after  thousands  of  years  of  thought  and  effort, 
has  been  able  only  jjartially  to  ex{jlore  and  settle  them. 

So  deep  and  abiding,  however,  has  been  the  conviction  that  the  different 
orders  of  existence  denominated  by  these  words  are  real,  that  ideas  of  them, 
as  Kant  has  well  said,  have  been  the  presuppositions  of  all  thinking. 

Ideas  of  the  self,  the  not-self,  and  of  the  unity  that  transcends  and 
includes  the  two,  are  the  necessary  and  fundamental  preconditions  of  all 
thought.  These  ideas  entered  as  strands  into  the  thread  of  the  first 
thought  man  ever  had  and  are  found  to  be  the  constituent  elements  of  the 
last  thought  of  the  most  advanced  philosoiDher.  Without  a  self,  of  course, 
no  thought  is  possible.  A  self  without  a  not-self  finds  nothing  to  think 
about.  With  a  self  somewhere,  and  a  not-self  somewhere  else,  bound  liy 
no  unity  of  which  the  two  are  exi)ressions,  there  could  be  no  thought 
again.  A  self  utterly  foreign  to  a  not-self,  a  self  with  no  origin  common  to 
a  not-self,  a  self  with  absolutely  nothing  in  it  corresponding  to  anything  in 
a  not-self-  could  have  no  iiossiblo  commerce  the  one  with  the  other. 


CHRIST  THE  REASON  OF  THE  UNIVERSE. 


391 


Relation  between  two  things  is  the  fundamental  condition  of  com¬ 
merce  between  them.  Two  dependent  relatives  are  themselves  the  indis¬ 
putable  proof  of  an  independent  unity  of  origin  and  source.  Man,  the  self, 
is  dependent,  and  nature,  the  npt-self,  is  dependent.  History  witnesses  the 
constant  and  ijermanent  relations  between  the  two,  hence,  by  the  very 
necessities  of  thought,  we  are  driven  to  assume  the  reality  of  God,  the 
unity  upon  which  the  two  depend,  and  of  whose  thought  the  two  are 
expressions.  A  chicken  could  make  no  scratches  on  the  ground  with  its 
foot  that  man  could  read.  A  chicken  jjuts  no  mind  in  the  prints  of  its 
feet  for  the  mind  of  man  to  interpret.  Man  can  decipher  the  strange 
letters  on  an  Egyptian  obelisk  because  the  letters  embody  mind,  and  mind 
is  common  to  all  men.  Man  can  read  nature  because  it  contains  mind,  and 
mind  common  to  his  own  mind.  Therefore  the  mind  embodied  in  nature 
and  the  mind  active  in  man  can  come  together,  because  they  both  are 
expressions  of  one  infinite  mind. 

As  all  thinking  begins  with  ideas  which  presuppose  the  existence  of 
nature,  man,  and  God,  so  all  thinking  continues,  and  will  ever  continue  to 
carry  in  solution  the  same  ideas.  Hence  it  will  be  found  that  all  problems 
which  have  come  before  the  mind  for  solution  have  clustered  about  the 
ideas  of  nature,  man,  and  God.  Religion  and  philosophy  in  all  ages  have 
busied  themselves  about  solving  and  explaining  the  mysteries  which  hang 
about  the  self,  the  not-self,  and  the  unity,  which  includes  the  two. 

The  value  of  any  religion  or  philosophy  will  be  determined  in  the  future 
by  the  solution  which  it  gives  to  the  problems  which  surround  these  funda¬ 
mental  ideas  of  human  thought  and  experience.  The  philosophy  or  the 
religion  that  claims  the  problems  which  surround  these  realms  to  be  insol¬ 
uble  will  have  no  lasting  place  in  the  growing  thought  of  the  human  race. 
The  sure  and  steady  progress  made  by  ages  of  painstaking  thought  and 
consecrated  living  toward  clearing  things  up  have  constantly  deepened  and 
widened  the  conviction  among  men  that  the  XJi'oblems  brought  before  the 
mind  by  the  words  nature,  man,  and  God  are  not  soluble.  As  long  as  the 
search  for  gold  in  the  Rocky  Mountains  is  rewarded  by  some  grains  in  the 
ore,  the  search  will  be  kept  up  till  all  the  mountains  are  explored. 

Of  nothing  is  there  more  settled  and  abiding  conviction,  among  the 
people  who  live  on  the  earth  to-day,  than  of  the  fact  that  the  search  for 
truth  in  the  past  has  been  sufficiently  rewarded  to  warrant  men  in  keeping 
up  the  search.  Thus,  as  never  before,  students  are  digging  into  the  heart 
of  the  earth,  observing  its  dips  and  ujjheavals;  they  are  gazing  into  the 
heavens,  counting  its  stars,  ijhotograxdiing  their  faces,  and  analyzing  their 
contents;  they  are  traveling  over  the  earth,  observing  man  as  the  facts  of 
him  come  to  light  in  his  commerce,  his  law,  his  crime,  his  insanity,  and  his 
enterxjrise;  they  are  investigating  the  religious  element  in  human  nature, 
classifying  its  manifestations,  its  age-long  search  for  the  unseen,  its  craving 
for  the  intinite,  and  knowledge  is  increasing  as  never  before. 

While  ideas  of  nature,  man,  and  God,  ideas  of  the  not-self,  the  self,  and 
of  the  unity  that  includes  the  two  are  presupposed  in  the  first  thought  of 
the  primitive  man,  it  is  not  to  be  supi)osed  that  these  ideas  are  consciously 
held,  or  held  in  any  articulate  or  developed  sense.  At  first  they  are 
inchoate,  merely  float  in  the  mind  in  a  mixed  and  undifferentiated  way.  In 
the  esteem  of  the  primitive  man  the  outside  world  covers  the  entire  ground 
of  existence.  Everything  is  alive.  He  barely  distinguishes  between  his 
own  life  and  that  of  some  other  object.  The  unrecognized  ideas  of  self  and 
of  the  infinite  lead  him  to  invest  everything  without  with  life  like  his  own. 
All  things  are  together  in  a  jumbled  and  confused  mass.  No  order  being 
within,  no  order  is  found  without.  Chaos  within  is  met  by  chaos  without. 

Gradually  distinctions  are  made  and  living  objects  take  a  higher  rank 
than  the  non-living.  The  Great  Spirit  is  gradually  lifted  from  all  things  to 
particular  things.  And  then  after  a  while,  as  in  the  case  of  Abraham,  God 


392 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


is  seen  as  one  and  man  is  seen  as  one  and  the  child  of  God,  and  the  world  is 
seen  as  one  and  as  the  home  God  has  built  for  his  child.  At  this  stage  of 
thought  civilization  begins  and  rational  history  begins.  The  marvelous 
civilization  of  Greece  and  Rome  would  never  have  been  possible  without 
the  thought  of  the  oneness  of  God.  Diogenes  Laertius  quotes  one  of  the 
Greek  lyric  poets  as  saying:  “From  one  all  things  are  generated;  into  one 
all  things  are  resolved.” 

As  long  as  the  ideas  of  nature,  man,  and  God,  which,  according  to  Kant, 
are  the  presuppositions  of  all  thinking,  are  mixed  in  the  mind  without 
definition  and  without  distinction,  civilization  is  impossible.  Confusion 
within  will  reappear  as  confusion  without. 

Not  only  must  these  factors  of  thought  be  defined  and  seiiarated  the  one 
from  the  other,  but  each  must  receive  its  proper  emphasis  and  hold  the 
place  in  the  mind  to  which  its  objective  existence  entitles  it. 

In  the  philosophy  of  India  too  much  is  made  of  God.  The  idea  of  Him 
is  pressed  to  such  illimitable  and  attenuated  transcendence  that  with  equal 
truth  anything  or  nothing  can  be  predicated  of  Him. 

In  the  system  of  Confucius  too  much  is  made  of  man.  Ideas  of  the 
Infinite  above  him  and  of  the  finite  world  below  him  are  not  clearly  grasped 
or  defined,  and,  because  of  this,  man  fails  to  find  his  proper  place  and  lives 
on  in  the  world  without  the  help  that  belongs  to  him  from  above  or  below. 

In  the  thought  of  Thomas  Henry  Buckle  the  boundaries  of  nature  are 
widened  till  but  little  room  is  left  for  man  and  God. 

In  the  theory  of  Jean  Jack  Rosseau,  man  is  emphasized  to  a  point  of 
independence  out  of  all  proportion  to  his  dependent  and  relative  nature. 

In  the  English  deism  of  the  18th  century  God  was  represented  as 
what  Carlyle  calls  an  almighty  clockmaker,  the  world  as  a  machine,  and 
men  as  so  many  atoms  related  to  one  another  mechanically,  like  the  grains 
of  wheat  in  the  same  heap.  In  this  system  none  of  the  factors  of  thought 
were  suppressed  ;  it  failed  because  it  did  not  correspond  to  the  real  nature 
of  the  facts.  No  such  a  God,  no  such  a  world,  and  no  such  men  existed  as 
English  deism  talked  about. 

In  one  respect,  then,  all  religions  and  all  philosophies  are  on  a  level. 
They  all  seek  a  solution  to  the  problems  which  hang  around  the  same  facts. 

They  are  all  faced  by  the  same  nature,  with  its  matter  and  its  force;  by 
the  same  man,  with  his  weakness,  his  sorrow,  his  fear,  his  ignorance,  his 
death ;  by  the  same  great  Being  who  surrounds  and  includes  all  things  and 
who  receives  names  from  all  peoples  corresponding  to  their  conceptions  of 
Him.  What  man  seeks  and  has  always  sought  is  such  a  philosophy  or 
synthesis  of  the  facts  of  nature,  of  man,  and  of  God  as  harmonizes  him 
with  himself,  with  his  world,  and  with  the  Being  he  calls  God. 

We  call  Christ  the  reason  of  the  universe  because  he  brings  to  thought 
such  a  synthesis  of  nature,  man,  and  God  as  harmonizes  human  life  with 
itself  and  with  the  facts  of  nature  and  God.  Christianity  is  not  a  religion 
constructed  by  the  human  reason,  but  is  such  a  religion  as  reason  sees  to 
be  in  line  with  the  facts  of  existence.  Man  is  a  thinker  and  needs  truth; 
he  is  under  the  necessity  of  acting  and  needs  law;  he  has  a  heart  and  needs 
something  to  love;  he  is  weak  and  needs  strength.  But  Christianity  does 
not  simply  bring  to  man  a  system  of  truth,  for  he  is  more  than  a  thinker; 
or  a  system  of  ethics,  for  he  needs  more  than  something  to  do;  or  a  wealth 
of  emotion,  for  he  needs  more  than  satisfaction  for  his  heart;  or  inexhaust¬ 
ible  supplies  of  strength,  for  he  needs  more  than  help  in  his  weakness; 
these  are  brought,  combined,  and  harmonized  in  the  unity  of  a  perfect  life. 

His  want  can  only  be  matched  when  these  come  together,  set  and 
arranged  in  the  harmony  of  a  complete  life.  Cosmology  is  not  enough, 
anthropology  is  not  enough.  What  man  needs  is  to  find  cosmology,  anthro¬ 
pology,  and  theology  flowing  in  the  blood,  and  beating  in  the  heart,  and 
thinking  in  the  mind,  and  acting  in  the  will  of  a  life  like  his  own.  He  needs 


CHRIST  THE  REASON  OF  THE  UNIVERSE, 


303 


to  see  once  the  germs  of  hope  and  strength  and  aspiration  which  he  feels 
in  his  own  nature  realized  in  a  life  lived  under  the  same  conditions  with 
which  he  stands  face  to  face. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  as  to  his  probably  being  mistaken,  one  thing 
is  conceded — the  facts  of  Christ's  life  and  death  and  resurrection  and 
ascension  underlie  Western  civilization  and  have  been  the  potent  factors  in 
its  creation.  If  the  men  made  a  mistake  who  supposed  they  saw  in  Christ 
the  fultillment  of  all  prophecy,  the  harmony  of  all  truth,  the  perfection  of 
all  righteousness,  the  solution  of  all  problems,  and  the  sum  of  all  beauty, 
then  we  think  with  perfect  truth  it  may  be  said,  this  is  the  most  marvelous 
mistake  in  all  history,  for  following  the  light  of  this  mistake  men  have 
come  to  the  most  enlightened  and  rational  civilization  of  ancient  or  mod¬ 
ern  times. 

Christ  owes  the  unrivaled  place  He  holds  to-day  among  the  sons  of  men 
to  the  fact  that  He  did  not  come  simply  explaining,  or  teaching,  or  phi¬ 
losophizing,  or  theorizing,  or  poetizing,  but  came  solving  the  problems  man 
saw  in  nature,  in  himself,  and  in  God  by  living  them  out. 

The  mysteries  which  men  had  sought  to  clear  up  by  thinking  He  cleared 
up  by  His  living,  and  when  the  contradiction  of  sinners  became  so  great.  He 
could  proceed  along  the  ordinary  methods  of  living  no  further.  He  submitted 
to  death,  and,  arising  from  the  grave,  gave  to  men  the  essence  of  all  truth, 
the  results  of  all  righteousness,  the  fruits  of  all  love,  and  the  secret  of  all 
time  and  eternity. 

By  His  incarnation  Christ  united  the  two  terms  found  in  the  antithesis 
of  an  intinite*past  and  a  finite  present.  By  His  resurrection  He  united  in 
a  historic  fact  the  two  terms  found  in  the  antithesis  of  an  infinite  future 
and  a  finite  present,  and  by  His  ascension  He  gave  triumjjh  and  undying 
hope  to  life. 

Let  us  now  approach  this  question  in  a  different  way  and  see  if  we  can 
not  directly  get  a  knowledge  of  the  respect  in  which  Christ  is  the  reason  of 
the  universe.  When  we  look  out  in  nature  we  see  objects.  Each  thing 
seems  to  be  independent  of  all  the  rest.  There  are  rocks,  and  clouds,  and 
rivers,  and  birds,  and  stars,  and  moons.  But  to  the  person  who  has  not 
learned  to  think  each  one  of  these  objects  seems  to  be  independent  of  all 
the  rest. 

But  a  deeper  view  leads  to  the  thought  that  things  are  related,  that  each 
object  has  an  environment,  and  a  deeper  insight  is  reached  when  the 
observer  comes  to  understand  that  the  condition  of  all  objects  together  with 
their  environments  is  space.  Then  it  will  be  seen  that  objects  might  be 
taken  away  and  environments  might  be  taken,  but  that  space  would  remain. 
An  object  is  surrounded  by  its  environment  and  the  environment  of  an 
object  is  surrounded  by -space,  but  space  is  surrounded  by  itself.  Space  is 
limited  and  continued  by  itself,  it  is  bounded  and  affirmed  by  itself.  What¬ 
ever  is  self-limited  is  infinite — hence  space  and  time  are  infinite. 

When  we  look  carefully  into  the  matter  we  find  that  environments  influ¬ 
ence  their  objects,  and  objects  in  turn  affect  their  environments.  So  events 
and  their  environments  mutually  influence  one  another.  In  this  way  we 
arrive  at  the  conception  of  causality,  and  causality  is  a  deeper  fact  than 
either  time  or  space.  In  order  that  a  cause  may  send  a  stream  of  influence 
over  to  an  effect  there  must  be  space,  and  there  must  be  time.  But  before 
a  cause  can  express  itself  in  an  effect,  it  must  separate  the  power  by  the  aid 
of  which  it  makes  the  expression  from  itself,  and  thus  we  are  led  to  the 
insight  of  self-cause,  self -separation,  and  self-activity.  A  self-causative, 
self -active,  omnipotent  energy  is  the  deepest  thing  and  the  first  thing  in 
the  universe. 

This  is  the  principle  which  is  presupposed  in  all  causative,  all  time,  all 
space,  and  all  experience.  Here  we  have  the  unity  that  includes  the  self 
and  the  not-self.  Nor  is  this  an  abstract,  barren,  empty,  sterile  unity,  corre- 


394 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


sponding  to  the  transcendent,  pure  being  of  the  Hindus.  It  is  a  dynamic, 
self-active,  self-related  unity,  that  includes  within  itself  the  wealth  of  all 
worlds,  of  all  intelligence,  of  all  life,  and  of  all  love.  Being  self-causative,  it 
is  the  subject  that  causes,  and  the  object  that  is  caused.  Being  self-active, 
it  is  cause  and  effect  in  a  living,  intelligent  unity.  The  complete  form  of 
self-activity,  self-causation,  and  self-relation  is  self-consciousness.  Self-con¬ 
sciousness  contains  within  itself  the  subject  that  thinks,  andthe  object  that 
is  thought,  and  also  the  identity  of  subject  and  object  in  a  living,  intelli¬ 
gent  personality. 

But  it  has  been  in  accordance  with  the  conviction  of  all  deep  'philosophy 
and  theology  that  what  an  absolutely  perfect  being  thinks  must,  because  it 
is  thought,  exist.  That  is,  with  an  absolutely  perfect  being  thinking  and 
willing  are  the  same.  If  what  an  absolutely  perfect  being  thought  did  not 
at  the  same  time  come  to  exist,  then  we  would  have  him  thinking  one  thing 
and  willing  another,  or  we  would  be  under  the  necessity  of  supposing  that 
he  had  thoughts  or  fancies  that  he  did  not  realize. 

In  the  absolute  ‘self-consciousness  of  God  there  is  subject  and  object, 
and  the  identity  of  subject  and  object,  in  one  divine  personality.  But  it 
is  necessarily  that  what  the  absolute  subject  thinks  must  be,  and  must 
also  be  as  perfect  as  the  absolute  subject.  It  is  necessary  also  that  the 
absolute  object  must  be  one. 

So  in  the  divine  self-consciousness  the  absolute  subject  is  Father,  and 
the  thought  of  the  Father,  or  the  absolute  object,  is  the  Son.  But  as  the 
Son  is  as  perfect  as  the  Father,  it  is  necessary  that  what  He  thinks  must  be 
also. 

Here  it  is  that  Christian  philosophy  and  theology  get  the  imperfect 
world.  The  Son  thinks  Himself  first  as  eternally  derived,  as  eternally 
begotten.  In  the  fact  that  the  Son  differs  from  the  First  person  in  that  He 
is  eternally  derived  from  Him  is  found  the  thought  of  limitation,  which  is 
expressed  in  the  imperfect  world  in  all  stages  and  grades  of  existence,  from 
pure  passivity  up  through  space,  and  atoms,  and  force,  and  compounds,  and 
plants,  and  animals,  to  man,  who  is  in  the  image  of  God  and  at  the  top  of 
creation. 

In  God  as  Father  the  idea  of  transcendence  is  met,  and  thus  we  have 
the  truth  of  monotheism;  in  God  the  Son,  the  idea  of  an  indwelling  God  is 
met,  and  we  have  the  truth  of  polytheism.  In  God  the  Spirit,  the  idea  of 
God  pervading  the  world  is  matched,  and  we  have  the  truth  of  pantheism. 

Here  we  have  a  trinity  not  such  as  would  be  constituted  by  three 
judges  in  a  court,  or  by  three  things  imagined  under  sensible  forms.  The 
relations  between  three  such  judges,  or  three  such  sensible  things,  would 
be  mechanical  and  accidental,  and  not  absolute  and  essential.  The  Trinity 
of  the  Christian  Church  is  not  simply  the  aggregation  of  three  indi¬ 
viduals,  or  the  unity  of  three  mathematical  points.  The  Trinity  revealed 
in  the  Christian  Scriptures  is  such  as  makes  a  concrete  unity  through  and 
by  means  of  difference.  This  Trinity  makes  a  unity,  the  distinguishing 
feature  of  which  is  “  fullness,”  not  emptiness.  It  is  a  trinity  constitutive 
of  a  real,  experimental,  and  knowable  unity.  God  is  revealed  in  the 
scriptures  as  intelligence,  life,  and  love,  and  the  living  process  of  each  is 
triune.  The  terms  of  a  self,  whose  living  function  is  intelligence,  are 
three,  subject,  object,  and  the  organic  identity  of  the  two.  The  terms  of 
such  a  self  are  necessarily  three,  and  yet  its  nature  is  necessarily  one. 

If  God  is  intelligent  He  is  triune,  because  the  process  of  intelligence  is 
triune.  There  can  not  be  mind  without  self-consciousness,  and  the  object 
of  eternal  self-consciousness  is  the  eternal  Logos,  who  is  the  full  and  com¬ 
plete  expression  of  the  eternal  mind. 

Time  or  space  is  not  necessary  to  the  complete  act  of  self-conscious¬ 
ness. 

The  movement  of  the  eternal  mind  passing  through  the  Son  into  the 


CHRIST  THE  REASON  OF  THE  UNIVERSE. 


395 


Holy  Spirit,  and  then  through  the  finite  world  and  Christian  Church  back 
to  Himself,  has  been  called  a  procession.  A  procession,  because  infinite, 
eternally  complete.  Thus,  while  God  eternally  goes  from  Himself  He  eter¬ 
nally  returns  to  Himself  with  spirits  redeemed  by  the  Son,  and  regenerated 
by  the  Spirit,  capable  of  sharing  the  love  and  joy  and  life  of  Himself. 

This  view  makes  it  necessary  that  God  through  the  Son  create  the 
world.  At  this  doctrine  some  people  will  stagger.  One  thing  is  sure,  God 
has  created  the  world,  and  if  the  necessity  for  creating  it  was  not  in  His 
nature,  then  creation  is  an  accident.  There  is  no  reason  where  there  is  no 
necessity.  The  necessity  for  a  thing  is  the  reason  for  it.  If  there  was  no 
necessity  for  creation,  the  creative  act  becomes  wholly  irrational.  God  is 
represented  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Bible  as  Creator.  It  is  necessary 
that  a  creator  create. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  while  it  is  necessary  that  God  create, 
this  is  a  necessity  that  falls  within  His  own  nature.  This  means  that  God 
is  essentially  a  creative  being.  There  is  no  necessity  outside  of  God  by 
which  He  is  compelled  to  do  anything.  This  would  be  the  establishment 
of  a  fate  greater  than  God.  All  necessity  relating  to  God  falls  within  His 
own  being  and  is  that  which  defines  what  He  rationally  and  essentially  is. 

But  while  the  doctrine  makes  the  creation  of  the  finite  world  necessary, 
it  does  not  make  sin  or  the  self-assertion  of  a  finite  spirit  necessary. 
But  man  is  free  with  a  body,  made  of  the  earth  at  the  bottom  of  himself, 
and  with  a  spirit  the  direct  gift  of  God  at  the  top  of  himself.  Between 
man  as  body  and  man  as  spirit  there  is  the  realm  of  choice.  If  he  acts 
with  reference  to  himself  as  body  simply,  he  sins.  The  x>ossibility.  of  sin 
in  the  case  of  man  is  found  in  that  in  his  personality  there  come  together  a 
limited  and  an  unlimited  self,  a  carnal  and  a  spiritual  self,  a  self  in  time 
and  space,  andia  self  under  the  form  of  eternity. 

This  doctrine  helps  us  again  to  account  for  the  two  poles  of  mien’s 
moral  and  intellectual  consciousness.  Human  nature  has  a  dual  constitu¬ 
tion.  It  is  the  unity  of  two  principles,  a  princiYjle  of  thought  and  will  and 
a  principle  of  truth  and  right.  As  a  physical  being  he  is  dual.  The  sub¬ 
jective  side  of  his  physical  self  is  hunger,  the  objective  side  of  his  physical 
nature  is  food.  Now  before  he  can  live  as  a  physical  being  the  hunger  and 
the  food  must  come  together. 

Now,  on  his  subjective  side,  man  feels  he  is  free,  but  on  his  objective  side 
he  feels  he  must  obey.  How  is  he  to  be  free  and  obedient  at  the  same  time? 
When  we  remember  that  the  nature  of  man  is  a  reproduction  of  the  nature 
of  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeding  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son  flows  out  into  humanity  to  enlighten,  to  quicken,  to  convince 
of  sin,  and  then  to  renew,  to  regenerate,  and  to  organize  into  the  Christian 
Church,  we  will  see  that  the  truth  the  spirit  presents  to  man’s  intellect  is 
adapted  to  it  as  food  is  to  his  hunger,  and  that  the  law  the  Spirit  stimulates 
and  urges  man  to  obey  is  the  law  of  his  own  nature. 

This  doctrine  gives  us  the  meaning  of  the  struggle,  conflict,  pain,  which 
are  apparent  throughout  the  realm  of  nature  and  human  life.  Leibnitz, 
looking  at  the  top  of  things,  at  health,  at  joy,  sunshine,  laughter,  and  pros¬ 
perity,  said  this  was  the  best  possible  world.  Schopenhaur,  looking  at  the 
bottom,  at  storms,  thorns,  disease,  poverty,  death,  said  this  was  the  worst 
possible  world. 

The  entrance  of  the  divine  procession  into  the  limitations  of  time  and 
space  is  advertised  by, the  storm  and  stress,  the  ceaseless  clash  and  strife 
which  begin  among  the  atoms.  This  struggle  is  kept  up  through  all 
stages  of  organization  until  when  we  reach  the  plane  of  human  life  it  is 
expressed  in  cries  and  wails,  in  tragedies,  epics,  litanies,  which  become  the 
most  interesting  part  of  human  literature. 

Into  this  struggle  comes  the  son  of  man  and  the  Son  of  God.  He  meets 
it,  endures  it,  and  conquers  it,  and  is  crucified,  and  His  crucifixion  is  the 


396 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


culmination  of  the  process  of  trial  and  storm  and  strife  which  began  with 
the  atoms  and  continued  through  the  whole  course  of  nature.  When 
Christ  comes  up  from  the  dead  then  the  truth  of  the  ages  gets  defined, 
that  through  suffering  and  denial  and  crucifixion  is  the  way  to  holiness  and 
everlasting  life.  From  thenceforth  a  redeemed  humanity  becomes  the 
working  hypothesis  and  the  ideal  of  the  race.  Then  it  comes  to  be  seen 
that  the  whole  movement  of  God  looks  to  the  organization  of  the  human 
race  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  reason,  the  logos,  the  plan,  and  the  ideal  frame¬ 
work  of  the  universe. 


THE  INCARNATION  IDEA  IN  HISTORY  AND  IN 

JESUS  CHRIST. 

RT.  REV.  JOHN  J.  KEANE,  D.  D.,  OF  WASHINGTON. 

The  subject  assigned  to  me  is  so  vast  that  an  hour  would  not  suffice  to 
do  it  justice.  Hence,  in  the  space  of  thirty  minutes,  I  can  only  point  out 
certain  lines  of  thought,  trusting,  however,  that  their  truth  will  be  so  man¬ 
ifest  and  their  significance  so  evident  that  the  conclusion  to  which  they 
lead  may  be  clearly  recognized  as  a  demonstrated  fact. 

Cicero  has  truly  said  that  there  never  was  a  race  of  atheists.  Cesare 
Balbo  has  noted  with  equal  truth  that  there  never  has  been  a  race  of 
deists.  Individual  atheists  and  individual  deists  there  have  been,  but 
they  have  always  been,  and  have  alwa3's  been  recognized  as  abnormal 
beings.  Humanity  listens  to  them,  weighs  their  utterances  in  the  scales 
of  reason,  smiles  sadly  at  their  vagaries,  and  holds  fast  the  two-fold 
conviction  that  there  is  a  supreme  being,  the  Author  of  all  else  that  is; 
and  that  man  is  not  left  to  the  mercy  of  ignorance  or  of  guess  work  in 
regard  to  the  purpose  of  his  being,  but  has  knowledge  of  it  from  the 
great  Father. 

This  sublime  conception  of  the  existence  of  God  and  of  the  existence  of 
revelation  is  not  a  spontaneous  generation  from  the  brain  of  man.  Tyndal 
and  Pasteur  have  demonstrated  that  there  is  no  spontaneous  generation 
from  the  inorganic  to  the  organic.  Just  as  little  is  there,  or  could  there 
be,  a  sf)ontaneous  generation  of  the  idea  of  the  infinite  from  the  brain  of 
the  finite.  The  fact,  in  each  case,  is  the  result  of  a  touch  from  above.  All 
humanity  points  back  to  a  golden  age,  when  man  was  taught  of  the  Divine 
by  the  Divine,  that  in  that  knowledge  he  might  know  why  he  himself 
existed,  and  how  his  life  was  to  be  shaped. 

Curiously,  strangely,  sadly  as  that  primitive  tea,ching  of  man  by  his  Creator 
has  been  transformed  in  the  lapse  of  ages,  in  the  vicissitudes  of  distant 
wanderings,  of  varying  fortunes,  and  of  changing  culture,  still  the  com^iara- 
tive  study  of  ancient  religions  shows  that  in  them  all  there  has  existed  one 
central,  pivotal  concept,  dressed,  indeed,  in  various  garbs  of  myth  and 
legend  and  philosophy,  yet  ever  recognizably  the  same — the  concept  of  the 
fallen  race  of  man  and  of  a  future  restorer,  deliverer,  redeemer,  who,  being 
human,  should  yet  be  different  from  and  above  the  merely  human. 

Again  we  ask,  whence  this  concept?  And  again  the  sifting  of  serious 
and  honest  criticism  demonstrates  that  it  is  not  a  spontaneous  generation 
of  the  human  brain,  that  it  is  not  the  outgrowth  of  ipan’s  contemplation 
of  nature  around  him  and  of  the  sun  and  stars  above  him,  although,  once 
having  the  concept,  he  could  easily  find  in  all  nature  symbols  and  analo¬ 
gies  of  it.  It  is  part,  and  the  central  part,  of  the  ancient  memory  of  the 
human  race,  telling  man  what  he  is  and  why  he  is  such  and  how  he  is  to 
attain  to  something  better  as  his  heart  yearns  to  do. 

Glancing  now,  in  the  light  of  the  history  of  religions,  at  that  stream  of 
tradition  as  it  comes  down  the  ages,  we  see  it  divide  into  two  clearly 


THE  INCARNATION  IDEA  IN  HISTORY. 


397 


distinct  branches,  one  shaping  thought,  or  shaped  by  thought,  in  the  eastern 
half  of  Asia,  the  other  in  the  western  half.  And  these  two  separate 
streams  receive  their  distinctive  character  from  the  idea  prevalent  in  the 
east  and  west  of  Asia  concerning  the  nature  of  man,  and,  consequently, 
concerning  this  relation  to  God. 

In  the  west  of  Asia,  the  Semitic  branch  of  the  human  family,  together 
with  its  Aryan  neighbors  of  Persia,  considered  man  as  a  substantial  indi¬ 
viduality,  produced  by  the  Infinite  Being,  and  produced  as  a  distinct 
entity,  distinct  from  his  Infinite  Author  in  his  own  finite  personality,  and, 
through  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  preserving  that  distinct  individuality 
forever. 

Eastern  Asia,  on  the  contrary,  held  that  man  had  not  a  substantial  indi¬ 
viduality,  but  only  a  xjhenomanal  individuality.  There  is,  they  said,  only 
one  substance — the  Infinite;  all  things  are  but  phenomena,  emanations  of 
the  Infinite.  “Behold,'’  say  the  Laws  of  Manou,  “how  the  sparks  leap 
from  the  fiame  and  fall  back  into  it;  so  all  things  emanate  from  Brahma 
and  again  lose  themselves  in  him.”  “Behold,”  says  Buddhism,  “how  the 
dewdrop  lies  on  the  lotus  leaf,  a  tiny  particle  of  the  stream,  lifted  from  it 
by  evaporation  and  slipping  off  the  lotus  leaf  to  lose  itself  in  the  stream 
again.”  Thus  they  distinguished  between  being  and  existence;  between 
persisting  substance,  the  Infinite,  and  the  evanescent  phenomena  emanat¬ 
ing  from  it  for  awhile,  namely,  man  and  all  existent  things. 

From  these  opposite  concepts  of  man  sprang  opposite  concepts  of  the 
nature  of  good  and  evil.  In  Western  Asia  good  was  the  conformity  of  the 
finite  will  with  the  will  of  the  Infinite,  which  is  wisdom  and  love:  evil 
was  the  deviation  of  the  finite  will  from  the  eternal  norma  of  wisdom  and 
love.  Hence  individual  accountability  and  guilt,  as  long  as  the  deviation 
lasted;  hence  the  cure  of  evil  when  the  finite  will  is  brought  back  into 
conformity  with  the  Infinite;  hence  the  happiness  of  virtue  and  the  bliss 
of  immortality,  and  the  value  of  existence. 

Eastern  Asia,  on  the  contrary,  considered  existence  as  simply  and  solely 
an  evil,  in  fact,  the  sole  and  all-pervading  evil,  and  the  only  good  was  deliv¬ 
erance  from  existence,  the  extinction  of  all  individuality  in  the  oblivion  of 
the  Infinite.  Although  existence  was  conceived  as  the  work  of  the  Infi¬ 
nite — nay,  as  an  emanation  coming  forth  from  the  Infinite — yet  it  was  con¬ 
sidered  simply  a  curse,  and  all  human  duty  had  this  for  its  mean  ing  and 
its  purpose,  to  break  loose  from,  the  fetters  of  its  existence,  and  to  help  oth¬ 
ers  with  ourselves  to  reach  non-existence. 

Hence  again,  in  Western  Asia,  the  future  redeemer  was  conceived  as  one 
masterful  individuality,  human,  indeed,  type  and^head  of  the  race,  but  also 
pervaded  by  the  divinity  in  ways  and  degrees /more  or  less  obscurely  con¬ 
ceived  and  used  by  the  divinity  to  break  the  chains  of  moral  evil  and  guilt 
— nay,  often  they  supposed  of  physical  and  national  evils  as  well — and  to 
bring  man  back  to  happiness,  to  holiness,  to  God.  Thus,  vaguely  or  more 
clearly,  they  held  the  idea  of  an  incarnation  of  the  deity, for  man’s  good; 
and  his  incarnation  was  naturally  looked  forward  to  as  the  crowning  bless¬ 
ing  and  glory  of  humanity. 

In  Eastern  Asia,  on  the  contrary,  as  man  and  all  things  were  regarded 
as  phenomenal  emanations  of  the  Infinite,  it  followed  that  every  man  was 
an  incarnation.  And  since  this  phenomenal  existence  was  considered  a 
curse,  which  metempsychosis  dragged  out  pitifully.  And  if  there  was 
room  for  the  notion  of  a  Redeemer,  he  was  to  be  one  recognizing  more 
clearly  than  others  what  a  curse  existence  is  struggling  more  resolutely 
than  others  to  get  out  of  it,  and  exhorting  and  guid^ing  others  to  escape 
from  it  with  him. 

We  pause  to  estimate  these  two  systems.  We  easily  recognize  that  their 
fundamental  difference  is  a  difference  of  philosophy.  The  touchstone  of 
philosophy  is  human  reason,  and  we  have  a  right  to  apply  it  to  all  forms 


^08 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  philosophy.  With  no  irreverence,  therefore,  but  in  all  reverence  and 
tenderness  of  religious  sympathy,  we  apply  to  the  philosophies  underlying 
those  two  systems  the  touchstone  of  reason. 

We  ask  Eastern  Asia:  How  can  the  x)henomena  of  the  Infinite  Being 
be  finite?  For  fjhenomena  are  not  entities  in  themselves,  but  liases  of 
being.  We  have  only  to  look  calmly  in  order  to  see  here  a  contradiction  in 
terms,  an  incompatibility  in  ideas,  an  impossibility. 

We  ask  again:  How  can  the  emanations  of  the  Infinite  Being  be  evil? 
For  the  Infinite  Being  must  be  essentially  good.  Zoroaster  declared  that 
Ahriman,  the  evil  one,  had  had  a  beginning  and  would  have  an  end,  and 
was,  therefore,  not  eternal  nor  infinite.  And.if  there  is  but  one  substance, 
then  the  emanations,  the  phenomena,  of  the  Infinite  Being  are  himself; 
how  can  they  be  evil?  How  can  his  incarnation  be  the  one  great  curse 
to  get  free  from? 

Again  we  ask:  How  can  this  human  individuality  of  ours,  so  strong,  so 
persistent  in  its  self-consciousness  and  self-assertion,  be  a  jihenomenon 
without  a  substance?  Or  if  it  have  as  its  substance  the  Infinite  Being  Him¬ 
self,  then  how  can  it  be,  as  it  too  often  is,  so  ignorant  and  erring,  so  weak 
and  changeful,  so  lying,  so  dishonest,  so  mean,  so  vile?  For  let  us  remem¬ 
ber  that  acts  are  jiredicated  not  of  phenomena,  but  of  substance,  of  being. 

Once  more  we  ask:  If  human  existence  is  but  a  curse,  and  if  the  only 
blessing  is  to  restrain,  to  resist,  to  thwart  and  get  rid  of  all  that  consti¬ 
tutes  it,  then  what  a  mockery  and  a  lie  is  that  asjjiration  after  human 
Xjrogress  which  spurs  noble  men  to  their  noblest  achievements! 

To  these  questions  pantheism,  emanationism,  has  no  answer  that  reason 
can  accept.  It  can  never  constitute  a  philosophy,  because  its  bases  are 
contradictions.  Shall  we  say  that  a  thing  may  be  false  in  philosophy  and 
yet  true  in  religion  ?  That  was  said  once  by  an  inventor  of  paradoxes ;  but 
reason  repudiates  it  as  absurd,  and  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  has  well  said 
that  religion  must  be  “  our  reasonable  service.”  Human  life,  incarnation, 
redeinjition,  must  mean  something  different  from  this.  For  the  spirit  that 
breathes  through  the  tradition  of  the  East,  the  spirit  of  profound,. self- 
annihilation.in  the  presence  of  the  Infinite,  and  of  ascetic  self-immolation 
fis  to  the  things  of  sense,  we  not  only  may  but  ought  to  entertain  the 
tenderest  sympathy,  nay  the  sincerest  reverence.  Who  that  has  looked 
into  it  but  has  felt,  the  fascination  of  its  mystic  gloom  ?  But  religion 
means  more  than  this ;  it  is  meant  not  for  man’s  heart.alone,  but  for  his 
intellect  also.  It  must  have  for  its  foundation. a  bed  rock  of  solid  phil¬ 
osophy.  Turn  we  then  and  apply  the  touchstone  to  the  tradition  of  the 
West. 

Here  it  needs  no  lengthy  philosophic  reflection  to  recognize  how  true  it 
is  that  what  is  not  self -existent,  what  has  a  beginning  must  be  finite,  and 
that  the  finite  must  be  substantially  distinct  from  the  Infinite.  We  recog¬ 
nize  that  no  multiplication  of  finite  individualities  can  detract  from  the 
Infinite,  nor  could  their  addition  add  to  the  Infinite;  for  infinitude  resides 
not  in  multiplication  of  things,  but  in  the  boundless  essence  of  Being,  in 
whose  simple  and  all-pervading  immensity,  the  .multitude  of  finite  things 
have  their  existence  gladly  and  gratefully.  “  What  have  you  that  you  have 
not  received  ?  And  if  you  have  received  it,  why  should  you  glory  as  if  you 
had  not  received  it  ?  ”  This  is  the  keynote  not  only  of  their  humble  depend¬ 
ence,  but  also  of  their  gladsome  thankfulness. 

We  recognize  that  man’s  substantial  individuality,  his  spiritual  immor¬ 
tality,  his  individual  power  of  will  and  consequent  moral  responsibility,  are 
great  truths  linked  together  in  manifest  logic,  great  facts  standing  together 
immovably. 

We  see  that  natural  ills  are  the  logical  result  of  the  limitations  of  the 
finite,  and  that  moral  evil  is  the  result  of  the  deviation  of  humanity  from 
the  normal  of  the  Infinite,  in  which  truth  and  rectitude  essentially  reside. 


THE  INCARNATION  IDEA  IN  HISTORY. 


399 


We  see.  that  the  end  and  purpose  and  destiuy,  as  well  as  the  origin,  of 
the  finite  must  be  in  the  Infinite — not  in  the  extinction  of  the  finite  individ¬ 
uality— else  why  should  it  receive  existence  at  all — but  in  its  perfection 
and  beatitude.  And  therefore  we  see  that  man’s  upward  aspiration  for  the 
better  and  the  best  is  no  allusion,  but  a  reasonable  instinct  for  the  right 
guidance  of  his  life. 

All  this  we  find  explicitly  stated  or  plainly  implied  in  the  tradition  of  the 
West.  Here  we  have  a  philosophy  concerning  God  and  concerning  man 
which  may  well  serve  as  the  rational  basis  of  religion.  What  then  has  this 
tradition  to  tell  us  concerning  the  incarnation  and  the  redemption? 

From  the  beginning,  we  see  every  finger  pointing  toward  “  the  expected 
of  the  nations,  the  desired  of  the  everlasting  hills.”  One  after  another,  the 
patriarchs,  the  pioneer  fathers  of  the  race,  remind  their  descendants  of  the 
promise  given  in  the  beginning.  Revered  as  they  were,  each  of  them  says: 
“  I  am  not  the  expected  one:  look  forward  and  strive  to  be  worthy  to  receive 
Him.” 

Among  all  those  great  leaders  Moses  stands  forth  in  special  grandeur 
and  majesty.  But  in  his  sublime  humility  and  truthfulness  Moses  also 
exclaims:  “I  am  not  the  Messiah;  I  am  only  His  type  and  figure  and  pre¬ 
cursor.  The  Lord  hath  used  me  to  deliver  His  people  from  the  land  of 
bondage,  but  hath  not  permitted  me  to  enter  the  promised  land  because  I 
trespassed  against  Him  in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel  at  the  waters 
of  contradiction;  I  am  but  a  figure  of  the  sinless  One  who  is  to  deliver  man¬ 
kind  from  the  bondage  of  evil  and  lead  them  into  the  promised  land  of  their 
eternal  inheritance.  Look  forward  and  prepare  for  Him.” 

One  after  another  the  prophets,  the  glorious  sages  of  Israel  arise,  and 
each,  like  Moses  points  forward  to  Him  that  is  to  come,  and  each 
brings  out  in  clearer  light  who  and  what  He  is  to  be,  the  nature 
of  the  Incarnation.  “  Behold,  a  Virgin  shall  conceive  and  shall 
bring  forth  a  son  and  He  shall  be  called  Emmanuel.”  That  is,  God  with 
us.  “  A  little  child  is  born  to  us,  and  a  son  is  given  to  us,  and  the  princi¬ 
pality  is  on  His  shoulder,  and  He  shall  be  called  the  Wonderful,  the  Coun¬ 
sellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Father  of  the  world  to  come,  the  Prince  of 
Peace.” 

Outside  of  the  land  of  Israel  the  nations  of  the  Gentiles  were  stirred 
with  similar  declarations  and  expectancies.  Soon  after  the  time  of  Moses, 
Zoroaster  gives  to  Persia  the  prediction  of  a  future  Savior  and  judge  of 
the  world. 

Greece  hears  the  olden  promise  that  Prometheus  shall  yet  be  delivered 
from  his  chains  re-echoed  in  the  prayer  of  dear  old  Socrates  that  one  would 
come  from  heaven  to  teach  his  people  the  truth  and  save  them  from  the 
sensualism  to  which  they  clung  so  obstinately.  And  pagan  Rome,  the 
inheritor  of  all  that  had  preceded  her,  hears  the  Sibyls  chanting  of  the 
Divine  One  that  was  to  be  given  to  the  world  by  the  wonderful  Virgin 
Mother  and  feels  the  thrill  of  that  universal  expectancy  concerning  which 
Tacitus  testifies  that  all  were  then  looking  for  a  great  leader  who  was  to 
rise  in  Judea  and  to  rule  the  world. 

And  the  expectation  of  the  world  was  not  to  be  frustrated.  At  the  very 
time  foretold  by  Daniel  long  ages  before,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  of  the  family 
of  David,  in  the  little  town  of  Bethlehem,  with  fulfillment  of  all  the  pre¬ 
dictions  of  the  prophets,  the  Messiah  appears.  “  Behold,”  says  the  mes¬ 
senger  of  the  Most  High  to  the  Virgin  of  Nazareth,  “thou  shalt  conceive 
in  thy  womb,  and  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  thou  shalt  call  His  name 
Jesus.  He  shall  be  great  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Most  High; 
and  the  Lord.God  shall  give  unto  Him  the  throne  of  David  His  father,  and 
He  shall  reign,  in  the  house  of  Jacob  forever,  and  of  His  kingdom  there 
shall  be  no  end.”  “How  shall  this  be  done,  because  I  know  not  man?” 
“  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most  High 


400 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


shall  overshadow  thee;  and  therefore  also  the  Holy  One  that  shall  be  born 
of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God,”  “  Behold  the  handmaid  of  the 
Lord;  be  it  done  to  me  according  to  'I  hy  word.” 

And  what  then?  “In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was 
with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and 
dwelt  among  us,  full  of  grace  and  truth,  and  of  His  fullness  we  all  have 
received.”  And  concerning  Him  all  subsequent  ages  were  to  chant  the 
canticle  of  faith:  “I  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Creator  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God,  born  of  the  Father  before  all  ages;  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  true 
God  of  true  God,  begotten,  not  made,  co-substantial  with  the  Father, 
through  whom  all  things  were  made,  who,  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation, 
came  down  from  heaven  and  was  incarnated  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Vir¬ 
gin  Mary  and  was  made  man.” 

But,  again,  to  this  tremendous  declaration,  which  involves  not  only  a 
religion,  but  a  philosophy  also,  we  may,  and  we  should,  apply  the  touch¬ 
stone  of  reason  and  ask:  “Is  this  possible  or  is  it  imjjossible  things  that  are 
here  told  us?  For  wo  never  can  be  expected  to  believe  the  impossible.  Let 
us  analyze  the  ideas  comprised  in  it.  Can  God  and  man  thus  become  one?  ” 

Now,  first,  reason  testifies  as  to  man  that  in  him  two  distinct  and,  as  it 
would  seem,  opposite  substances  are  brought  into  unity,  namely:  si)irit 
and  matter;  the  one  not  confounded  with  the  other,  yet  both  linked  in  one, 
thus  completing  the  unity  and  harmony  of  created  things.  Next  reason 
asks:  Can  the  creature  and  the  Creator,  man  and  God,  be  thus  united  in 
order  that  the  unity  and  the  harmony  may  embrace  all? 

Reason  sees  that  the  finite  could  not  thus  mount  to  the  Infinite  any 
more  than  matter  of  itself  could  mount  to  spirit.  But  could  not  the  Infi¬ 
nite  stoop  to  the  finite  and  lift  it  to  His  bosom  and  unite  it  with  Himself, 
with  no  confounding  of  the  finite  with  the  Infinite  nor  of  the  Infinite  with 
the  finite,  yet  so  that  they  shall  be  linked  in  one?  Here  reason  can  discern 
no  contradiction  of  ideas,  nothing  beyond  the  power  of  the  Infinite.  But 
could  the  Infinite  stoou  to  this?  Reason  sees  that  to  do  so  would  cost  the 
Infinite  nothing,  since  He  is  ever  His  unchanging  Self;  it  sees,  moreover, 
that  since  creation  is  the  offspring  not  of  His  need  but  of  His  bounty,  of 
His  love,  it  would  be  most  worthy  of  Infinite  love  to  thus  perfect  the  cre¬ 
ative  act,  to  thus  lift  up  the  creature  and  bring  all  things  into  unity  and 
harmony.  Then  must  reason  declare  it  is  not  only  possible  but  it  is  most 
fitting  that  it  should  be  so. 

Moreover,  we  see  that  it  is  this  very  thing  that  all  humanity  has  been 
craving  for,  whether  intelligently  or  not.  This  very  thing  all  religions  have 
been  looking  forward  to,  or  have  been  groping  for  in  the  dark.  Turn  we 
then  to  Himself  and  ask:  Art  thou  He  who  is  to  come,  or  look  we  for 
another?  ”  To  that  question  He  must  answer,  for  the  world  needs  and  must 
have  the  truth.  Meek  and  humble  of  heart  though  He  be,  the  world  has 
a  right  to  know  whether  He  be  indeed  “the  Expected  of  the  Nations,  the 
Immanuel,  Lord  with  us  ”  Therefore  does  He  answer  clearly  and  unmis¬ 
takably: 

“Abraham  rejoiced  that  he  should  see  my  day.  He  saw  it  and  was 
glad.” 

“Art  thou  then  older  than  Abraham?” 

“  Before  Abraham  was  I  am.” 

“Who  art  thou,  then?  ” 

“  I  am  the  beginning,  who  also  speak  to  you.” 

“Whosoever  seeth  me  s  eth  the  Father;  I  and  the  Father  are  one.” 

“  No  one  cometh  to  the  Father  but  by  Me.” 

“  I  am  the  way  and  the  truth  and  the  life.” 

“I  am  the  light  of  the  world;  he  that  folio weth  Me  walketh  notin  dark¬ 
ness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of  life.” 


THE  INCARNATION  OF  GOD  IN  CHRIST 


401 


“lam  the  vine,  you  are  the  branches.  Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  As 
the  branch  can  not  bear  fruit  of  itself  unless  it  abide  in  the  vine,  so  neither 
can  you  unless  you  abide  in  me,  for  without  me  you  can  do  nothing.” 

He  asks  His  disciples  to  declare  who  He  is.  Simon  replies:  “Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Hiving  God.” 

He  answers:  “  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  because  flesh  and 
blood  have  not  revealed  this  to  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.” 

Thomas  falls  on  his  knees  before  Him,  exclaiming,  “  My  Lord  and  my 
God!”  He  answers:  “  Because  thou  hath  seen  me,  Thomas,  thou  hast 
believed;  blessed  are  they  that  hath  not  seen  and  have  yet  believed.” 

His  enemies  threaten  to  stone  him,  “  because,”  they  said,  “being  man,  He 
maketh  Himself  God.”  They  demand  that  for  this  reason  He  shall  be  put 
to  death.  The  high  priest  exclaims:  “  I  abjure  thee  by  the  living  God  that 
thou  tell  us  if  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  son  of  the  living  God.  He  answers: 
“  Thou  hast  said  it.  I  am;  and  one  day  you  shall  see  me  sitting  on  the  right 
hand  of  the  power  of  God,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven.” 

In  fulfillment  of  the  prophesies  He  is  condemned  to  death.  He  declares 
that  it  is  for  the  world’s  redemption:  “  I  lay  down  my  life  for  my  sheep. 
No  one  taketh  my  life  from  me,  but  I  lay  down  my  life,  and  I  have  power  to 
lay  down  my  life,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  up  again.” 

As  proof  of  all  He  said  He  foretold  His  resurrection  from  death  on  the 
third  day,  and  in  the  glorious  evidence  of  the  fulfillment  of  the  pledge  His 
church  has  ever  since  been  chanting  the  Easter  anthem  throughout  the 
world. 

To  that  church  He  gives  a  commission  of  spiritual  authority  extending 
to  all  ages,  to  all  nations,  to  every  creature  —  a  commission  that  would  be 
madness  in  any  mouth  save  that  of  God  incarnate. 

This  is  the  testimony  concerning  Himself  given  to  an  inquiring  and 
needy  world  by  Him  whom  no  one  will  dare  accuse  of  lying  or  imposture, 
and  the  loving  adoration  of  the  ages  proclaims  that  His  testimony  is  true. 

In  Him  are  fulfilled  all  the  figures  and  predictions  of  Moses  and  the 
prophets;  all  the  expectation  and  yearning  of  Israel.  In  Him  is  the  full¬ 
ness  of  grace  and  of  truth  toward  which  the  sages  of  the  Gentiles,  with 
sad  or  with  eager  longing,  stretched  forth  their  hands.  In  each  of  them 
there  was  much  that  was  true  and  good;  in  Him  is  all  they  had,  and  all  the 
rest  that  they  longed  for;  in  Him  alone  is  the  fullness,  and  to  all  of  them 
and  all  of  their  disciples  we  say:  “  Come  to  the  fullness.” 

Edwin  Arnold,  who  in  his  “  Light  of  Asia”  has  pictured  in  all  the  colors 
of  poesy  the  sage  of  the  far  East,  has  in  his  later  “  Light  of  the  World  ” 
brought  that  wisdom  of  the  East  in  adoration  to  the  feet  of  Jesus  Christ. 
May  his  words  be  a  prophecy. 

O,  Father,  grant  that  the  words  of  thy  Son  may  be  verified,  that  all, 
through  him,  may  at  last  be  made  one  in  Thee. 


THE  INCARNATION  OF  GOD  IN  CHRIST. 

REV.  JULIEN  K.  SMYTH  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  NEW  JERUSALEM, 

BOSTON  HIGHLANDS. 

It  is  related  that  some  Greeks  once  came  to  Jerusalem  and  to  a  fisher¬ 
man  of  Bethsaida  they  said:  “Sir,  we  would  see  Jesus.”  Hellas  came  to 
Israel;  the  nation  of  culture  approached  the  people  of  revelation,  and  the 
j)atrons,  if,  indeed,  we  may  not  say  the  worshipers,  of  the  beautiful  asked 
to  look  into  the  face  of  Him  who  “hath  no  form  nor  comeliness,”  whose 
“  visage  was  so  marred  unlike  to  a  man  and  His  form  unlike  to  the  sons  of 
men.”  A  few  years  later  a  Tarsus  Jew,  a  messenger  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 


402 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


standing  in  the  court  of  the  Areopagites,  said  to  the  men  of  Athens  who 
asked  concerning  “the  new  doctrine:”  “Whom  ye  ignorantly  worship,  Him 
declare  I  unto  you.”  And  the  question  of  the  Greeks  has  ijassed  trom 
mouth  to  mouth,  as  the  story  of  the  “man  of  sorrows”  has  been  carried 
around  the  world,  until  now,  in  this  gathering  together  of  all  religions,  it  is 
put  forth  as  a  question  of  humanity. 

To  attempt  to  explain  from  the  Christan  standpoint  the  coming  and 
the  nature  of  that  Person,  the  influence  of  whose  life  has  been  so  creative 
of  spiritual  hope  and  purpose,  is  a  responsibility,  the  weightiness  of  which 
is  felt  in  proportion  as  it  is  believed  that  to  as  many  as  receive  Him,  to 
them  gives  He  the  power  to  become  children  of  God;  that  He  is  the  Word 
made  flesh,  and  that  the  glory  which  men  behold  in  Him  is  in  very  truth, 
“  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father.” 

Christianity,  in  its  broadest  as  well  as  its  deepest  sense,  means  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  God  in  humanity.  It  is  the  revelation  of  God  in  His  workt;  the 
opening  uf)  of  a  straight,  sure  way  to  that  God;  and  a  new  tidal  flow  of 
divine  life  to  all  the  sons  of  men.  The  hope  of  this  has,  in  some  measure, 
been  in  every  age  and  in  every  religion,  stirring  them  with  expectation. 
Evil  might  be  strong,  but  a  day  would  come  when  the  seed  of  a  woman 
would  bruise  the  serpent’s  head,  even  though  it  should  bruise  the  Con¬ 
queror’s  heel.  God  in  His  world  to  champion  and  redeem  it!  This  is  what 
the  religions  of  the  ages  have,  in  some  form  and  with  various  degrees  of 
certainty,  looked  for.  This  is  what  sang  itself  into  the  songs  and  prophe¬ 
cies  of  Israel. 

And  the  glory  of  Jehovah  shall  be  revealed;  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it  together; 
for  the  mouth  of  Jehovah  hath  spoken  it. 

Behold,  the  Lord  Jehovah  will  come  in  strength,  and  His  arm  shall  rule  for  Him. 
Behold  His  reward  is  with  Him  and  His  workbefore  Him.  He  shall  feed  His  flock 
like  a  shepherd;  He  shall  gather  the  lambs  with  His  arms,  ano  carry  them  in  His 
bosom,  and  shall  gently  lead  those  that  are  with  young. 

Christianity  is  in  the  world  to  utter  her  belief  that  He  who  revealed 
Himself  as  the  Good  Shepherd  realizes  these  exfjectations  and  fulfills  these 
promises,  and  that  in  the  Word  made  flesh  the  glory  of  Jehovah  has  been 
revealed  and  all  flesh  may  see  it  together.  Even  in  childhood  He  bears  the 
name  Emanuel,  which,  being  interpreted,  is  “  God  with  us.”  He  explains 
His  work  and  His  presence  by  declaring  that  it  is  the  coming  of  the  King¬ 
dom — not  of  law,  nor  of  earthly  government,  nor  of  ecclesiasticism — but  of 
God. 

His  purpose,  to  manifest  and  bring  forth  the  love  and  the  wisdom  of 
God;  His  miracles,  simply  the  attestations  of  the  divine  immanence;  His 
supreme  end,  the  culmination  of  all  His  labors;  His  sufferings.  His  victories, 
to  become  the  oijen  and  glorified  medium  of  divine  life  to  the  world.  It  is 
not  another  Moses,  nor  another  Elias,  but  God  in  the  world — God  with  us — 
this,  the  supreme  announcement  of  Christianity,  asserting  his  immanence, 
revealing  God  and  man  as  intended  for  each  other  and  rousing  in  man 
slumbering  wants  and  capacities  to  realize  the  new  vision  of  manhood  that 
dawns  upon  him  from  this  luminous  figure. 

Christianity  affirms  as  a  fundamental  fact  of  the  God  it  worships  that 
He  is  a  God  that  does  not  hide  or  withhold  Himself,  but  who  is  ever  going 
forth  to  man  in  the  effort  to  reveal  Himself,  and  to  be  known  and  felt 
according  to  the  degree  of  man’s  capacity  and  need.  This  self-manifesta¬ 
tion  or  “  forthgoing  of  all  that  is  known  or  knowable  of  the  divine  per¬ 
fections”  is  the  Logos,  or  Word;  and  it  is  the  very  center  of  Christian 
revelation.  This  word  is  God,  not  withdrawn  in  dreary  solitude,  but  com¬ 
ing  into  intelligible  and  personal  manifestation.  From  the  beginning — for 
so  we  may  now  read  the  “  Golden  Proem”  of  St.  John’s  Gosi^el,  with  its 
wonderful  spiritual  history  of  the  logos — from  the  beginning  God  has  this 
desire  to  go  forth  to  something  outside  of  Himself  and  be  known  by  it. 
“In  the  beginning  was  the  Word.”  Hence  the  creation.  “All  things  were 


THE  INCARNATION  OF  GOD  IN  CHRIST. 


403 


made  by  Him.”  Hence,  too,  out  of  this  divine  desire  to  reveal  and  accom¬ 
modate  Himself  to  man.  His  presence  in  various  lorins  of  religion.  “He 
was  in  the  world.”  Even  in  man’s  sin  and  spiritual  blindness  the  eternal 
Logos  seeks  to  bring  itself  to  his  consciousness. 

“The  Light  shineth  in  the  darkness.”  tint  gradually  through  the  ages, 
through  man’s  sinfulness,  his  spiritual  perceptions  become  dim  and  Ke  sees 
as  in  a  state  of  open-eyed  blindness  only  the  forms  through  which  the 
Divine  Mind  has  sought  to  manifest  Himself.  “He  was  in  the  world  and 
the  world  knew  him  not.”  What  more  can  be  done?  Type  symbol,  relig¬ 
ious  ceremonials,  scriptures— all  have  been  employed.  Has  not  man 
slipped  beyond  the  reach  of  the  divine  endeavors?  But  the  Christian  his¬ 
tory  of  the  Logos  moves  on  to  its  supreme  announcement:  “And  the  Word 
was  made  fresh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  H>s  glory,  the  glory  as 
of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth.”  Not  some 
angel  come  from  heaven  to  deliver  some  further  message;  not  another 
prophet  sprung  from  our  bewildered  race  to  chide,  to  warn,  or  to  exhort, 
but  the  Logos,  which  in  the  beginning  was  with  God  and  which  was  God, 
the  Jehovah  of  the  old  prophecies,  whose  glory,  it  had  been  promised, 
would  be  revealed  that  all  flesh  might  see  it  together. 

And  so  in  the  Christian  view  of  it  the  story  of  the  Logos  completes 
itself  in  the  story  of  the  manger.  And  so,  too,  the  Incarnation,  instead  of 
being  exceptional,  is  exactly  in  line  with  what  the  Logos  has,  from  the 
beginning,  been  doing.  God,  as  the  word,  has  ever  been  coming  to  man  in 
a  form  accommodated  to  his  need,  keeping  step  with  his  steps  until,  in  the 
completeness  of  this  desire  to  bring  Himself  to  man  where  he  is.  He 
appears  to  the  natural  senses  and  in  a  form  suitable  to  our  natural  life. 

In  the  Christian  conception  of  God,  as  one  who  seeks  to  reveal  Himself 
to  man,  it  simply  is  inevitable  that  the  Word  should  manifest  Himself  on 
the  very  lowest  plane  of  man’s  life  if  at  any  time  it  would  be  true  to  say  of 
his  spiritual  condition  :  “  This  people’s  heart  is  waxed  gross  and  their  ears 
are  dull  of  hearing,  and  their  eyes  they  have  closed.”  It  is  not  extraordi¬ 
nary  in  the  sense  of  its  being  a  hard  or  an  unnatural  thing  for  God  to  do. 
He  has  always  been  approaching  man,  always  adapting  His  revelations  to 
human  conditions  and  needs.  It  is  this  constant  accommodation  and 
manifestation  that  have  kept  man’s  power  of  spiritual  thought  alive.  The 
history  of  religions,  together  with  their  remains,  is  a  proof  of  it.  The  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  historic  faiths  presented  in  this  parliament  has  confirmed  it 
as  the  most  self-evident  thing  of  the  Divine  Nature  in  His  dealings  with 
the  children  of  men,  and  the  incarnation  of  its  natural  and  completest 
outcome. 

And  when  we  begin  to  follow  the  life  of  Him  whose  footprints,  in  the 
light  of  Christian  history  and  experience,  are  still  looked  upon  as  the  very 
footprints  of  the  Incarnate  Word,  the  gospel  story  is  a  story  of  toil,  of  suf¬ 
fering,  of  storm  and  tempest;  a  story  of  sacrifice,  of  love  so  pure  and  holy 
that  even  now  it  has  the  power  to  touch,  to  thrill,  to  re-create  man’s  selfish 
nature.  There  is  an  undoubted  actuality  in  the  human  side  of  this  life, 
but  just  as  surely  there  is  a  certain  divine  something  forever  speaking 
through  those  human  tones  and  reaching  out  through  those  kindly  hands. 
The  character  of  the  Logos  is  never  lost,  sacrificed,  or  lowered.  It  is 
always  this  divine  something  trying  to  manifest  itself,  trying  to  make 
itself  understood,  trying  to  redeem  man  from  his  slavery  to  evil  and  draw 
to  itself  his  spiritual  attachment. 

Here,  plain  to  human  sight,  is  part  of  that  age-long  effort  of  the  Word 
to  reveal  itself  to  man  only  now  through  a  nature  formed  and  born  for  the 
purpose.  We  are  reminded  of  it  when  we  hear  Him  say:  “Before  Abra¬ 
ham  was,  I  am.”  We  are  assured  of  it  when  He  declares  that  He  came 
forth  from  the  Father.  And  we  know  that  He  has  triumphed  when,  at  the 
last,  we  hear  his  promise,  “  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always.”  It  is  the  Logos 


404 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Pl)caking,  The  divine  purpose  has  been  fulfilled.  The  Word  has  come  forth 
on  this  plane  of  human  life,  manifested  Himself,  and  established  a  rela¬ 
tionship  with  man  nearer  and  dearer  than  ever  before  He  has  made  Him¬ 
self  available  and  indispensable  to  every  need  or  effort.  “Without  Me,  ye 
can  do  nothing.”  In  His  divine  humanity  He  has  established  a  perfect 
mediuTii  whereby  we  may  have  free  and  immediate  access  to  Clod’s  fath¬ 
erly  help.  “  I  am  the  Door  of  the  sheejj.”  “  I  am  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and 
the  Life.” 

In  this  thought  of  the  divine  character  of  the  Son  of  Man,  the  early 
Christians  found  strength  and  comfort.  For  a  time  they  did  not  attemjjt 
to  define  this  faith  theologically.  It  was  a  simple,  direct,  earnest  faith  in 
the  goodness  and  redeeming  power  of  the  God-man,  whose  perfect  nature 
had  insx)ired  them  to  believe  in  the  reality  of  His  heavenly  reign.  They 
felt  that  the  risen  Lord  was  near  them;  that  he  was  the  Savior  so  long 
promised;  the  world’s  hojie,  “  in  whom  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  God¬ 
head  bodily.”  But  to-day  man  claims  his  right  to  enter  understandingly 
into  the  mysteries  of  faith,  and  reason  asks.  How  could  God  or  the  divine 
Logos  be  made  flesh? 

Yet,  in  seeking  for  an  answer  to  such  an  inquiry,  we  are  at  the  same 
time  seeking  to  know  of  the  origin  of  human  life.  The  conception  and 
birth  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  related  in  the  gospels,  is,  declares  the  reason,  a 
strange  fact.  So,  too,  is  the  conception  and  birth  of  every  human  being. 
Neither  can  be  exxilained  by  any  jirinciple  of  naturalism,  which  regards  the 
external  as  first  and  the  internal  as  second  and  of  comparative  unimpor¬ 
tance.  Neither  can  be  understood,  unless  it  be  recognized  that  spiritual 
forces  and  substances  are  related  to  natural  forces  and  substances  as  cause 
and  effect;  and  that  they,  the  former,  are  prior  and  the  active  formative 
agents  playing  ujjon  and  received  by  the  latter. 

We  do  not  articulate  words  and  then  try  to  pack  them  with  ideas  and 
intentions.  The  process  is  the  reverse;  First  the  intention,  then  that  inten¬ 
tion  coming  forth  as  a  thought,  and  then  the  thought  incarnating  itself  by 
means  of  articulated  sounds  or  written  characters. 

By  this  same  law  man  is  primarily,  essentially,  a  spiritual  being.  In  the 
very  form  of  his  creation  that  which  essentially  is  the  man,  and  which  in 
time  loves,  thinks,  makes  jjlans  and  efforts  for  useful  life,  is  spiritual.  In 
his  conception,  then,  the  human  seed  must  not  only  be  acted  upon  but 
be  derived  from  invisible,  spiritual  substances  which  are  clothed  with 
natural  substances  for  the  sake  of  conveyance.  That  which  is  shjwly 
developed  into  a  human  being,  or  soul,  must  be  a  living  organism  coni' 
posed  of  spiritual  substances.  Gradually  that  primitive  form  becomes 
enveloped  and  protected  within  successive  clothings,  while  the  mother, 
from  the  substances  of  the  natural  world,  silently  weaves  the  swathings 
and  coverings  which  are  to  serve  as  a  natural  or  physical  body  and  make 
possible  its  entrance  into  this  outer  court  of  life. 

We  do  not  concede,  then,  that  there  is  anything  impossible  or  contrary 
to  order  in  the  declaration  of  the  gospel,  but  “that  which  is  conceived  in 
her  is  of  the  Holy  Spirit.”  It  is  still  in  line  with  the  general  law  of  the 
conception  and  birth  of  all  human  beings.  The  primitive  form  or  nature, 
as  in  the  case  of  man,  is  spiritual.  But  in  this  instance  it  is  not  derived 
from  a  human  father,  but  is  especially  formed  or  molded  by  the  divine  crea¬ 
tive  spirit,  formed  as  with  us  of  spiritual  substances;  formed  with  a  perfec¬ 
tion  and  with  infinite  possibilities  of  development  unknown  to  us;  formed, 
too,  for  the  special  i)urpose  of  being  the  perfect  instrument  or  medium 
upon  and  through  which  the  divine  might  act  as  its  very  soul. 

Because  that  primitive  form  is  divinely  molded  or  begotten,  instead  of 
being  derived  from  a  finite  paternity,  it  is  unique.  It  is  divine  in  first  prin¬ 
ciples.  In  the  outer  clothings  of  the  natural  mind  and  in  the  successive 
wrapj)ings  furnished  by  the  woman  nature  it  shares  our  weakness.  But 


H.  DHARMAPALA,  Ceylon. 


f  4,  - 


A 


% 


\ 


/ 


THE  INCARNATION  OF  GOD  IN  CHRISt. 


405 


primarily,  essentially,  it  is  born  with  the  capacity  of  becoming  divine 
through  the  removal  of  whatever  is  imperfect  or  limiting  and  through  com¬ 
plete  union  with  the  divine  which  formed  it  for  Himself. 

Very  like  our  humanities  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  growth  of  the 
natural  body  and  natural  mind  would  be  this  humanity  of  the  Son  of  Man. 
The  same  tenderness  and  helplessness  of  its  infantile  body,  the  same  possi¬ 
bility  of  weariness,  hunger,  thirst,  pain;  th-i  same  exposure,  too,  in  the 
lower  planes  of  the  mind,  to  the  assaults  of  evil  resulting  in  eternal  struggle, 
temptation,  and  anguish  of  spirit.  And  yet  there  is  always  an  un likeness, 
a  difference,  in  that  the  very  primitive,  determining  forms  and  possibilities 
of  that  humanity  are  divinely  begotten. 

And  so  we  think  of  this  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ  as  so  formed  and 
born  as  to  be  able  to  serve  as  a  perfect  instrument  whereby  the  eternal 
Logos  might  come  and  dwell  among  us;  might  so  express  and  pour  forth 
His  love;  might  so  accommodate  and  reveal  His  truth;  might,  in  a  word,  so 
set  Himself  on  all  the  planes  of  angelic  and  human  existence  as  to  be  for¬ 
ever  after  immediately  present  in  them,  and  so  become  literally,  actually 
God-with-us. 

Gradually  this  was  done.  Gradually  the  divine  life  of  love  and  wisdom 
came  into  the  several  planes,  which,  by  incarnation,  existed  in  this  human¬ 
ity,  removing  from  them  whatever  was  limiting  or  imperfect,  substituting 
what  was  divine,  filling  them,  glorifying  them,  and  in  the  end  making  them 
a  very  part  of  Himself. 

This  brings  into  harmony  the  two  elements  which  we  are  apt  to  look 
upon  and  keep  distinct,  the  human  and  the  divine.  For  He  Himself  tells 
us  of  a  process,  a  distinct  change  which  His  humanity  underwent,  and 
which  is  the  key  to  His  real  nature.  “The  Holy  Spirit,”  says  the  record, 
“  was  not  yet  given,  because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified.”  Some  divine 
operation  was  going  on  within  that  humanity  which  was  not  fully 
accomplished.  But  on  the  eve  of  His  crucifixion  he  exclaimed:  “  Now  is  the 
Son  of  Man  glorified  and  God  is  glorified  in  Him.”  It  is  this  process  of 
putting  off  what  was  finite  and  infirm  in  the  human  and  the  substitution 
of  the  Divine  from  within,  resulting  in  the  formation  of  a  divine  humanity. 
So  long  as  that  is  going  on,  the  human  as  the  Son  feels  a  separation  from 
the  divine  as  the  Father  and  speaks  of  it  and  turns  to  it  as  though  it  were 
another  person.  But  when  the  glorification  is  accomplished,  when  the 
divine  has  entirely  filled  the  human  and  they  act  “  reciprocally  and  unan¬ 
imously  as  soul  and  body,”  then  the  declaration  is:  “  I  and  the  Father 
are  one.”  Divine  in  origin,  human  in  birth,  divinely  human  through  glori¬ 
fication.  As  to  His  soul,  or  immortal  being,  the  Father;  as  to  His  human, 
the  Son;  as  to  the  life  and  saving  power  that  go  forth  from  His  glorified 
nature,  the  Holy  Spirit. 

This  story  of  the  divine  life  in  its  descent  to  man,  this  coming  or  incar¬ 
nation  of  the  Logos  through  the  humanity  of  J esus  Christ,  it  is  the  sweet  and 
serious  privilege  of  Christianity  to  carry  into  the  world.  I  try  to  state  it, 
I  try  from  a  new  theological  standpoint  to  show  reasons  for  its  rational 
acceptance. 

But  I  know  that,  however  true  and  necessary  explanations  may  be,  the 
fact  itself  transcends  them  all.  No  one  in  this  free  assembly  is  required 
or  expected  to  hide  his  denominationalism.  And  yet  I  love  to  stand  with 
my  fellow  Christians  and  unite  with  them  in  that  simplest,  most  compre¬ 
hensive  creed  that  was  ever  uttered.  Credo  Domino.  Denominationalism, 
dogmatism  aside !  Aside,  too,  all  prejudices  and  practices.  What  is  the 
simplest,  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  being  of  Jesus  Christ?  Brother 
men,  are  we  not  ready  t  )  unite  in  saying  it  is,  and  saying  it  to  the  whole 
round  world  ?  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  life  or  the  love  of  God;  mani¬ 
festing  itself  to  man,  going  out  into  the  worH,  awakening  the  capacity 
which  is  in  every  man  for  spiritual,  yes  for  divine  life.  Is  not  that  the  very 


406 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


heart  of  the  gospel  or  rather  is  not  that  the  gospel  ?  And  is  it  now  equally 
true  that  up  to  this  hour  three  is  no  fact  so  real,  no  fact  so  powerful,  no 
fact  that  is  working  such  spiritual  wonders  as  the  fact,  the  influence,  the 
being  of  Jesus  Christ. 

We  are  sitting  here  as  the  first  great  Parliament  of  Religions  of  the 
world.  We  rightly  believe,  we  boldly  say,  that  from  this  time  on  the  fath¬ 
erhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man  must  mean  more  to  us  than 
ever  before,  and  none  can  be  so  timid  but  would  dare  to  stand  here  and  say 
that  in  this  hall  the  death-knell  of  bigotry  has  sounded.  Yet  it  were  a 
sacrilege  to  suppose  that  the  large  tolerance  which  has  been  shown  here 
and  which  has  secured  for  the  representatives  of  every  faith  such  a  hospit¬ 
able  reception  is  the  evolution  of  mere  good  nature.  It  is  the  spirit  of 
Him  whose  utterance  of  those  simple  words,  which  have  been  inscribed  as 
the  text  of  the  Columbian  Liberty  Bell,  are  already  ringing  in  “The  Christ 
that  is  to  be.”  “  A  new  commandment  I  give  unto  you.  That  ye  love  one 
another.” 

And  the  same  lips  also  said:  “Other  sheep  I  have  which  are  not  of 
this  fold;  them  also  I  must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice:  and 
there  shall  be  one  fold  and  one  shepherd.  ”  Because  of  such  words  we 
listen  with  a  new  eagerness  to  all  that  men  have  to  tell  of  their  faiths;  and 
there  is  no  declaration  of  truth,  however  old,  from  whatever  source,  by 
whomsoever  spoken,  but  has  called  out  the  heartiest  tokens  of  approval,  if 
only  it  strikes  down  to  what  we  feel  to  be  the  eternal  verities  underlying 
our  existence.  To  the  surprise  of  many  these  declarations  often  bear  a 
striking  similarity  to  some  of  the  teachings  of  Christianity,  when,  in  real¬ 
ity,  the  marvel  is  that  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  should  be  so  all-embrac¬ 
ing  and  universal. 

Nor  is  it  to  be  forgotten  that  the  Christ  not  simply  taught  the  truth. 
He  so  embodied  it,  so  lived  it;  that  He  is  the  truth.  And  Christianity  is  not 
afraid  to  say  that  the  religion  which  bears  his  name  is  grounded  not  upon 
truth— the  abstract — nor  a  philosophy,  nor  an  ecclesiasiicism,  nor  a  ritual, 
but  upon  a  person;  a  person  so  true,  so  perfect  m  holiness,  that  we  believe 
— nay,  we  feel,  that  He  embodies  the  very  life  and  spirit  of  God.  And  with 
this  manifestation  has  come  a  new  conception  of  God  as  one  who  is  w  illing 
to  go  any  length  in  order  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  is  lost.  And  it  is 
this  truth — God  seeking  man,  man  serving  God;  God  entering  into  our 
experiences  of  joy  or  of  pain,  God  fairly  urging  upon  us  His  help  and  for¬ 
giveness.  This  is  the  Christian’s  message  to  all  the  children  of  men.  It  is 
not  simply  what  Christianity  has  done,  it  is  not  simply  what  Christianity 
has  taught;  it  is  what  Christ  is  that  is  enduring  and  vital.  Often  it  has 
been  said  that  the  wise  men  from  the  East  came  to  His  cradle.  May  there 
be  even  greater  cause  for  thankfulness  in  remembering  that  wise  men  from 
the  West  started  from  His  cross. 


THE  WORLD’S  DEBT  TO  BUDDHA. 

H.  DHARMAPALA  OF  CEYLON. 

The  paper  opened  with  a  quotation  from  Max  Muller: 

If  I  were  asked  under  what  sky  the  human  mind  has  most  fully  developed 
some  of  its  choicest  gifts,  has  most  deeply  pondered  on  the  greatest  problems  of 
life,  and  has  found  solutions  of  them  which  well  deserve  the  attention  of  those 
who  have  studied  Plato  and  Kant.  I  should  point  to  India.  If  I  were  to  ask  myself 
from  what  literature  we  here  in  Europe  may  draw  that  corrective  which  is  most 
wanted  in  order  to  make  our  inner  life  more  perfect,  more  comprehensive,  more 
universal,  and  in  fact  more  truly  human  a  life,  not  for  this  life  only,  but  for  a 
transfigured  and  eternal  life,  again  I  should  point  to  India. 

Ancient  India,  twenty-flve  centuries  ago,  was  the  scene  of  a  religious 
revolution,  the  greatest  the  world  has  ever  seen.  Indian  society  at  that  time 


THE  WORTHS  DEBT  TO  BUDDHA. 


407 


had  two  large  and  distinguished  religious  foundations  —  the  Szmanas  and 
Brahmanas.  Famous  teachers  arose,  and,  with  their  disciples,  went  among 
the  people  preaching  and  converting  them  to  their  respective  views.  Chief 
of  them  were  Purana  Kassapa,  Makkhali,  Ghosala,  Ajita,  Kesahambala, 
Pakudha  Kacckagara,  Sanjaya  Belattiputta  and  Niganta  Nathaputta. 
Amidst  the  galaxy  of  these  bright  luminaries  there  appeared  other  thinkers 
and  philosophers  who,  though  they  abstained  from  a  higher  claim  of  relig¬ 
ious  reformers,  yet  appeared  as  scholars  of  independent  thought.  Such 
were  Bavari,  Pissa  Metteyya,  Mettagu,  Punnaka,  Dkotaka,  Upasiva,  Henaka, 
Todeyya,  Sela  Parukkha,  Pokkharadsati,  Maggadessakes,  Maggajivins. 
These  were  all  noted  for  their  learning  in  their  sacred  scriptures,  in  gram¬ 
mar,  history,  philosophy,  etc. 

The  air  was  full  of  a  coming  spiritual  struggle.  Hundreds  of  the  most 
scholarly  young  men  of  noble  families  (Eulajjutta)  were  leaving  their  homes 
in  quest  of  truth;  ascetics  were  undergoing  the  severest  mortifications  to 
discover  the  panacea  for  the  evils  of  suffering.  Young  dialecticians  were 
wandering  from  place  to  place  engaged  in  disputations,  some  advocating 
skepticism  as  the  best  weapon  to  fight  against  the  realistic  doctrines  of  the 
day,  some  a  sort  of  life  which  was  the  nearest  way  of  getting  rid  of  exist¬ 
ence,  some  denying  a  future  life.  It  was  a  time  deep  and  many-sided  in 
intellectual  movements,  which  extended  from  the  Circles  of  Brahmanical 
thinkers  far  into  the  people  at  large. 

The  sacrificial  priest  was  powerful  then  as  he  is  now.  He  was  the 
mediator  between  God  and  man.  Monotheism  of  the  most  crude  type — 
fetichism  from  anthropomorphic  deism  to  transcendental  dualism' — was 
rampant.  So  was  materialism,  from  sensual  epicureanism  to  transcendental 
nihilism.  In  the  words  of  Dr.  Oldenberg:  “When  the  dialectic  skepticism 
began  to  attach  moral  ideas,  when  a  painful  longing  f'^r  deliverance  from 
the  burden  of  being  was  met  by  the  first  signs  of  moral  decay,  Buddha 
appeared.” 

The  savior  of  the  world. 

Prince  Siddhartha  styled  on  earth. 

In  earth,  on  heavens  and  hells  incomparable. 

All  honored,  wisest,  best,  most  pitiful, 

The  teacher  of  Nirvana  and  the  law. 

Oriental  scholars,  who  had  begun  their  researches  in  the  domain  of 
Indian  literature  at  the  beginning  of  this  century,  were  put  to  great  per¬ 
plexity  of  thought  at  the  discovery  of  the  existence  of  a  religion  called 
after  Buddha  in  the  Indian  philosophical  books.  Sir  William  Jones,  H.  H. 

.  Wilson  and  Mr.  Colbrooke  were  embarrassed  in  being  unable  to  identify 
him.  Dr.  Marshman,  in  1824,  said  that  Buddha  was  the  Egyptian  Apis, 
and  Sir  William  Jones  solved  the  problem  by  saying  that  he  was  no  other 
than  the  Scandinavian  Woden.  The  barge  of  the  early  Orientals  was  drift¬ 
ing  into  the  sand-banks  of  Sanskrit  literature  when  in  June,  1837,  the 
whole  of  the  obscure  history  of  India  and  Buddhism  was  made  clear  by  the 
deciphering  of  the  rock-cut  edicts  of  Asoka  the  Great  in  Garnar  and 
Kapur-da-gini  by  that  lamented  archaeologist,  James  Pramsep,  by  the  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Pali  Ceylon  history  into  English  by  Turner,  and  by  the  dis¬ 
covery  of  Buddhist  manuscripts  in  the  temples  of  Mepal  Ceylon  and  other 
Buddhist  countries.  In  1844  the  first  rational  scientific  and  comprehensive 
account  of  the  Buddhist  religion  was  published  by  the  eminent  scholar, 
Eugene  Purnouf.  The  key  to  the  archives  of  this  great  religion  was  also 
presented  to  the  thoughtful  people  of  Europe  by  this  great  scholar. 

With  due  gratitude  I  mention  the  names  of  the  scholars  to  whose  labors 
the  present  increasing  popularity  of  the  Buddha  religion  is  due:  Spence, 
Hardy,  Gogerly,  Turner,  Professor  Childers,  Dr.  Davids,  Dr.  Oldenberg, 
Max  Muller,  Professor  Jansboll,  and  others.  Pali  scholarship  began  with 
the  labors  of  the  late  Dr.  Childers,  and  the  Western  world  is  indebted  to  Dr. 


408 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Davids,  who  is  indefatigable  in  his  labors  in  bringing  the  rich  stores  of  hid¬ 
den  wisdom  from  the  minds  of  Pali  literature.  To  two  agencies  the  present 
popularity  of  Buddhism  is  due— Sir  Edwin  Arnold’s  incomparable  epic, 
“The  Light  of  Asia,”  and  the  theosophical  society. 

“  The  irresistible  charm  which  influences  the  thinking  world  to  study 
Buddhism  is  the  unparalleled  life  of  its  glorihed  founder.  His  teaching  has 
found  favor  with  everyone  who  has  studied  his  history.  His  doctrines  are 
the  embodiment  of  universal  love.  Not  only  our  philologist,  but  even  those 
who  are  prepossessed  against  his  faith  have  ever  found  but  words  of  praise,” 
says  H.  G.  Blavatsky.  Nothing  can  be  higher  and  purer  than  his  social 
and  moral  code.  “That  moral  code,”  says  Max  Muller,  “  taken  by  itself  is 
one  of  the  most  perfect  which  the  world  has  ever  known.”  “  The  more  I 
learn  to  know  Buddha,”  says  Professor  Jansboll,  “  the  morel  admire  him.” 
“  We  must,”  says  Professor  Barth,  “  set  clearly  before  us  the  admirable 
figure  which  detaches  sweet  majesty,  of  infinite  tenderness  for  all  that 
breathes,  and  compassion  for  all  that  suffers,  of  perfect  moral  freedom  and 
exemption  from  every  prejudice.  It  was  to  save  others  that  he  who  was 
one  day  to  be  Gautama  disdained  to  tread  sooner  in  the  way  of  Nirvana,  and 
that  he  chose  to  become  Buddha  at  the  cost  of  countless  numbers  of  sup¬ 
plementary  existence. 

“The  singular  force,”  says  Professor  Bloomfield,  “of  the  great  teacher’s 
personality  is  unquestioned.  The  sweetness  of  his  character  and  the 
majesty  of  his  personality  stand  forth  upon  the  background  of  India’s 
religious  history  with  a  degree  of  vividness  which  is  strongly  enhanced 
by  the  absence  of  other  religions  of  any  great  importance.”  And  even 
Bartholemy  St.  Hilaire,  misjudging  Buddhism  as  he  does,  says:  “  I  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  there  is  not  among  the  founders  of  religions  a  figure 
either  more  pure  or  more  touching  than  that  of  Buddha.  He  is  the  perfect 
model  of  all  the  virtues  he  preaches;  his  self-abnegation,  his  charity,  his 
unalterable  sweetness  of  disposition  do  not  fail  him  for  one  instant.”  That 
poet  of  Buddhism — the  sweet  singer  of  the  “  Light  of  Asia  ’’ — Sir  Edwin 
Arnold,  thus  estimates  the  place  of  Buddhism  and  Buddha  in  history:  “  In 
point  of  age  most  other  creeds  are  youthful  compared  wdth  this  venerable 
religion,  which  has  in  it  the  eternity  of  a  universal  hope,  the  immortality 
of  a  boundless  love,  an  indestructible  element  of  faith  in  the  final  good,  and 
the  proudest  assertion  ever  made  of  human  freedom.” 

“  Infinite  is  the  wisdom  of  the  Buddha.  Boundless  is  the  love  of 
Buddha  to  all  that  live.”  So  say  the  Buddhist  Scriptures.  Buddha 
is  called  the  Mahamah  Karumika,  which  means  the  all-merciful  Lord  who 
has  compassion  on  all  that  live.  To  the  human  mind  Buddha’s  wisdom 
and  mercy  are  incomprehensible.  The  foremost  and  greatest  of  his  disciples, 
the  blessed  Sariputta,  even  he  has  acknowledged  that  he  could  not  gauge 
the  Buddha’s  wisdom  and  mercy. 

Already  the  thinking  minds  of  Europe  and  America  have  offered  their 
tribute  of  admiration  to  his  divine  memory.  Professor  Huxley  says: 
“  Gautama  got  rid  of  even  that  shade  of  a  shadow  of  permanent  existence 
by  a  metaphysical  tour  de  force  of  great  interest  to  the  student  of  philoso¬ 
phy,  seeing  that  it  supplies  the  wanting  half  of  Bishop  Berkeley’s  well- 
known  idealist  argument.  It  is  a  remarkable  indication  of  the  subtlety  of 
Indian  speculation  that  Gautama  should  have  seen  deeper  than  the  great¬ 
est  of  modern  idealists.” 

The  tendency  of  enlightened  thought  of  the  day,  all  the  world  over,  is 
not  toward  theology,  but  philosophy  and  psychology.  The  bark  of  theo¬ 
logical  dualism  is  drifting  into  danger.  The  fundamental  principles  of 
evolution  and  monism  are  being  accepted  by  the  thoughtful.  The  crude 
conceptions  of  anthropomorphic  deism  are  being  relegated  into  the  limbo 
of  oblivion.  Lip  service  of  prayer  is  giving  place  to  a  life  of  altruism.  Per¬ 
sonal  self-sacritice  is  gaining  the  place  of  a  vicarious  sacrilice.  History  is 


THE  WORLD'S  DEBT  TO  BUDDHA. 


409 


repeating  itself.  Twenty -five  centuries  ago  India  witnessed  an  intellectual 
and  religious  revolution  which  culminated  in  the  overthrow  of  monotheism 
and  priestly  selfishness,  and  the  establishment  of  a  synthetic  religion,  This 
was  accomplished  through  Sakya  Muni.  To-day  the  Christian  world  is 
going  through  the  same  process. 


CHAPTEK  IX. 


NINTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  19th. 


RELIGION  CONNECTED  WITH  ART  AND  SCIENCE. 

The  Hall  of  Columbus,  on  the  ninth  day  of  the  Parliament 
of  Religions,  could  not  accommodate  all  who  endeavored  to  gain 
admittance.  Several  speakers  from  Great  Britain  instructed 
the  attentive  listeners.  The  first  service  of  the  day  was  in 
charge  of  Dr.  Barrows;  in  the  afternoon.  Dr.  F.  A.  Noble  was 
the  presiding  officer;  in  the  evening.  Rev.  J.  H.  Lewis  of  Plain- 
field,  N.  J.  At  the  opening  of  the  day’s  proceedings,  Dr, 
Brand  of  Oberlin,  after  silent  prayer,  led  the  audience  in  recit¬ 
ing  the  universal  prayer. 


A  LETTER. 

LADY  HENKY  SOMERSET. 

“A  letter  has  been  sent  to  me,”  remarked  Dr.  Barrows,  “to 
be  read  at  this  parliament,  by  one  who  is  foremost  in  the  ranks 
of  social  reform  in  England  and  whose  name  has  become  the 
household  word  in  America  as  representing  the  highest  and 
noblest  womanhood.  I  refer  to  Lady  Henry  Somerset,  whose 
communication  is  as  follows 

Erstnor  Castle,  England,  Sept.  8,  1893. 

Rev.  Dr.  John  Henry  Barroivs,  Chairman  of  the  World^s  Religious 
Congresses,  Chicago.  Honored  Friend:  You  have  doubtless  been  told, 
with  fatiguing  reiteration,  by  your  world-wide  clientele  of  correspondents 
that  they  considered  the  Religious  Congresses  immeasurably  more  signifi¬ 
cant  than  any  others  to  be  held  in  connection  with  the  Columbian  Exposi¬ 
tion.  You  must  allow  me,  however,  to  repeat  this  statement  of  opinion, 
for  I  have  cherished  it  from  the  time  when  I  had  a  conversation  with  you 
in  Chicago  and  learned  the  vast  scope  and  catholicity  of  the  plans  whose 
fulfillment  must  be  most  gratifying  to  you  and  your  associates,  for,  with 
but  few  exceptions  among  the  religious  leaders  of  the  world,  there  has  been, 
so  far  as  I  have  heard  and  read,  the  heartiest  sympathy  in  your  effort  to 

410 


TOLERATION. 


411 


bring  together  representatives  of  all  those  immeasurable  groups  of  men  and 
women  who  have  been  united  by  the  magnetism  of  some  great  religious 
principle,  or  the  more  mechanical  efforts  that  give  visible  form  to  some 
ecclesiastical  dogma.  The  keynote  you  have  set  has  already  sounded  forth 
its  clear  and  harmonious  strain,  and  the  weary  multitudes  of  the  world 
have  heard  it  and  have  said  in  their  hearts:  “  Behold  how  good  and  how 
pleasant  it  would  be  if  brethren  would  dwell  together  in  unity.” 

I  have  often  thought  that  the  best  result  of  this  great  and  unique  move¬ 
ment  for  a  truly  pan-religious  congress  was  realized  before  its  members 
met,  for  in  these  days  the  press,  with  its  almost  universal  hospitality  toward 
new  ideas,  helps  beyond  any  other  agency  to  establish  an  equilibrium  of 
the  best  thought,  affection,  and  purpose  of  the  world,  and  is  the  only  prac¬ 
tical  force  adequate  to  bring  this  about. 

By  nature  and  nurture  1  am  in  sympathy  with  every  effort  by  which 
men  may  be  induced  to  think  together  along  the  lines  of  their  agreement 
rather  than  of  their  antagonism,  but  we  all  know  that  it  is  more  easy  to 
get  them  together  tlian  to  think  together.  For  this  reason  the  congresses, 
which  are  to  set  forth  the  practical  workings  of  various  forms  of  religion, 
were  predestined  to  succeed  and  their  influence  must  steadily  increase  as 
intelligent  men  and  women  reflect  upon  the  record  of  the  results.  It  is  the 
earnest  hope  of  thoughtful  religious  people  throughout  the  world,  as  all  can 
see  who  study  the  press  from  a  cosmopolitan  point  of  view,  that  out  of  the 
nucleus  of  influence  afforded  by  the  congress  may  come  an  organized  move¬ 
ment  for  united  activity  based  on  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brother¬ 
hood  of  man. 

The  only  w^ay  to  unite  is  never  to  mention  subjects  on  which  we  are 
irrevocably  opposed.  Perhaps  the  chief  of  these  is  the  historic  Episcopate; 
but  the  fact  that  he  believes  in  this  while  I  do  not,  would  not  hinder  that 
good  and  great  prelate  Archbishop  Ireland  from  giving  his  hearty  help  to 
me,  not  as  a  Protestant  woman  but  as  a  temperance  worker.  The  same 
was  true  in  England  of  that  lamented  leader.  Cardinal  Manning,  and  is 
true  to-day  of  Mgr.  Nugent  of  Liverpool,  a  priest  of  the  people,  universally 
revered  and  loved.  A  concensus  of  opinion  on  the  practical  outline  of  the 
golden  rule,  declared  negatively  by  Confucius  and  positively  by  Christ,  will 
bring  us  all  into  one  camp,  and  that  is  precisely  what  the  enemies  of  lib¬ 
erty,  worship,  purity,  and  peace  do  not  desire  to  see;  but  it  is  this,  I  am 
persuaded,  that  will  be  attained  by  the  great  conclave  soon  to  assemble  in 
the  White  City  of  the  West. 

The  Congress  of  Religions  is  the  mightiest  ecumenical  council  the  world 
has  ever  seen;  Christianity  has  from  it  everything  to  hope;  for  as  the  plains, 
the  tablelands,  the  foothills,  the  mountain  ranges,  all  conduct  alike,  slowly 
ascending  to  the  loftiest  peak  of  the  Himalayas,  so  do  all  views  of  God  tend 
toward  and  culminate  in  the  character,  the  life,  and  work  of  Him  who  said: 
“  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw  all  men  unto  Me.” 

Believe  me,  yours  in  humble  service  for  God  and  humanity, 

Isabel  Somerset. 


TOLERATION. 

PROF.  MINAZ  TCHEEAZ  OF  LONDON. 

“  This  congress,”  continued  Dr.  Barrows,  ‘‘is  itself  a  magnifi¬ 
cent  plea  for  and  picture  of  toleration — a  plea  for  spiritual  lib¬ 
erty  and  a  picture  of  the  realization  of  that  liberty.  We  have 
with  us  this  morning  one  whom  I  am  glad  to  present  to  you, 


412 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


who  has  himself  suffered  because  of  his  devotion  to  liberty — 
who  is  not  permitted  to  return  to  his  own  country,  but  who  now 
lives  in  London,  where  he  has  the  sympathy  and  the  co-opera¬ 
tion  of  the  Armenians  throughout  the  world,  who  still  loves  the 
old  land,  a  man  who  represents  one  of  the  oldest  of  nations,  the 
cradle  of  the  human  family,  and  I  have  asked  him  to  speak  a 
few  words  on  ‘  Toleration.’  ”  Dr.  Barrows  then  introduced 
Professor  Minaz  Tcheraz  of  London,  upon  whose  head  the  Sul¬ 
tan  of  Turkey  has  set  a  price  on  account  of  his  pronounced 
religious  utterances. 

I  accept  with  the  deepest  gratitude  the  honor  to-day  conferred  upon 
me.  I  owe  it  to  the  inexhaustible  kindness  of  our  estimable  president,  Mr. 
Bonney,  and  Rev.  Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows,  who  have  in  this  way  wished  to 
show  their  sympathy  for  the  old  Armenian  Church.  Born  in  the  shadow 
of  this  church,  I  love  it  for  its  tolerant  and  democratic  spirit,  which  I  will 
have  an  opportunity  to  explain  fully  next  Tuesday.  It  is  this  spirit  which 
has  guided  my  steps  toward  this  new  pantheon.  In  Europe  and  America 
I  have  met  many  skeptics — ladies  and  gentlemen — who  think  that  the  Par¬ 
liament  of  Religions  will  be  as  the  Falls  of  Niagara,  a  gigantic  and  barren 
effort.  This  black  prophecy  has  not  succeeded  in  breaking  my  faith,  because 
the  truly  religious  heart  can  not  but  be  optimistic.  For  me  this  august 
assembly,  the  highest  theological  school  after  that  of  nature,  will  have  a 
result  which  will  suffice  to  immortalize  the  memory  of  John  Henry  Bar- 
rows  and  his  companions  in  arms.  It  will  have  laid  the  basis  for  a  universal 
tolerance.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  fifteen  years  ago  I  was  present  in  the 
Armenian  Church  of  Manchester,  England,  at  an  interview  between  the 
Greek  Archimandrite  and  the  supreme  patriarch  of  the  Armenian  Church. 
To  the  words  of  union  uttered  by  the  brilliant  Armenian  the  monk  replied 
as  follows:  “  If  there  be  no  harmony  between  our  two  churches,  the  fault 
is  not  with  our  peoples.  They  are  like  flocks  of  sheep, which  long  for  nothing 
more  than  to  pasture  together.  It  is  with  us,  the  shepherds  who  separate 
them,  that  the  trouble  lies.”  Since  the  beginning  of  this  parliament  we 
see  on  the  same  platform  the  pastors  of  all  the  nations,  the  representatives 
of  the  most  diverse  religions,  who  treat  each  other  with  respect,  and,  what 
is  more,  with  sympathy  and  affection. 

This  scene  of  reconciliation,  that  unfolds  itself  before  the  eyes  of  a 
large  international  gathering,  united  as  is  Chicago  on  the  occasion  of  the 
World’s  Fair,  and  the  telegraph  and  the  press  transferring  the  scene  before 
the  eyes  of  an  entire  humanity,  is  certainly  wonderful  progress.  What  can 
result  from  this  great  parliament  but  the  general  conviction  that  religions 
are  not  barriers  of  iron,  which  separate  forever  the  members  of  the  human 
families,  but  are  barriers  of  ice  which  melt  at  the  first  glance  of  the  Son  of 
Love.  These  were  the  words  which  the  Armenian  patriarch  at  Constanti¬ 
nople  answered  to  the  words  of  union  from  the  patriarch  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Armenians:  “The  union  must  be  by  acts  and  not  by  words.  Send 
into  my  churches  your  preachers  and  I  will  send  into  your  churches  my 
preachers; — let  them  preach  freely  but  do  not  share  their  doctrines  and  let 
the  people  follow  freely  the  teachings  that  they  think  best.”  The  Armenian 
Catholic  patriarch  found  this  scheme  too  bold  to  be  accepted,  but  the  prel¬ 
ate  of  the  old  Armenian  Church  has  now  at  the  last  given  example  of 
intolerance  which  deserves  to  be  thought  of. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  memorable  speakers  to  which  we  have  listened 


GREEK  PHILOSOPHY  AND  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION.  413 


in  this  presence  as  well  as  those  which  we  shall  hear  to-day,  and  until  the 
end  of  this  parliament,  will  serve  to  re-enforce,  even  by  the  antagonism  of 
the  religious  systems,  the  desire  for  absolute  tolerance.  Humanity  in  our 
East  as  well  as  in  your  West,  prays  for  peace  and  love.  It  does  not  want  a 
religion  which  teaches  of  a  Creator  who  hates  his  creatures.  It  does  not 
want  a  God  who  prefers  an  involuntary  worship,  to  one  which  freely  flows 
from  the  depths  of  the  human  soul.  It  will  bless  some  day  the  council  of 
Chicago,  even  should  this  council  proclaim  for  its  creed  nothing  but  this 
one  word,  “  tolerance  ” 

Continuing,  Professor  Tcheraz  said: 

It  affords  me  much  pleasure  to  announce  the  first  paper  of  the  morning, 
“  The  Greek  Philosophy  and  the  Christian  Religion,*’  by  my  distinguished 
and  illustrious  preceptor  and  friend.  Prof.  Max  Muller  of  Oxford  Uni¬ 
versity.  Prof.  Max  Muller  has  rendered  a  brilliant  service  to  philology 
and  science  by  his  masterly  translation  of  the  sacred  books.  He  is  a  man 
of  whom  Germany  and  England  are  equally  proud.  In  his  absence  our 
beloved  president,  John  Henry  Barrows,  will  have  the  kindness  to  read  Max 
Muller’s  paper. 


GREEK  PHILOSOPHY  AND  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION. 

PKOF.  MAX  MULLEK  OF  OXFOED. 

Max  Muller’s  paper,  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  was  read  by  the 
chairman. 

Easter  Sunday,  April  2, 1893:  D2nr  Sir:  What  I  have  aimed  at  in 
my  “  Gifford  Lectures  on  Natural  Religion  ”  is  to  show  that  all  religions  are 
natural,  and  you  will  see  from  my  last  volume  on  “  Theosophy  or  Psycho¬ 
logical  Religion”  that  what  I  hope  for  is  not  simply  a  reform,  but  a  com¬ 
plete  revival  of  religion,  more  particularly  of  the  Christian  religion.  You 
will  hardly  have  time  to  read  the  whole  of  any  volume  before  the  opening 
of  your  religious  congress  at  Chicago,  but  you  can  easily  see  the  drift  of 
it.  I  had  often  asked  myself  the  question  how  independent  thinkers  and 
honest  men,  like  Saints  Clement  and  Origen,  came  to  embrace  Christianity, 
and  to  elaborate  the  first  system  of  Christian  theology.  There  was  nothing 
to  induce  them  to  accept  Christianity  or  to  cling  to  it  if  they  had  found  it 
in  any  way  irreconcilable  with  their  philosophical  convictions.  They  were 
philosophers  first,  Christians  afterward.  They  had  nothing  to  gain  and 
much  to  lose  by  joining  and  remaining  in  this  new  sect  of  Christians.  We 
may  safely  conclude,  therefore,  that  they  found  their  own  philosophical 
convictions,  tbe  final  outcome  of  the  long  preceding  development  of  phil¬ 
osophical  thought  in  Greece,  perfectly  compatible  with  the  religious  and 
moral  doctrines  of  Christianity  as  conceived  by  themselves. 

Now,  what  was  the  highest  result  of  Greek  philosophy  as  it  reached 
Alexandria,  whether  in  its  Stoic  or  Neo-Platonic  garb?  It  was  the  inerad¬ 
icable  conviction  that  there  is  reason  or  Logos  in  the  world.  When  asked 
whence  that  reason,  as  seen  by  the  eye  of  science  in  the  phenomenal  world, 
they  said:  “  From  the  cause  of  all  things  which  is.beyond  all  names  and 
comprehension,  except  so  far  as  it  is  manifested  or  revealed  in  the  phe¬ 
nomenal  world.” 

What  we  call  the  different  types,  or  ideas,  or  logoi  in  the  world  are  the 
logoi  or  thoughts,  or  wills  of  that  being  whom  human  language  has  called 
God.  These  thoughts,  which  embrace  everything  that  is,  existed  at  first 
as  thoughts,  as  a  thought-world,  before  by  will  and  force  they  could  become 
what  we  see  them  to  be,  the  types  or  species  realized  in  the  visible  world. 


414 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


So  far  all  is  clear  and  incontrovertible  and  a  sharp  line  is  drawn  between 
this  philosophy  and  others,  likewise  powerfully  represented  in  the  previous 
history  of  Greek  philosophy,  which  denied  the  existence  of  that  eternal  rea¬ 
son,  denied  that  the  world  was  thought  and  willed,  as  even  the  Klamaths, 
a  tribe  of  red  Indians,  professed,  and  ascribed  the  world,  as  w^e  see  it  as 
men  of  science,  to  purely  mechanical  causes,  to  what  we  now  call  uncreate 
protoplasm,  assuming  various  casual  forms  by  means  of  natural  selection, 
influence  of  environment,  survival  of  the  fittest,  and  all  the  rest. 

The  critical  step  which  some  of  the  philosophers  of  Alexandria  took, 
while  others  refused  to  take  it,  was  to  recognize  the  perfect  realization  of 
the  divine  thought  or  Logos  of  manhood  in  Christ,  as  in  the  true  sense 
the  Son  of  God,  not  in  the  vulgar  mythological  sense  but  in  the  deep 
metaphysical  meaning  which  had  long  been  possessed  in  the  Greek  philoso¬ 
phy.  Th  >se  who  declined  to  take  that  step,  such  as  Celaus  and  his  friends, 
did  so  either  because  they  denied  the  possibility  of  any  divine  thought 
ever  becoming  fully  realized  in  the  flesh,  or  in  the  phenomenal  world,  or 
because  they  could  not  bring  themselves  to  recognize  that  realization  in 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Clement’s  conviction  that  the  phenomenal  world  was 
a  realization  of  the  divine  reason  was  based  on  purely  philosophical 
ground,  while  his  conviction  that  the  ideal  or  the  divine  conception  of 
manhood  had  been  fully  realized  in  Christ,  and  in  Christ  only,  dying  on 
the  cross  for  the  truth  as  revealed  to  Him  and  by  Him,  could  have  been 
based  on  historical  grounds  only. 

Everything  else  followed.  Christian  morality  was  really  in  complete 
harmony  with  the  morality  of  the  Stoic  school  of  philosophy,  though  it 
gave  to  it  a  new  life  and  a  higher  purpose.  But  the  whole  world  assumed 
a  new  aspect.  It  was  seen  to  be  supported  and  pervaded  by  reason  or 
Logos,  it  was  throughout  teleological,  thought  and  willed  by  a  rational 
power.  The  same  divine  presence  had  now  been  perceived  for  the  first 
time  in  all  its  fullness  and  perfection  in  the  one  Son  of  God,  the  pattern  of 
the  whole  race  of  men,  henceforth  to  be  called  “  the  sons  of  God.” 

This  was  the  ground-work  of  the  earliest  Christian  theology,  as  presup¬ 
posed  by  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  likewise  by  many  passages 
in  the  synoptical  gospels,  though  fully  elaborated  for  the  first  time  by  such 
men  as  Saints  Clement  and  Origen.  If  we  want  to  be  true  and  honest  Chris¬ 
tians,  we  must  go  back  to  those  earliest  ante-Nicene  authorities,  the  true 
fathers  of  the  church.  Thus  only  can  we  use  the  words,  “  In  the  beginning 
was  the  word,  and  the  word  became  flesh,”  not  as  thoughtless  repeaters, 
but  as  honest  thinkers  and  believers.  In  the  first  sentence,  “  In  the  begin¬ 
ning  was  the  word,”  requires  thought  and  thought  only;  the  second,  “  and  the 
Logos  became  flesh,”  requires  faith — faith  such  as  those  who  know  Jesus 
had  in  Jesus,  and  which  we  may  accept,  unless  we  have  any  reasons  for 
doubting  their  testimony. 

There  is  nothing  new  in  all  this,  it  is  only  the  earliest  Christian  theology 
restated,  restored,  and  revised.  It  gives  us  at  the  same  time  a  truer  con¬ 
ception  of  the  history  of  the  whole  world,  showing  that  there  was  a  purpose 
in  the  ancient  religions  and  philosophies  of  the  world,  and  that  Christianity 
was  really  from  the  beginning  a  synthesis  of  the  best  thoughts  of  the  past, 
as  they  had  been  slowly  elaborated  by  the  two  principal  representatives  of 
the  human  race,  the  Aryan  and  the  Semitic. 

On  this  ancient  foundation,  which  was  strangely  neglected,  if  not  pur¬ 
posely  rejected,  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  a  true  revival  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion  and  a  reunion  of  all  its  divisions  may  become  possible,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  thau  your  Congress  of  the  Religions  of  the  World  might  do 
excellent  work  for  the  resuscitation  of  pure  and  primitive  ante-Nicene 
Christianity.  Yours  very  truly,  P.  Max  Muller. 


MAN^S  PLACE  IN  NATURE. 


415 


MAN’S  PLACE  IN  NATURE, 

PKOF.  A. .  B.  BRUCE  OF  GLASGOW. 

The  paper  was  read  by  Dr.  Simon  P.  McPherson  of  Chicago. 

“What  is  man?”  A  century  ago  our  pious  grandfathers  would  have 
replied:  “The  lord  and  king  of  creation.”  The  latest  science  has  not 
dethroned  him.  The  evolutionary  theory  as  to  the  genesis  of  things  con¬ 
fesses  that  man  is  at  the  head  of  creation  as  we  know  it.  It  not  only  con¬ 
fesses  this  truth,  it  proves  it,  sets  it  on  a  foundation  of  scientific  cer¬ 
tainty;  making  man  appear  the  consummation  and  crown  of  the  evolu¬ 
tionary  process  m  that  part  of  the  universe  with  which  it  is  our  power  to 
become  thoroughly  acquainted. 

It  is  not  quite  a  settled  matter  that  man  is  out  and  out  the  child  of 
evolution.  That  he  is  the  product  of  evolution  on  the  animal  side  of  his 
nature  is  now  all  but  universally  acknowledged.  Any  dispute  still  out¬ 
standing  relates  to  the  psychical  aspect  of  his  being — to  his  intellect  and 
his  conscience.  It  is  on  this  side  admittedly  that  man’s  distinction  lies 
and  that  he  stands  furthest  apart  from  the  lower  animal  creation.  Many 
are  inclined  to  abide  by  the  position  of  Russell  Wallace,  who  restricted  the 
application  of  evolution  in  the  case  of  man  to  his  bodily  organization.  Yet, 
on  the  other  hand,  for  one  who  is  mainly  concerned  for  the  religious  signifi¬ 
cance  of  man's  position  in  the  universe,  the  interest  by  no  means  lies  exclu¬ 
sively  on  the  more  conservative  and  cautious  side  of  the  question.  Mak¬ 
ing  man  out  and  out  the  child  of  evolution,  if  it  can  be  done,  without  sacri¬ 
fice  of  essential  truths,  has  its  advantages  for  the  cause  of  theism.  On 
this  view  the  process  of  evolution  becomes  an  absolutely  universal  mother 
of  creation,  whereof  man  in  his  entire  being  is  the  highest  and  final  prod¬ 
uct.  And  what  we  gain  from  this  conception  is  the  right  to  interpret  the 
whole  process  by  its  end.  By  putting  man  in  his  highest  nature  apart 
from  the  process  and  regarding  him  in  that  respect  as  the  creature  of  an 
immediate  divine  agency  we  lose  this  right.  In  reason  and  conscience  out¬ 
side  the  great  movement  he  is  neither  explained  by  it  nor  does  he  explain 
it  in  turn.  But  bring  him  soul  as  well  as  body  within  the  movement  and 
we  have  a  right  to  point  to  all  that  is  highest  in  him  and  say:  This  is 
what  was  aimed  at  all  along;  this  is  the  goal  toward  which  the  age-long 
process  of  genesis  was  marching,  even  toward  the  evolution  of  mind  and 
spirit  under  the  guidance  of  reason  and  will. 

Provisionally,  therefore,  we  may  venture  to  accept  the  evolutionary 
account  of  man  all  along  the  line.  That  means  that  we  regard  man  phys¬ 
ically,  as  shown  by  similarity  of  anatomical  structure,  connected  with  the 
family  of  apes  and  oy  the  successive  stages  through  which  he  passes  in  the 
embryonic  period  of  his  history,  betraying  kinship  with  the  whole  lower  ani¬ 
mal  world.  It  means,  further,  that  we  regard  man  intellectually  as  evolved 
from  the  rudiments  of  reason  traceable  in  the  brute  creation.  The  contrast 
is  so  great  that  the  growth  of  the  higher  out  of  the  lower  seems  incredible. 
Man  thinks  and  plans,  the  brute  acts  by  blind  instinct.  Man  forms  highly 
abstract  concepts,  the  brute  is  capable  at  most  of  forming  what  has  been 
called  “  precepts,”  spontaneous  associations  of  similar  objects  so  as  to  be 
able  to  distinguish  between  a  stone  and  a  loaf,  between  water  and  rock,  so 
as  to  avoid  trying  to  eat  a  stone  or  to  dive  into  a  rock;  “  implicit,  unper¬ 
ceived  abstractions.”  Once  more,  man  speaks,  the  brute,  at  most,  can  only 
make  significant  signs.  How  far  the  human  animal  has  outstripped  his 
humbler  brothers! 

But  great  advances  can  be  made  by  very  small  steps  if  sufficient  time 
be  given.  And  there  was  plenty  of  time,  according  to  the  geologists.  Man 
has  been  in  existence  since  the  ice  age — say  250,000  years.  Surely,  within 
that  period,  precepts  might  slowly  pass  into  concepts,  and  inarticulate 


41G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


sounds  into  articulate  words !  The  dawn  of  reason  inaugurates  the  crude 
beginning  of  language,  and  the  use  of  language  in  turn  stimulates  the  fur¬ 
ther  development  of  reason.  Of  course,  we  are  not  to  conceive  of  i)rimitive 
man  as  speaking  in  highly  developed  language,  as  Sanskrit  or  Greek;  i)er- 
haps  for  a  long  time  he  could  not  speak  at  all,  but  a  man  in  body,  he 
remained  a  'mere  animai  in  the  use  of  signs.  And  even  after  the  epoch  of 
speech  came  the  evolution  of  language,  proceeding  at  a  very  slow  rate  of 
movement.  A  word  at  first  represented  a  whole  sentence.  Then  the  parts 
of  speech  were  slowly  differentiated,  the  jjronoun  first,  but  in  so  leisurely  a 
way  that  it  took  ijerhajjs  a  few  thousands  of  years  to  learn  to  say  “I.” 

Such  is  the  account  of  the  evolution  of  intellect  given  by  experts,  and 
we  accept  it  provisionally  as  in  substance  correct.  We  accept,  further,  the 
evolution  of  morality.  And  that  means  that  the  sense  of  duty  and  moral 
conduct  have  been  evolved  out  of  elements  traceable  in  the  brute  creation, 
such  as  the  instinct  of  self-preservation,  natural  care  of  young,  and  the 
social  disposition  characteristic  of  the'  ant,  the  bee,  and  the  beaver. 

An  important  factor  in  raising  ethics  from  the  animal  to  the  human 
level  was,  of  course,  reason.  Reason  looks  to  the  future  and  forms  an  idea 
of  life  as  a  whole  and  to  develop  the  prudence  which  can  sacrifice  present 
j)leasurefor  ultimate  gain.  Another  important  factor  was  the  prolongation 
of  the  period  of  infancy,  upon  which  Mr.  Fiske  has  rightly  laid  emphasis. 
This  depth  and  purity  of  parental  and  filial  affections  laid  the  foundation 
of  that  great  nursery  of  goodness,  the  family.  Finally,  out  of  the  social 
instinct,  as  real  a  part  of  human  nature  as  the  instinct  of  self-preseiwation, 
came  the  power  and  disposition  to  appreciate  the  claims  of  the  community 
and  to  sacrifice  the  interests  of  f  he  individual  to  the  interests  of  the  tribe, 
the  nation,  or  the  race. 

Such  is  man’s  place  in  nature,  according  to  modern  science  :  wholly  the 
child  of  evolution,  its  highest  product  hitherto,  and  to  all  appearances  the 
highest  producible.  If  man  had  not  been,  it  would  not  have  been  worth 
while,  for  the  lower  world  would  not  have  come  into  existence.  This  is 
how  the  theist  must  view  the  matter.  He  must  regard  the  sub-human 
universe  in  the  light  of  an  instrument  to  be  used,  in  subservience  to  the 
ends  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  universe  and  created  by  God  for  that  pur¬ 
pose.  The  agnostics  can  evade  this  conclusion  by  regarding  the  evolution 
of  the  universe  as  an  absolutely  necessary  and  aimless  process,  which  can 
not  but  be,  has  no  conscious  reason  for  being,  no  purpose  to  arrive  at  any 
particular  destination,  but  moves  on  blindly  in  obedience  to  mechanical 
law.  If  it  arrive  at  length  at  man,  why,  then  says  the*  materialist,  we  can 
only  conclude  that  it  is  in  the  nature  of  mechanics  to  produce  in  the  long 
run  mind,  and  of  motion  to  be  permuted  ultimately  into  thought.  For  us 
this  theory  is  once  for  all  impossible.  We  must  believe  in  God.  maker  of 
heaven  and  earth.  And  believing  in  Him  we  look  for  a  plan  in  His  work. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  here  how  far  from  being  out  of  date  is  the  view  of 
man’s  relation  to  God  given  in  the  Hebrew  writings.  By  abstaining  from 
all  elaborate  cosmogony  and  confining  attention  to  the  purely  religious 
aspects  of  the  world,  the  scriptures  have  given  a  representation  which,  for 
simple  dignity  and  essential  trust,  leaves  little  to  be  desired:  “God  said,  let 
us  make  man  in  our  own  image.”  This  is  a  flash  of  direct  insight  and 
“inspiration,”  not  an  inference  from  scientific  knowledge  of  the  exact 
method  of  creation.  It  is,  however,  associated  with  the  perception  that 
man’s  place  in  the  world  is  one  of  lordship.  In  both  cases  the  Hebrew 
prophet  by  religious  intuition  graspe  1  truths  which  our  19th-century 
science  has  only  confirmed.  Man  is  lord,  therefore  God  is  manlike.  The 
point  that  needs  emphasizing  to-day  is  not  that  man  is  like  God,  but  that 
God  is  like  man,  for  it  is  God,  His  being  and  nature  that  we  long  to  know 
and  we  welcome  any  legitimate  avenue  to  this  high  knowledge.  And  man, 
by  his  place  in  nature,  is  accredited  to  us  as  our  surest,  x^erhaps  our  sole, 


MAN’S  PLACE  IN  NATURE. 


417 


source  of  knowledge.  And  it  confirms  us  in  the  use  of.this  source  to  find  that 
ancient  wisdom  as  represented  by  the  Hebrew  sage,  to  whom  we  owe  the 
story  of  Genesis,  indirectly  indorses  our  method  by  proclaiming  that  in 
man  we  may  see  God’s  image. 

Men  everywhere  and  always  have  conceived  their  God  as  manlike. 
They  have  done  so  too  often  in  most  harmful  ways,  imputing  to  the  Divine, 
human  passions  and  vices.  This,  however  lamentable  and  pernicious,  was 
inevitable.  There  is  no  effectual  cure  for  it  except  the  growth  of  mankind 
in  its  ethical  ideal.  The  purification  of  religion  will  keep  step  with  the 
elevation  of  morality.  From  the  abuses  of  the  past  we  must  not  rush  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  notion  of  God  being  like  man  is  false,  and  the  great 
thing  is  to  get  rid  of  anthromorphism,  as  Mr.  Fiske  expressed  it,  “the 
anthromorphisation  ”  of  the  idea  of  God.  The  desideratum  rather  is  to 
conceive  God  not  as  like  what  man  is  or  has  been  in  any  stage  of  his 
moral  development  but  as  like  what  man  will  be  when  his  moral  develop¬ 
ment  has  reached  its  growth.  There  has  been,  indeed,  a  rudimentary  like¬ 
ness  all  along  from  the  day  when  man  became  in  the  incipient  degree 
human.  It  is  not  necessary  to  take  the  image  of  God  ascribed  to  man  in 
Genesis  in  too  absolute  a  sense.  The  likeness  was  in  outline,  in  skeleton, 
in  germ,  in  fruitful  possibilities  rather  than  in  realized  fact.  And  what  we 
have  to  do  is  to  interpret  God  through  man,  not  in  view  of  what  man  is, 
but  of  what  man  has  in  him  to  become. 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  God  is  what  man  always  has  been  in  germ,  a 
rational,  free,  moral  personality.  But  it  is  not  safe  to  fill  in  the  picture  of 
the  Divine  personality  by  an  indiscriminate  imputation  to  God  of  the  very 
mixed  contents  of  the  average  human  personality.  Our  very  ideals  are 
imperfect;  how  much  more  our  realizations.  Our  theology  must  be  con¬ 
structed,  therefore,  on  a  basis  of  careful  impartial,  self  criticism,  casting 
aside  as  unfit  material  for  building  our  system  not  only  all  that  can  be 
traced  to  our  baser  nature  but  even  all  in  our  highest  thoughts,  feelings, 
and  aspirations  that  is  due  to  the  influence  of  the  time  spirit  or  is  merely 
an  accident  of  the  measure  of  civilization  reached  in  our  social  environ¬ 
ment.  The  safest  guides  in  theology  are  always  the  men  who  are  more  or 
less  disturbed  because  they  are  in  advance  of  their  time;  the  men  of  pro¬ 
phetic  spirit  who  see  lights  not  yet  above  the  horizon  for  average  moral 
intelligence;  who  cherish  ideals  regarded  by  the  many  as  idle,  mad  dreams; 
who,  while  affirming  with  emphasis  the  essential  affinity  of  the  Divine 
with  the  human,  understand  that  even  in  that  which  is  truly  human,  say  in 
pardoning  gracfe  God’s  thoughts  rise  above  man’s  as  the  heavens  rise  above 
the  earth. 

On  this  view  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  each  age  made  its  own  proph¬ 
ets  to  lead  it  in  the  way  of  moral  progress,  and  set  before  it  ideals  in  advance 
of  those  which  had  been  the  guiding  lights  in  the  past.  And  yet  it  is  pos¬ 
sible  that  there  may  be  prophets  of  by-gone  days  whose  significance  as 
teachers  has  been  by  no  means  exhausted.  This  may  be  claimed  pre¬ 
eminently  for  Him  whom  Christians  call  their  Lord.  I  do  not  expect  a  time 
will  ever  come  when  men  will  say,  we  do  not  need  the  teaching  of  Jesus  any 
more.  That  time  has  certainly  not  come  yet.  We  have  not  got  to  the# 
bottom  of  Christ’s  doctrine  of  God  and  man,  as  related  to  each  other  as 
father  and  son.  How  beautifully  He  has  therein  set  the  great  truths  that 
God  is  manlike,  and  man  Godlike,  making  man  at  his  best  the  emblem  of 
God,  and  at  the  worst  the  object  of  God’s  love.  All  fathers  are  not  what 
they  ought  to  be,  but  even  the  worst  fathers  have  a  crude  idea  what  a 
father  should  be;  and,  howsoever  bad  a  father  may  be,  he  will  not  give  his 
hungry  child  a  stone  instead  of  bread.  Therefore,  every  father  can  know 
God  through  his  own  paternal  conscience,  and  hope  to  be  treated  by  the 
Divine  Father  as  he  knows  he  ought  himself  to  treat  his  children.  And  the 
better  fathers  and  mothers  grow  the  better  they  will  know  God.  Theology 


418 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGION^, 


will  become  more  Christian  as  family  affection  flourishes.  And  what  a  ben¬ 
efit  it  will  be  to  mankind  when  Christ’s  doctrine  of  fatherhood  has  been  sin¬ 
cerely  and  universally  accepted.  Every  man  God’s  son;  therefore,  every 
man  under  obligation  to  be  Godlike,  that  is,  to  be  a  true  man,  self-respect¬ 
ing,  and  worthy  of  respect.  Every  man  God’s  son;  therefore,  every  man 
entitled  to  be  treated  with  respect  by  fellowmen,  despite  of  poverty,  low 
birth,  yea,  even  in  spite  of  low  character,  out  of  regard  to  possibilities  in 
him.  Carry  out  this  programme,  and  away  goes  caste  in  India,  England, 
America,  everywhere,  in  every  land  where  men  are  supposed  to  have  for¬ 
feited  the  rights  of  a  man  by  birth,  by  color,  by  poverty,  by  occupation, 
and  where  many  have  yet  to  learn  the  simjjle  truth  quaintly  stated  by  Jesus, 
when  he  said:  “  Much  is  man  better  than  a  sheep.” 

Does  the  view  of  man  as  the  crown  of  evolutionary  process  throw  any 
light  on  his  eternal  destiny?  Does  it  contain  any  promise  of  immortality? 
Here  one  feels  inclined  to  speak  with  bated  breath.  A  hope  so  august,  so 
inconceivably  great,  makes  the  grasping  hand  of  faith  tremble.  We  are 
tempted  to  exclaim.  B  'hold,  we  know  not  anything!  Yet  it  is  worthy  of 
note  that  leading  advocates  of  evolutionism  are  among  the  most  pro¬ 
nounced  upholders  of  immortality.  Mr.  Piske  says:  “For  my  own  part  I 
believe  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  not  in  the  sense  in  which  I  accept 
the  demonstrable  proofs  of  a  science,  but  as  a  supreme  act  of  faith  in  the 
reasonableness  of  God’s  w’ork,”  He  can  not  believe  that  God  made  the 
world,  and  especially  its  highest  creat  ure,  simply  to  destroy  it  like  a  child 
who  builds  houses  out  of  rocks  just  for  the  pleasure  of  knocking  them  down. 
Not  less  strongly  Le  Conte  writes:  “  Without  spirit-immortality  this 
beautiful  cosmos,  which  has  been  developing  into  increasing  beauty  for 
so  many  millions  of  years,  when  its  evolution  has  run  its  course  and  all  is 
over,  would  be  precisely  as  if  it  had  never  been— an  idle  dream,  an  idle  tale, 
signifying  nothing.” 

These  utterances,  of  course,  do  not  settle  the  question.  But,  considering 
whence  they  emanate,  they  may  be  taken  at  least  as  an  authoritative  indi¬ 
cation  that  the  tenet  of  human  immortality  is  congruous  to,  if  it  be  not  a 
necessary  deduction  from,  the  demonstrable  truths  that  man  is  the  con¬ 
summation  of  the  great  world-process  by  which  the  universe  has  been 
brought  into  being. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE. 

SIR  WILLIAM  DAWSON,  F.  R.  S.,  OF  MONTREAL. 

Prevented  by  age  and  infirm  health  from  being  present  at  the  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  Religions,  I  accede  to  the  request  of  the  chairman,  Rev.  Dr.  Bar- 
rows,  to  prepare  a  short  summary  of  my  matured  conclusions  of  the  subject 
of  the  relations  of  natural  science  to  religion.  In  doing  so  I  feel  that  little 
that  is  new  can  be  said,  and  that  in  the  space  at  my  disposal  I  can  merely 
state  general  principles  suitable  perhaps  to  constitute  a  basis  for  dis¬ 
cussion. 

*  For  such  a  purpose  the  term  natural  science  may  be  held  to  include  our 
arranged  and  systematized  knowledge  of  the  earth  and  its  living  inhabit¬ 
ants.  It  will  thus  comprise  not  only  geology  and  the  biological  sciences, 
but  anthropology  and  psychology.  On  the  other  hand  one  may  take  religion 
in  its  widest  sense  as  covering  the  belief  common  to  all  the  more  important 
faiths,  and  more  especially  those  general  ideas  which  belong  to  all  the 
races  of  men,  and  are  usually  included  under  the  term  natural  religion, 
though  this,  as  we  shall  see,  graduates  imperceptibly  into  that  which  is 
revealed.  Natural  religion,  if  thereby  we  understand  the  beliefs  fairly 
deducible  from  the  facts  of  nature,  is  in  truth  closely  allied  to  natural 


THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE. 


419 


science,  and  if  reduced  to  a  system  may  even  be  considered  as  a  part  of  it. 
Our  principal  inquiry  should  therefore  be  not  so  much  “  How  do  scientific 
results  agree  with  religious  beliefs  or  any  special  form  of  them?”  but  rather 
“How  much  and  what  particular  portion  of  that  which  is  held  as  religious 
belief  is  inseparable  from  or  fairly  deducible  from  the  results  of  natural 
science?  ” 

All  scientific  men  are  probably  prepared  to  admit  that  there  must  be  a 
first  cause  for  the  phenomena  of  the  universe.  We  can  not,  without  violating 
all  scientific  probability,  suppose  these  to  be  causeless,  self -caused,  or  eternal. 
Some  may,  however,  hold  that  the  first  cause,  being  an  ultimate  fact,  must 
on  that  account  be  unknowable.  But,  though  this  may  be  true  of  the 
first  cause  as  to  origin  and  essence,  it  can  no+  be  true  altogether  as  to 
qualities.  The  first  cause  must  be  antecedent  to  all  phenomena.  The  first 
cause  must  be  potent  to  produce  all  resulting  effects,  and  must  include 
potentially  the  whole  fabric  of  the  universe.  The  first  cause  must  be 
immaterial,  independent,  and  in  some  sense  self  contained  or  individual. 
These  properties,  which  reason  requires  us  to  assign  to  the  first  cause,  are 
not  very  remote  from  the  theological  idea  of  a  self -executed,  all-powerful 
and  personal  Creator. 

Even  if  one  failed  to  apprehend  these  properties  of  the  first  cause  we 
are  not  necessarily  shut  up  to  absolute  agnosticism,  for  science  is  familiar 
with  the  idea  that  causes  may  be  entirely  unknown  to  us  in  themselves, 
yet  well  known  to  us  in  their  laws  and  their  effects.  Since,  then,  the  whole 
universe  must  in  some  sense  be  an  illustration  and  development  of  its  first 
cause,  it  must  reflect  light  on  this  primitive  power,  which  must  thus  be 
known  to  us  at  least  in  the  same  manner  in  which  such  agencies  as  gravita¬ 
tion  and  the  ethereal  medium  occupy  ing  space  are  known.  That  mutual 
attraction  of  bodies  at  a  distance  which  we  call  gravitation  is  unknown  to 
us  in  its  origin  and  nature,  and,  indeed,  unthinkable  as  to  its  manner  of 
operation,  but  we  know  well  its  all-prevailing  laws  and  effects.  The 
ether,  which  seems  to  occupy  all  space  and  which  transmits  to  us  by  its 
undulations  the  light  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  is  at  present,  in  its  nature 
and  constitution,  not  only  unknown  but  inconceivable;  science  would  not 
justify  us  in  assuming  the  position  of  agnostic  either  with  reference  to 
gravitation  or  ether. 

Nor  can  we  interpret  these  analogies  in  a  pantheistic  sense.  The  all  is 
itself  a  product  of  the  first  cause  which  must  have  existed  previously,  and 
of  which  we  cannot  affirm  any  extension  in  a  material  sense.  The  extension 
is  rather  like  that  of  the  human  will  which,  though  individual  and  personal, 
may  control  and  animate  a  vast  number  of  persons  and  agencies — may,  for 
example,  pervade  and  regulate  every  portion  of  a  great  army  or  of  a  great 
empire.  There,  again,  we  are  brought  near  to  a  theological  doctrine,  and 
can  perceive  that  the  first  cause  may  be  the  will  of  an  Almighty  Being,  or, 
at  least,  something  which,  relating  to  an  eternal  and  infinite  existence,  may 
be  compared  with  what  will  is  in  the  lesser  sphere  of  human  consciousness. 
In  this  way  we  can  at  least  form  a  conception  of  a  former  all-pervading,  yet 
personal,  agency,  free,  yet  determined  by  its  own  innate  constitution. 

Thus  science  seems  to  have  no  place  for  agnosticism,  except  in  that 
sense  in  which  the  essence  of  all  energies  and  even  of  matter  is  unknown  ; 
and  it  has  no  place  for  pantheism  except  in  that  sense  in  which  energies, 
like  gravitation,  apparently  localized  in  a  central  body,  are  extended  in 
their  effects  throughout  the  universe.  In  this  way  science  mpges  into 
rational  theism,  and  its  first  cause  becomes  the  will  of  a  Divine  Being, 
inscrutable  •  in  essence  yet  universal  in  influence  and  manifested  in  His 
works.  In  this  way  science  tends  to  be  not  only  theistic  but  monotheistic, 
and  corrects  those  ideas  of  the  unity  of  nature  which  it  derives  from  the 
uniformity  and  universality  of  natural  laws  with  the  will  of  one  lawmaker. 

Nor  does  law  exclude  volition.  It  becomes  the  expression  of  the  unchang¬ 
ing  will  of  infinite  wdsdom  and  foresight.  Otherwise  we  should  have  to 


420 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


believe  that  the  laws  of  nature  are  either  necessary  or  fortuitous,  and  we 
know  that  neither  of  these  alternatives  is  possible.  All  animals  are  actuated 
by  instincts  adapted  to  their  needs  and  place  in  nature,  and  we  have  a 
right  to  consider  such  instincts  as  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  their 
Creator.  Should  we  not  regard  the  intuition  of  man  in  the  same  light,  and 
also  what  may  be  palled  his  religious  and  moral  instincts?  Of  these,  per¬ 
haps  one  of  the  most  universal,  next  to  the  belief  in  a  God  or  gods,  is  that 
in  a  future  life.  It  seems  to  have  been  implanted  in  those  antediluvian 
men  whose  remains  are  found  in  caverns  and  alluvial  deposits,  and  it  has 
continued  to  actuate  their  descendants  ever  since.  This  instinct  of  immor¬ 
tality  should  surely  be  recognized  by  science  as  constituting  one  of  the 
inherent  and  essential  characters  of  humanity. 

So  far  in  the  direction  of  religion  the  science  of  nature  may  logically 
carry  us  without  revelation,  and  we  may  agree  with  the  apostle  Paul  that 
even  the  heathen  may  learn  that  God’s  power  and  divinity  prove  the  things 
that  He  has  made.  In  point  of  fact,  without  the  aid  of  either  formal  science 
or  theology,  and  in  so  far  as  known,  without  any  direct  revelation,  the 
belief  in  God  and  immortality  has  actually  been  the  common  property  of 
all  men  in  some  form  more  or  less  crude  and  imperfect.  There  are  numer¬ 
ous  special  points  in  revealed  religion  respecting  which  the  study  of  nature 
may  give  some  testimony. 

When  natural  science  leaves  merely  material  things  and  animal 
instincts,  and  acquaints  itself  with  the  rational  and  ethical  nature  of  man, 
it  raises  new  questions  with  reference  to  the  first  cause.  This  must  include 
potentially  all  that  is  developed  from  it.  Hence  the  rational  and  moral 
powers  of  man  must  be  emanations  from  those  inherent  in  the  first  cause, 
which  thus  becomes  a  divinity;  having  a  rational  and  moral  nature  com¬ 
parable  with  that  of  man,  but  infinitely  higher. 

On  this  point  a  strange  confusion,  produced  apparently  by  the  philoso¬ 
phy  of  evolution,  seems  to  have  affected  some  scientific  thinkers,  who  seek 
to  read  back  moral  ideas  into  the  history  of  the  world  at  a  time  when  no 
mundane  moral  agent  is  known  to  have  been  in  existence.  They  forget 
that  it  is  no  more  immoral  for  a  wolf  to  eat  a  lamb  than  for  the  lamb  to  eat 
the  grass,  and  regarding  man  as  if  he  were  derived  by  the  “  cosmic  proc¬ 
ess”  of  struggle  for  existence  from  savage  wild  beasts  rather  than,  as 
Darwin  has  it,  from  harmless  apes,  represent  him  as  engaged  in  an  almost 
hopeless  and  endless  struggle  against  an  inherited  “cosmic  nature,”  evil 
and  immoral. 

This  absurd  and  atheistic  exaggeration  of  the  theological  idea  of  orig¬ 
inal  sin,  and  the  pessimism  which  springs  from  it,  have  absolutely  no 
foundation  in  nature,  since,  even  on  the  principle  of  evolution,  no  moral 
distinctions  could  be  set  up  until  men  acquired  a  moral  sense,  and  if,  as 
Darwin  held,  they  originated  in  apes,  the  descent  from  the  simple  habits 
and  inoffensive  ways  of  these  animals  to  war  and  violence  and  injustice, 
would  be  as  much  a  “  fall  of  man”  as  that  recorded  in  the  Bible,  and  could 
have  no  connection  with  a  previous  inheritance  of  evil.  But  such  notions 
are  merely  the  outcome  of  distorted  philosophical  ideas  and  have  no  affinity 
with  science  properly  so  called. 

Natural  science  does,  moreover,  perceive  a  discord  between  man,  and 
especially  his  artificial  contrivances,  and  nature,  and  the  cruel  tyranny  of 
man  over  lower  beings  and  interference  with  natural  harmony  and  sym¬ 
metry.  In  other  words,  the  independent  will,  free  agency,  and  inventive 
powers  of  man  have  set  themselves  to  subvert  the  nice  and  delicate  adjust¬ 
ments  of  natural  things  in  a  way  to  cause  much  evil  and  suffering  to  lower 
creatures  and  ultimately  to  man  himself.  How  this  has  occurred  science 
has  not  the  means  of  knowing,  except  conjecturally,  and  it  can  do  little  by 
way  of  remedy.  Indeed  the  practical  results  of  scientific  knowledge  seem 
in  the  first  instance  usually  to  aggravate  the  evil,  though  in  some  directions 
at  least  they  diminish  the  woes  of  humanity. 


MUSICy  EMOTIONy  AND  MORALS. 


421 


Science  sees,  moreover,  a  great  moral  need  which  it  can  not  supply  and 
for  which  it  can  appeal  only  to  the  religious  idea  of  a  divine  redemption. 
On  this  account,  if  on  no  other,  science  should  welcome  the  belief  in  a 
divine  revelation  to  humanity;  on  other  grounds  also  it  can  see  no  objec¬ 
tion  to  this  as  to  the  idea  of  divine  inspiration.  The  first  cause  manifests 
Himself  hourly  before  our  eyes  in  the  instincts  of  the  lower  animals,  which 
are  regulated  by  His  laws.  It  is  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  which 
gives  man  his  rational  nature.  It  is  probable  then  that  the  mind  of  man  is 
the  only  part  of  nature  shut  out  from  the  agency  and  communications  of 
the  all-pervading  mind.  This  is  evidently  infinitely  improbable.  If  so, 
have  we  not  the  right  to  believe  that  divine  inspiration  is  present  in  genius 
and  inventive  power;  and  that  in  a  higher  degree  it  may  animate  the  prophet 
and  the  seer,  or  that  God  himself  may  have  been  directly  manifested  as  a 
divine  teacher.  Science  can  not  assure  us  of  this,  but  it  makes  no  objection 
to  it. 

This,  however,  raises  the  generation  of  miracle  and  the  supernatural, 
but  in  opposition  to  these  science  can  not  consistently  place  itself  It  has 
by  its  own  discoveries  made  us  familar  with  the  fact  that  every  new  acquisi¬ 
tion  of  knowledge  of  nature  confers  powers  which,  if  exercised  previously, 
would  have  been  miraculous,  that  is,  would  have  been  evidence  of,  for  the 
time,  superhuman  powers.  We  know  no  limit  to  this  as  to  the  agency  of 
intelligences  higher  than  man  or  as  to  God  Himself.  Nor  does  miracle  in 
this  aspect  counteract  natural  law.  The  scope  for  it,  within  the  limits  of 
natural  law  and  the  properties  of  natural  objects,  is  practically  infinite. 
All  the  metaphysical  arguments  of  the  last  generation  against  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  miracles  have  in  fact  been  destroyed  by  the  process  of  science,  and 
no  limit  can  be  set  to  divine  agency  in  this  respect  provided  ttie  end  is 
worthy  of  the  means.  On  the  other  hand  science  has  rendered  human 
imitations  of  divine  miracles  impostures,  too  transparent  to  be  credited  by 
intelligent  persons. 

In  like  manner  the  attitude  of  science  to  divine  revelation  is  not  one 
of  antagonism  except  in  so  far  as  any  professed  revelation  is  contradictory 
to  natural  facts  and  laws.  This  is  a  question  on  which  I  do  not  propose  to 
enter,  but  may  state  my  convictions.  That  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
of  the  Christian  faith,  while  true  to  nature  in  their  reference  to  it,  infin¬ 
itely  transcend  its  teachings  in  their  sublime  revelations  respecting  God 
and  His  purposes  toward  man. 

Finally,  we  have  thus  seen  that  natural  science  is  hostile  to  the  old 
materialistic  worship  of  natural  objects,  as  well  as  to  the  worship  of  heroes, 
of  humanity  generally,  and  of  the  state,  or  indeed  of  anything  short  of  tne 
great  first  cause  of  all.  It  is  also  hostile  to  that  agnosticism  which  pro¬ 
fesses  to  be  unable  to  recognize  a  first  cause  and  to  the  pantheism  which 
confounds  the  primary  cause  with  the  cosmos  resulting  from  his  action. 
On  the  contrary  it  has  nothing  to  say  against  the  belief  in  a  divine  first 
cause,  against  divine  miracles  or  inspiration,  against  the  idea  of  a  future 
life,  or  against  any  moral  or  spiritual  means  for  restoring  man  to  harmony 
with  God  and  nature.  As  a  consequence  it  will  be  found  that  a  large  pro¬ 
portion  of  the  more  distinguished  scientific  men  have  been  good  and  pious 
in  their  lives,  and  friends  of  religion. 


MUSIC,  EMOTION,  AND  MORALS. 

KEY.  DE.  H.  K.  HAWEIS  OF  LONDON. 

“  For  more  than  twenty  years,”  said  Dr.  Barrows,  in  intro¬ 
ducing  Rev.  H.  R.  Haweis  of  London,  ‘‘  I  have  been  familiar 


422 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


with  the  name  and  writings  of  the  honored  English  clergyman 
who  is  now  to  speak  to  us.  He  is  one  of  the  many  representa¬ 
tives  that  we  have  from  the  British  Empire,  one  of  the  few  we 
have  in  person  from  England  itself.  We  are  delighted  that  he 
has  come  to  us.” 

It  would  be  very  hard  for  me  to  try  and  live  to  or  speak  up  to  the  kind 
words  of  your  president.  You  are  very  judicious  to  give  me  some  approval 
before  I  begin  speaking  because  it  is  impossible  to  know  what  your  feelings 
may  be  when  I  have  done. 

My  topic  is  “Music,  Emotion,  and  Morals.”  I  find  that  the  connection 
between  music  and  morals  has  been  very  much  left  out  in  the  cold  here, 
and  yet  music  is  the  golden  art.  You  have  heard  many  grave  things 
debated  in  this  room  during  the  last  three  or  four  days.  Let  me  remind 
you  that  the  connection  between  the  arts  and  morals  is  also  a  very  grave 
subject.  Yet,  here  we  are,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  living  in  the  middle  of  the 
golden  age  of  music,  perhaps  without  knowing  it.  What  would  you  have 
given  to  have  seen  a  day  of  Raphael,  or  to  have  seen  a  day  of  Pericle,  you 
who  have  been  living  in  this  great  Christian  age?  And  yet  the  age  of 
Augustus  was  the  golden  age  of  Roman  literature.  The  age  of  Pericles 
was  that  of  sculpture,  the  Medicean  age  of  painting,  so  the  golden  age  of 
music  is  the  Victorian  or  Star  Spangled  Banner  age. 

Music  is  the  only  living,  growing  art.  All  other  arts  have  been  discov¬ 
ered.  An  art  is  not  a  growing  art  when  all  its  elements  have  been  discov¬ 
ered.  You  paint  now  and  you  combine  the  discoveries  of  the  past;  you 
discover  nothing;  you  build  now  and  you  combine  the  researches  and  the 
experiences  of  the  past;  but  you  can  not  paint  better  than  Raphael;  you 
can  not  build  more  beautiful  cathedrals  than  the  cathedrals  of  the  middle 
ages;  but  music  is  still  a  growing  art.  Up  to  yesterday  everything  in 
music  had  not  been  explored.  I  say  we  are  in  the  golden  age  of  music  be¬ 
cause  we  can  almost  within  the  memory  of  a  man  touch  hands  with  Mo¬ 
zart,  Beethoven,  and  Wagner.  Wo  place  their  heads  upon  pedestals  side 
by  side  with  Raphael  and  with  Michael  Angelo,  yet  we  hav^e  no  clear  idea 
of  the  connection  between  the  art  of  music  and  morals,  although  we  ac¬ 
knowledge  great  men  like  Beethoven  along  with  the  great  sculptors,  poets, 
and  painters.  Now  let  me  tell  you  that  you  have  no  business  to  spend 
much  time  or  money  or  interest  upon  any  subject  unless  you  can  make  out 
a  connection  between  the  subject  and  morals  and  conduct  and  life ;  unless 
you  can  give  an  art  or  occupation  a  particular  ethical  and  moral  basis. 
You  do  spend  a  great  deal  of  money  upon  music.  You  pay  fabulous  prices 
to  engage  gigantic  orchestras,  you  give  a  great  deal  of  your  own  time  to 
music;  it  lays  hold  of  you,  it  fascinates  and  enslaves  you,  yet,  perhaps,  you 
have  to  confess  to  yourself  that  you  have  no  real  idea  of  the  connection 
between  music  and  the  conduct  of  life.  An  Italian  professor  said  to  me 
the  other  day,  “  Pray,  what  is  the  connection  between  music  and  morSls?” 
He  then  began  to  scoff  a  little  at  the  idea  that  music  was  anything  but  a 
pleasant  way  of  whiling  away  a  little  time,  but  he  had  no  idea  there  was 
any  connection  between  music  and  the  conduct  of  life. 

Now,  if  after  to-day,  anyone  asks  you  what  is  the  connection  between 
music  and  morals,  I  will  give  it  to  you  in  a  nutshell.  This  is  the  connec¬ 
tion:  Music  is  the  language  of  emotion.  I  suppose  you  all  admit  that 
music  has  an  extraordinary  power  over  your  feelings,  and  therefore  music 
is  connected  with  emotion.  Emotion  is  connected  with  thought.  Some  kind 
of  feeling  or  emotion  underlies  all  thought,  which  from  moment  to  moment 
flits  through  your  mind.  Therefore,  music  is  connected  with  thought. 
Thought  is  connected  with  action.  Most  people  think  before  they  act — or 


MUSIC,  EMOTION,  AND  MORALS. 


423 


are  Buppoeed  to  at  any  rate,  and  I  must  give  you  the  benefit  of  the  doubt. 
Thought  is  connected  with  action,  action  deals  with  conduct,  and  the 
sphere  of  conduct  is  connected  with  morals.  Therefore,  ladies  and  gentle¬ 
men,  if  music  is  connected  with  emotion,  and  emotion  is  connected  with 
thought,  and  thought  is  connected  with  action,  and  action  is  connected 
with  the  sphere  of  conduct,  or  with  morals,  things  which  are  connected  by 
the  same  must  be  connected  with  one  another,  and  therefore  music  must 
be  connected  with  morals. 

Now,  the  real  reason,  the  cogent  reason  why  we  have  coupled  all  these 
three  worlds — music,  emotion,  morals — together,  is  because  emotion  is 
coupled  with  morals.  You  will  all  admit  that  if  your  emotions  or  feelings 
were  always  wisely  directed,  life  would  be  more  free  from  the  disorders 
which  disturb  us.  The  great  disorders  of  our  age  come  not  from  the  pos¬ 
session  of  emotional  feeling,  but  from  its  abuse,  its  misdirection  and  the 
bad  use  of  it.  Once  discipline  your  emotions,  once  get  a  good  quantity  of 
that  steam  power  which  we  call  feeling  or  emotion  and  drive  it  in  the  right 
channel,  and  life  becomes  noble,  fertile,  and  harmonious. 

Well,  then,  if  there  is  this  close  connection  between  emotion  or  feeling 
and  the  life,  conduct,  or  morals,  what  the  connection  between  emotion  and 
morals  is,  that  also  must  be  the  character  of  the  connection  between  music, 
which  is  the  art  medium  of  emotion  and  morals. 

Now  there  are  a  great  many  people  who  will  say:  “  After  all,  that  art 
which  deals  with  emotions  is  less  respectable  than  an  art  which  deals  with 
thought.”  I  might  be  led  here  to  ask,  “  What  is  the  connection  between 
emotion  and  thought?  ”  But  that  would  carry  me  too  far.  In  a  word  I 
may  say  that  thought  without  feeling  is  dead,  being  alone,  f  ou  may  have 
a  good  thought,  but  if  you  have  not  the  steam  power  of  emotion  or  feeling 
at  the  back  of  it  what  will  it  do  for  you?  A  steam  engine  may  be  a  very 
good  machine,  but  it  must  have  the  steam.  And  so  our  life  wants  emotion 
or  feeling  before  we  can  carry  out  any  of  our  thoughts  and  aspirations. 
Indeed,  strange  is  this  wonderful  inner  life  of  emotion  with  which  music 
converses  first  hand,  most  intimately,  without  the  meditation  of  thoughts 
or  words.  So  strange  is  this  inward  life  of  emotion,  so  powerful  and  impor¬ 
tant  is  it  that  it  sometimes  even  transcends  thought.  We  rise  out  of  thought 
into  emotion,  for  emotion  not  only  precedes,  it  also  transcends  thought; 
emotion  carries  on  and  completes  our  otherwise  incomplete  thoughts  and 
aspirations. 

Tell  me,  when  does  the  actor  culminate?  When  he  is  pouring  forth  an 
eloquent  diatribe?  When  he  is  uttering  the  most  glowing  words  of  Shakes¬ 
peare?  No.  But  when  all  words  fail  him  and  when  he  stands  apart  with 
flashing  eye  and  quivering  lip  and  heaving  chest  and  allows  the  impotence 
of  exhausted  symbolism  to  express  for  him  the  crisis  of  the  inarticulate 
emotion.  Then  we  say  the  actor  is  sublime,  and  emotion  has  transcended 
thought. 

Now  why  has  emotion  or  feeling  got  a  bad  name?  Because  emotion  is 
so  often  misdirected,  so  often  wasted,  so  often  stands  for  mere  gush  with¬ 
out  sincerity;  it  has  no  tendency  to  pass  on  into  action.  Hence,  the  ladies 
in  f)ickens  who  are  carried  home  in  a  flood  of  tears  and  a  sedan  chair,  are 
those  who  have  the  power  of  turning  on  the  water-works  at  any  moment. 
“  Tears,  idle  tears.”  Tears  which  fall  easily  and  for  no  adequate  cause. 
We  do  not  respect  them,  for  there  is  no  genuine  emotion  at  their  back. 
There  are  men  who  will  swear  to  you  eternal  friendship.  You  would  think 
these  men’s  feelings  were  at  the  boiling  point,  but  when  you  ask  them  to 
back  their  emotion  with  $100  you  find  that  their  emotion  is  of  no  use  what¬ 
ever.  That  is  the  reason  why  emotion  fias  got  a  bad  name. 

But  believe  me,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  nothing  good  and  true  was  ever 
carried  out  in  t  his  world  without  emotion.  The  power  of  emotion,  aye,  of 
emotion  through  music,  on  politics  and  patriotism;  the  power  of  emotion. 


424 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


aye,  emotion  tnrough  music  upon  religions  and  morals— that,  in  a  nutshell, 
will  be  the  reminder  of  my  discourse.  What  does  a  statesman  do  when  he 
wants  to  carry  a  great  measure  through  our  Parliament  or  your  House  of 
Representatives?  He  stands  up  and  says,  “  I  want  to  pass  this  law,  ”  but 
nobody  will  attend  to  him  in  Parliament.  Then  he  goes  stumping  through 
the  country;  he  goes  to  the  people  and  explains  his  measure  to  them  and 
at  last  he  gets  the  whole  country  in  a  ferment,  and  then  he  comes  back  to 
Parliament  or  Congress  and  says:  “  Gentlemen,  you  see  the  people  will  have 
it.  Their  voice  is  as  the  voice  of  many  waters.  It  is  as  the  roaring  of  the 
ocean  and  as  irresistible.  ”  And  the  government  can  not  oppose  a  law  which 
has  the  emotional  feeling  of  the  country  back  of  it,  and  so  the  law  is  passed 
which  they  would  not  listen  to  before  he  had  kindled  back  of  it  the  fire  of 
emotion. 

Why,  I  remember  in  your  great  Civil  War  that  Mr.  Lincoln  said  that 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  the  greatest  motive  xwwer  he  had  in  the  North. 
And  why?  Because  he  would  go  into  a  meeting  packed  with  Southerners, 
or  with  advocates  of  slavery  and  disunion,  and  leave  that  meeting  ranting 
and  roaring  for  the  liberation  of  the  slaves  and  the  preservation  of  the 
union.  That  was  the  power  of  emotion.  And  I  remember  very  well, 
because  I  was  in  Italy  at  the  time,  how,  when  Garibaldi  came  there  for  the 
last  time — that  was  the  third  or  fourth  time  he  had  come  over  at  intervals 
to  engage  his  people  in  his  great  fight  for  the  freedom  of  Italy;  he  devoted 
his  life  to  that  mission — that  he  fired  his  people  with  patriotism,  and  it  was 
nothing  but  the  steam  power  of  feeling  and  emotion  which  carried  that 
great  revolution  for  a  united  Italy.  It  may  be  true  that  Cavour  was  the 
brain  of  the  movement,  and  that  Victor  Emmanuel  gave  it  its  constitu¬ 
tional  element,  but  it  was  Garibaldi  who  aroused  the  great  emotional  feel¬ 
ing,  and  Italy  became  united  because  he  lived  and  fought  and  fell. 

And  now  the  connection  between  the  national  music  and  emotion. 
There  has  never  been  a  great  crisis  in  a  nation’s  history  without  some 
appropriate  air,  some  appropriate  march,  which  has  oeen  the  voiceless  emo¬ 
tion  of  the  people.  I  remember  Garibaldi’s  hymn.  It  expresses  the  essence 
of  the  Italian  movement.  Look  at  all  your  patriotic  songs.  Look  at 

John  Brown’s  body  is  a-mouldering  in  the  ground, 

But  his  soul  is  marching  on. 

The  feeling  and  action  of  a  country  passes  into  music.  It  is  the  power 
of  emotion  through  music  upon  politics  and  patriotism.  I  remember  when 
Wagner,  as  a  very  young  man,  came  over  to  England  and  studied  our 
national  anthems.  He  said  that  the  whole  of  the  BrTish  character  lay  in 
the  first  two  bars  of  “Rule,  Britannia.”  It  goes:  (Here  the  reverend  gen¬ 
tleman  gave  an  imitation  of  the  movement  of  England’s  great  national 
song.)  It  means  got  out  of  the  way;  make  room  for  me.  It  is  John  Bull 
elbowing  through  the  crowd. 

And  so  your  “  Star-Spangled  Banner  ”  has  kindled  so  much  unity  and 
patriotism.  The  profoundly  religious  nature  of  the  Germans  comes  forth 
in  their  patriot  hymn,  “  God  Save  the  Emperor.”  Our  “  God  Save  the 
Queen  ”  strikes  the  same  note  in  a  different  way  as  “  Rule,  Britannia  ” — • 

Confound  her  enemies. 

Frustrate  their  knavish  tricks— 

that  is  in  the  same  spirit  as  “  Get  out  of  my  way,”  which  is  enshrined  in 
the  British  national  anthem.  This  shows  the  connection  between  emotion 
and  music  in  politics  and  patriotism.  It  throws  a  great  light  upon  the 
wisdom  of  that  statesman  who  said:  “Let  who  will  make  the  laws  of  a 
people;  let  me  make  their  national  songs.” 

I  see  another  gentleman  is  in  charge  of  the  topic  “  Religion  and  Music,” 
but  it  is  quite  impossible  for  me  to  entirely  exclude  religion  from  my  lecture 


MUSIC,  EMOTION,  AND  MORALS. 


425 


to-day,  or  the  power  of  emotion  through  music  upon  religion,  and 
through  religion  upon  morals,  for  religion  is  that  thing  which  kindles  and 
makes  operative  and  irresistible  the  sway  of  the  moral  nature.  It  is  impos¬ 
sible,  with  this  motto,  “  Music,  Emotion,  and  Religion,”  for  my  text,  to 
exclude  the  consideration  of  the  effect  of  music  upon  religion.  I  read  that 
our  Lord  and  His  disciples,  at  a  time  when  all  words  failed  them  and  when 
their  hearts  were  heavy,  when  all  had  been  said  and  all  had  been  done  at 
that  last  supper — I  read  that,  after  they  had  sung  a  hymn,  our  Lord  and 
the  disciples  went  out  into  the  Mount  of  Olives.  After  Paul  and  Silas  had 
been  beaten  and  thrust  into  a  noisome  dungeon  they  forgot  their  pain  and 
humiliation  and  sang  songs,  spiritual  psalms,  in  the  night,  and  the  prison¬ 
ers  heard  them.  I  read,  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church,  when  the 
great  creative  and  adaptive  genius  of  Rome  took  possession  of  that  mighty 
spiritual  movement  and  proceeaed  to  evangelize  the  Roman  Empire,  that 
St.  Ambrose,  Bishop  of  Milan  in  the  3d  century,  collected  the  Greek  modes 
and  adapted  certain  of  them  for  the  Christian  churches,  and  that  these 
scales  were  afterward  revived  by  the  great  Pope  Gregory,  who  gave  the 
Christian  Church  the  Gregorian  chants,  the  first  elements  of  emotion  inter¬ 
preted  by  music  which  appeared  in  the  Christian  Church. 

It  is  difficult  for  us  to  overestimate  the  power  of  those  crude  scales, 
although  they  seem  harsh  to  our  ears.  It  is  difficult  to  realize  the  effect 
produced  by  Augustine  and  his  monks  when  they  landed  in  Great  Britain, 
chanting  the  ancient  Gregorian  chants.  When  the  king  gave  his  partial 
adherence  to  the  mission  of  Augustine,  the  saint  turned  from  the  king  and 
directed  his  course  toward  Canterbury,  where  he  was  to  be  the  first  Chris¬ 
tian  archbishop. 

Still,  as  he  went  along  with  his  monks,  they  chanted  one  of  the  Grego¬ 
rian  chants.  That  was  his  war  cry:  (intoning) 

Turn  away,  O  Lord,  Thy  wrath  from  this  city,  and  Thine  anger  from  its  sins. 

That  is  a  true  Gregorian;  those  are  the  very  words  of  Augustine.  And 
later  on  I  shall  remind  you  of  both  the  passive  and  active  functions  of  the 
Christian  Church— passive  when  the  people  sat  still  and  heard  sweet 
anthems;  active  when  they  broke  out  into  hymns  of  praise.  Shall  I  tell 
you  of  the  great  comfort  which  the  church  owes  to  Luther,  who  stood  up 
in  his  carriage  as  he  approached  the  city  of  Worms  and  sang  his  hymn, 
“Ein  feste  Burg  ist  unser  Gott?”  Shall  I  tell  you  of  others  who  have 
solaced  their  hours  of  solitude  by  singing  hymns  and  spiritual  psalms,  and 
how  at  times  hymn-singing  in  the  church  was  almost  all  the  religion  that 
the  people  had.  The  poor  Lollards,  when  afraid  of  preaching  their  doctrine, 
still  sang,  and  throughout  the  country  the  poor  and  uneducated  people,  if 
they  could  not  understand  the  subtleties  of  theological  doctrine,  still  they 
could  sing  praise  and  make  melody  in  their  hearts.  I  remember  how  much 
I  was  affected  in  passing  through  a  little  Welsh  village  some  time  ago  at 
night,  in  the  solitude  of  the  Welsh  hills,  as  I  saw  a  little  light  in  a  cottage, 
and  as  I  came  near  I  heard  the  voices  of  the  children  singing: 

Jesus,  lover  of  my  soul. 

Let  me  to  Thy  bosom  lly. 

And  I  thought  how  those  little  ones  had  gone  to  school  and  had  learned 
this  hymn  and  had  come  home  to  evangelize  their  little  remote  cottage 
and  lift  up  the  hearts  of  their  parents  with  the  love  of  Jesus.  Why,  the 
effects  of  a  good  hymn  are  incalculable.  Wesley  and  Whitfield,  and  the 
great  hymn  writers  of  the  last  century,  and  the  sacred  laureate  of  the  high 
church  party,  Keble,  have  all  known  and  exerted  the  power  of  religious 
song. 

Here  let  me  speak  a  word  to  the  clergy  especially,  if  there  are  such  pres¬ 
ent.  Do  make  your  services  congregational,  and  do  not  let  the  organist 
“  do  ”  the  people  out  of  the  hymns.  Don’t  let  him  gallop  them  through 


426 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


them  with  his  trained  choir.  Remind  him  that  he  has  his  time  with  the 
anthems  and  the  voluntaries,  and  that,  when  the  hymns  come,  it  is  the 
people’s  innings,  and  fair  play  is  a  jewel.  Hymns  have  an  enormous  power 
in  knitting  together  the  religious  elements  of  character.  I  never  was  so 
much  struck  as  in  entering  Exeter  Hall  one  time  when  Messrs.  Moody  and 
Sankey  were  ruling  the  roost  there.  What  did  Mr.  Moody  do  ?  He  knew 
his  business.  He  sent  an  unobtrusive  looking  lady  to  the  harmonium  and 
she  began  a  hymn.  There  were  only  a  few  people  in  the  hall,  but  others 
kept  dropping  in  and  they  joined  in  the  hymn  ;  and  by  the  time  they  had 
got  through  the  twenty-fifth  or  thirtieth  verse  the  whole  of  the  hall  was  in 
full  cry.  They  were  warmed  up  and  enthusiastic,  and  then  in  comes  Mr. 
Moody,  and  he  would  play  upon  that  vast  crowd  like  an  old  fiddle.  Believe 
me,  that  emotion  through  music  is  a  great  power  in  vitalizing  and  cement¬ 
ing  and  unifying  the  religious  aspirations  of  a  large,  mixed  congregation. 

I  now  approach  the  last  clause  of  my  discourse.  We  have  discovered  the 
elements  of  music.  Modern  music  has  been  three  or  four  hundred  years  in 
existence,  and  that  is  about  the  time  that  every  art  has  taken  to  be  thor¬ 
oughly  explored.  After  that,  all  its  elements  have  been  discovered;  there 
is  no  more  to  be  discovered,  properly  speaking,  and  all  that  remains  is  to 
apply  it  to  the  use,  consolation,  and  elevation  of  mankind.  We  have 
reached  that  era  of  music,  we  are  living  in  the  “  golden  age.”  It  is  difficult 
to  imagine  anything  more  complicated  than  Wagner’s  score  of  Parsival,  or 
the  score  of  the  Trilogy.  We  have  all  these  wondrous  resources  of  the 
sound  art  placed  at  the  disposal  of  humanity  for  the  first  time.  But  there 
is  a  boundless  future  in  store  for  music.  We  have  not  half  explored  its 
powers  of  good. 

I  say  let  the  people  have  bands.  Cultivate  music  in  the  home;  harmo¬ 
nize  crowds  with  music.  Let  it  be  more  and  more  the  solace  and  burden- 
lifter  of  humanity;  and,  above  all,  let  us  learn  that  music  is  not  only  a  con¬ 
solation,  it  not  only  has  the  power  of  expressing  emotion,  of  exciting  emo¬ 
tion,  but  also  the  power  of  disciplining,  controlling,  and  purifying  emotion. 
When  you  listen  to  a  great  symphony  of  Beethoven  you  undergo  a  process 
of  divine  restraint.  Music  is  an  immortal  benefactor  because  it  illustrates 
the  law  of  emotional  restraint. 

There  is  a  grand  future  for  music.  Let  it  be  noble  and  it  will  also  be 
restrained.  When  you  listen  to  a  symphony  by  Beethoven  you  place  your¬ 
selves  in  the  hands  of  a  great  master.  You  hold  your  breath  in  one  place 
and  let  it  out  in  another;  you  have  now  to  give  way  in  one  place  and  then 
you  have  to  expand  in  another;  it  strikes  the  whole  gamut  of  human  feel¬ 
ing,  from  glow  and  warmth  down  to  severe  exposure  and  restraint.  Musical 
sound  provides  a  diagram  for  the  discipline,  control  and  purification  of  the 
emotions.  Music  is  the  most  spiritual  and  latest  born  of  the  arts  in  this 
most  material  and  skeptical  age;  it  is  not  only  a  consolation,  but  a  kind  of 
ministering  angel  in  the  heart.  It  lifts  us  up  and  reminds  us  and  restores  in 
us  the  sublime  consciousness  of  our  own  immortality.  For  it  is  in  listening 
to  sweet  and  noble  strains  of  music  that  we  feel  lifted  and  raised  above  our¬ 
selves.  We  move  about  in  worlds  not  realized;  it  is  as  the  foot-falls  on  the 
threshold  of  another  world.  We  breathe  a  higher  air.  We  stretch  forth  the 
spiritual  antennae  of  our  being  and  touch  the  invisible,  and  in  still  moments 
we  have  heard  the  songs  of  the  angels,  and  at  chosen  seasons  there  comes 
a  kind  of  open  vision.  We  have  “  seen  white  presences  among  the  hills.” 

Hence  in  a  season  of  calm  weather, 

Though  inland  far  we  be. 

Our  souls  have  sight  of  that  immortal, sea, 

Which  brought  us  hither. 


RELIGIOUS  AS  DISTINGUISHED  FROM  MORAL  LIFE.  427 


WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  RELIGIOUS  AS  DISTIN¬ 
GUISHED  FROM  A  MORAL  LIFE, 

PRESIDENT  SYLVESTER  S.  SCOVELL  OF  WORCESTER  COLLEGE. 

There  is  a  certain  loftiness  in  the  port  and  mien  of  religion.  It  is  con¬ 
scious  of  power.  It  is  strangely  confident,  if  it  is  not  divine;  It  knows 
that  all  the  good  in  the  world  in  broken  bits  came  from  and  under  the  same 
ordering,  and  will  be  brought  together  in  “  Him  who  filleth  all  with  all.” 
If  some  moral  life  will  have  nature,  it  says,  “  Well,  nature  is  God’s,  and 
when  men  come  to  understand  nature  fully  they  will  come  to  know  God 
and  themselves  and  me  better.”  If  some  moral  life  asserts  its  own  suffi¬ 
ciency;  religion  says:  “  Well,  look  some  more  ”  (as  Agassiz  said  to  his  half¬ 
open-eyed  student),  “  look  some  more  into  the  self  for  which  you  seem  suffi¬ 
cient  and  you  will  see  rifts  and  chasms  and  disharmonies  and  impossibilities 
which  reduced  far  older  thinkers  to  the  ethics  of  despair.”  If  still  other 
morals  assail  the  divine  power  of  sudden  reconstruction  and  peace,  of  for¬ 
giveness  and  the  justice  of  atonement,  religion  says:  “Wait  and  see. 
Whence  is  the  righteousness  coming  into  the  v/orld,  by  the  law,  or  by 
faith?  ” 

I  say  there  is  something  sublime  in  this  regal  confidence  which  the 
religious  life  breathes  amid  all  contradictions.  All  religions  (in  proportion 
as  they  are  religious,  and  not  mere  systems  of  ethics)  share  in  this  confi¬ 
dence  in  proportion  to  the  truth  they  contain.  Our  peerless  Christianity 
dares  to  ask  them  to  come  and  lay  all  the  utterances  of  their  assurance 
beside  her  own.  “  A  child’s  prayer  may  go  as  far  as  a  bishop’s,”  and  all 
aspirations  which  are  truly  religious  breathe  in  soft,  prolonged  accord  in 
the  great  rounded  heaven  above  us,  as  I  heard  the  lingering  harmonies  ring 
in  the  Baptistry  dome  of  Pisa.  What  we  happily  emphasize  in  this  Con¬ 
gress  of  Religions  is  simply  religion.  That  we  write  out  in  large  letters, 
and  trumpet  the  great  fact  of  it  in  all  the  tongues  of  men.  We  believe 
there  must  be  more  of  it  in  the  world  when  men  come  to  understand  how 
much  there  is  of  it  already.  Paul  felt  it  as  we  feel  it  when  he  honestly 
complimented  the  news-loving  Athenians  upon  their  being  very  religious. 
In  an  almost  fearful  fancy  Heine  declared  that  he  would  seize  a  towering 
pine  tree  and  dip  it  brushwise  in  ^tna,  and  write  on  the  heavens,  “  Agnes, 
Ich  liebe  dich  ” — “  Agnes,  I  love  thee.”  So  would  we  blazon  on  the  more 
widely  read  scroll  of  our  closing  century’s  quick  history  the  word 
“  Religion.” 

This,  the  19th  century,  has  carried  forward  out  of  the  deadly  con¬ 
tests  of  the  18th,  and  under  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
consecrated  with  revived  religious  life  this  great  missionary  century  of  the 
ages  until  now,  and  here  at  its  close  the  world  shall  recognize  its  own  price¬ 
less  heritage.  What  the  world  wants  is  the  best  religion.  It  wants  it  with 
a  deeper  thirst  than  it  wants  silver  or  gold,  or  knowledge  or  science.  And  I 
believe  this  congress  will  help  the  world  to  get  just  what  it  wants  and 
needs — more  and  more  genuine  religious  life.  From  this  point,  then,  is  the 
place  to  go  forward  in  the  recital  of  the  infinite  positive  blessings  the  relig¬ 
ious  life  brings  as  distinguished  from  the  moral  life. 

The  world  tries  ethics  every  once  in  a  while.  Cain  tried  it  and  murdered 
Abel.  The  Pharisees  tried  it  and  crucified  Christ.  The  Jesuits  tried  it  and 
met  Pascal.  Extreme  unitarianism  tried  it  and  withered.  The  French 
Revolution  tried  it  in  the  theo-philanthropists  and  Robespierre  restored 
God.  The  French  people,  since  1870,  tried  it  in  excluding  religion  from 
education  and  yielding  to  Jules  Simon,  who  said  the  children  must  be 
taught  God  as  well  as  love  of  country.  English  deism  tried  it  and  gave 
birth,  through  Voltaire  and  others,  to  French  infidelity  and  German  skep¬ 
ticism,  Scotch  Presbyterian  moderatiem  tried  it  and  was  roused  from  fatal 


428 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


coma  by  Cook’s  eloquence  and  modern  missions,  Wherever  the  two  have 
come  into  comparison  it  has  been  found  that  the  force  and  vitality  of  the 
peoples  and  the  churches  declined  as  ethics  supplanted  religion  and  the 
moral  life  was  substituted  for  the  religious. 

The  religious  life  alone  has  creative  power.  The  moral  can  never  create 
the  religious,  while  the  religious  will  always  create  the  moral  life.  The 
moral  life  is  (roughly)  the  mineral  kingdom  to  the  vegetable.  The  first  can 
feed  the  life  of  the  second,  but  can  not  kindle  it.  The  religious  life  devel¬ 
ops  more  continuity,  more  fibre,  and  more  propagative  power  than  a  moral 
life. 

Whatever  else  may  and  ought  to  be  said,  Mohammedanism’s  monothe¬ 
ism  told  tremendously  on  the  world.  It  overrode  the  weaker  ethical  sys¬ 
tems,  though  in  fearful  contrast  with  the  peacefulness  of  one  of  them.  It 
nearly  stifled  a  weaker  form  of  Christianity.  If  moralism  be  destitute  of 
fanaticism  it  is  also  destitute  of  enthusiasm;  and  the  reasons  are  obvious. 
And  Christianity  propagates  itself  just  in  proportion  to  the  controlling  posi¬ 
tion  of  its  religious  elements.  Its  mission,  however,  is  overwhelmingly  evan¬ 
gelical.  This  is  the  secret  of  its  port  and  mein  of  power.  “  It  is  never 
alone,”  as  Christ  was  not.  But  moralism  is  always  alone.  To  be  more  spe¬ 
cific,  the  religious  life  has  a  different  attitude  altogether  toward  the  super¬ 
natural.  The  whole  enlargement  of  life  which  this  brings  is  a  vital  dis¬ 
tinction  of  the  religious  life.  Eyes  are  opened,  ears  opened;  messages  come 
and  are  received,  the  moral  life  at  best  is  bounded  within  the  narrow  rim 
of  things  seen,  and  the  tendency  is  to  narrow  it  still  more  by  emphasizing 
only  the  utilitarian  details.  What  so  narrow  as  mere  ethics  set  against 
religion  !  What  so  liberal  as  that  which  admits  the  supernatural?  In  the 
religious  life  there  is  the  glory  of  the  unseen.  There  is  the  hush  and  awe 
of  the  omnipotent  and  eternal.  There  is  the  unseen  holy,  there  is  an  exten¬ 
sion  of  the  being  upward  and  forward  immeasurable  in  the  feeling  of  it. 

But  contrast  the  merely  moral  life.  All  that  concerns  the  future,  its 
openings  and  attractions,  its  glories  and  gleams,  has  no  power  for  him  who 
aims  only  to  do  his  duty  to  his  fellowmen.  How  much  the  man  must 
miss;  what  a  calamity  if  all  men  would  thus  deny  the  uppermost  realm  of 
being.  The  candle  can  not  be  understood  until  it  burns,  nor  can  man, 
until  his  being  is  tipped  with  the  deathless  flame.  The  religious  life  is 
peerless  here.  They  utterly  fail  to  appreciate  it  who  think  of  the  religious 
view  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  as  a  matter  of  personal  comfort  only. 
No!  No!  In  it,  especially,  we  are  risen  into  that  plane  to  which  George 
Eliot  has  said  the  just  interest  in  men  and  the  world  must  bring  us — “a 
desire  to  have  a  religion  which  is  more  than  a  personal  consolation.”  The 
whole  world  is  one  thing,  if  men  are  immortal,  and  another  if  they  are  not. 

Guizot  shows,  you  remember,  that  society  is  the  means  and  man  is  the 
end  in  civilization,  because  man  is  immortal.  Laws  and  language,  and 
literature  and  government,  are  economics,  and  orbics  are  different  things 
if  man  be  immortal.  They  are  the  things  they  are,  and  which  they  are 
coming  to  be  felt  to  be  in  the  newer  political  economy  and  sociology, 
because  man  is  immortal.  Education  is  coming  to  have  its  own  true 
sacredness  because  it  is  immortal  material  with  which  we  have  to  deal. 
And  I  dare  say  it  now  and  here,  that  no  man  is  fit  to  be  an  educator,  in  the 
just  sense  of  the  term,  who  so  fearfully  and  fatally  mistakes  the  nature 
with  which  he  is  to  deal,  as  to  deny  its  immortality.  Without  the  religious 
life  as  allied  to  the  supernatural,  I  do  not  believe  any  severe  morality  can 
be  maintained  among  men. 

Gladstone  is  upon  record  as  teaching  that,  in  connection  with  the  area 
of  morals  covered  by  the  seventh  commandment,  no  religion  but  Christian¬ 
ity  has  ever  attempted  to  restrain  the  race  and  that  any  other  religion  would 
in  vain  undertake  the  task.  Clifford  (the  most  interesting  of  all  who  have 
bemoaned  the  loss^of  faith)  writes: 


RELIGIOUS  AS  DISTINGUISHED  FROM  MORAL  LIFE.  429 


Belief  in  God  and  a  future  life  is  a  source  of  refined  and  elevated  pleasure  to 
those  who  can  hold  it.  But  the  foregoing  of  a  refined  and  elevated  pleasure, 
because  it  appears  we  have  no  right  to  indulge  in  it,  is  not  in  itself  and  can  not 
produce  as  its  consequences  a  decline  of  morality. 

How  then,  the  stepping  of  the  benumbed  hold  of  an  Alpine  climber 
from  the  icy  ledge  would  not  by  consequence  dash  him  to  pieces,  if  it  sim¬ 
ply  proved  that  he  must  let  go,  Oh,  sirs,  the  world’s  fearful  fall  into  im¬ 
morality  can  not  be  concealed.  Despair  shall  come  in  place  of  hope.  Every 
earthly  conflict  will  increase  in  bitterness,  and  every  earthly  possession 
seem  more  sternly  to  be  clung  to,  if  there  is  to  be  nothing  but  earth.  Cliff¬ 
ord’s  own  despair  proves  it  sadly  enough.  Take  away  this  reflned  and  ele¬ 
vated  pleasure  and  what  multitudes  of  coarse  and  sensual  ones  clamor  for 
its  room.  Oh,  how  they  honeycomb  the  structure  of  society  now  and  pluck 
the  children  from  our  homes  and  altars  for  want  of  belief  in  the  supernat¬ 
ural!  Thus  the  religious  life,  considered  as  individual  or  general,  must 
always  surpass  the  merely  moral  because  of  its  confessed  and  vital  rela¬ 
tions  to  the  supernatural.  Out  of  the  unseen  we  are  come,  as  all  things 
are  come;  into  the  unseen  we  must  go.  All  the  visible  must  change,  but 
we  must  “join  the  choir  of  the  invisible.” 

While  the  fair  vision  of  immortality  “  lifts  up  the  eye  and  brow  of  hope,” 
the  world  will  go  onward  by  stairs  sloping  upward  unto  God.  When  that 
hope  deserts  the  world  we  shall  be  dry,  and  still,  and  inert,  and  gaze  out  into 
the  dreariest  of  worlds  as  the  fabled  dwellers  of  the  Dead  Sea,  who  spurned 
Moses  and  forgot  they  had  souls  and  were  turned  into  apes.  The  religious 
life  has  a  serious  way  of  looking  at  all  obligations,  whether  ritual  or  ethical, 
because  of  the  certainty  which  attaches  to  direct  prescription  and  the  con¬ 
sequences  of  reward  and  punishment,  which  form  a  part  of  its  motive 
power.  “The  Lord  is  at  hand,”  says  the  religious  life.  “Thus  saith  the 
Lord,”  says  the  religious  life.  Now,  this  strength  of  religion  has  displayed 
itself  so  far,  often,  as  to  lean  over  to  excess  in  a  slavish  punctuality  of 
ritualistic  observances  on  the  one  side;  then,  on  the  other  side,  in  a  rigidity 
as  to  minor  morals.  The  danger  is  to  be  recognized  at  once  that  we  may 
lean  over  on  the  side  of  specific  individual  requirements,  and,  perhaps, 
neglect  the  weightier  matters  of  judgment  and  mercy.  But  this  only  proves 
how  superb  the  power  is  which  God  and  intelligence  command,  and  hope 
of  reward  and  fear  of  punishment  give  us,  even  in  the  moral  arena. 

However  the  religious  life  may  have  wandered  in  these  directions,  it  has 
shown  everywhere  wonderful  vitality. 

We  desire  to  “put  a  hedge  around  the  law.”  The  religious  life,  there¬ 
fore,  stands  out  as  the  strongest  force  for  the  duties  of  life.  It  is  capable  of 
adaptation  to  all  circumstances  and  presses  alike  upon  every  duty  according 
to  the  square  inches  exposed  to  the  surface.  Sweeping  a  room  may  be 
devotional,  according  to  the  saintly  Herbert;  and  you  remember  the 
servant  who  knew  she  was  converted  because  she  swept  under  the  door 
mat. 

“  In  the  elder  days  of  art  ”  you  remember  how  they  wrought  because  the 
gods  saw  everywhere  religion: — 

Let  us  do  our  work  as  well, 

Both  the  unseen  and  the  seen, 

Make  the  house  where  God  may  dwell 
B(.*autiful,  entire,  and  clean. 

Who  doubts  the  flexibility  of  religious  motives.  They  are  as  elastic  as 
the  atmosphere,  as  divisible  and  equally  constant  in  their  pressure.  You 
may  (presently)  extract  from  Niagara’s  visible  omnipotence  the  power  to 
light  a  single  electric  lamp  in  a  distant  city;  and  there  is  no  work  so  humble 
but  religion  may  bring  power  into  it  from  the  Throne  of  God.  And  what 
might  not  be  said,  what  is  not  every  pious  heart  saying,  of  the  religious  life 
as  containing  a  communion  with  God,  which  the  merely  moral  life — alas — 
either  ignores  or  denies. 


430 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


What  is  prayer?  The  outbreathing  of  innermost  life  into  the  closest 
contacts,  “  Speak  to  Him,”  for  spirit  with  spirit  may  meet.  “  He  is  closer 
than  breathing.”  Prayer!  It  is  the  eloquence  of  need,  perceived  rather 
by  the  infinite  listener  than  by  the  soul  which  so  imperfectly,  at  best, 
understands  its  own  need.  Prayer!  It  is  the  sob  of  a  broken  heart, 
(whether  by  sin  or  by  sorrow)  heard  by  God  and  hymned  by  angels. 

What  is  praise?  What  are  the  sacraments?  Public  worship;  church — 
fellowships?  Are  these  things  vital?  Are  they  dear  privileges?  Do  our 
world-parched  souls  long  for  them  as  the  heart  for  the  w^ater-brooks?  Ah! 
We  know  that  Clifford  s“  brazen  heaven  ”  would  glare  with“  brazen  earth” 
for  us  all,  if  “  The  Great  Companion  ”  were  dead.  Nothing  can  properly 
express  the  importance  to  us,  of  the  upward  extension  of  our  being  by 
communion  with  God.  It  is  of  the  same  range  with  outw^ard  extension  of 
the  religious  life  into  duty,  or  its  forward  extensions  into  immortality. 

And  w’hen  man’s  whole  nature  is  considered,  it  is  found  that  the  moral 
life  is  most  distinctly  related  to  the  intellectual  and  volitional  activities, 
and  is  deficient  on  the  emotional  side.  But  just  here  the  religious  life  is 
full  and  powerful.  Not  that  we  propose  to  accept  the  half-h^umorously 
proposed  distribution  of  the  soul  territory  which  would  give  the  intellect 
to  science,  and  the  will  to  ethics,  and  surrender  the  emotions  to  religion. 
No,  sirs.  We  do  not  propose  to  accept  this  with  any  greater  readiness  than 
Germany  accepted  the  proposal  to  give  England  the  kingdom  of  the  sea 
and  to  assign  to  France  that  of  the  land,  leaving  Deutschland  the  kingdom 
of  the  air.  The  latter,  if  she  did  go  to  work  in  the  unseen  realness  of  edu¬ 
cation  and  philosophy  and  art,  was  still  preparing  to  strike  out  vigorously 
for  recognition  both  on  sea  and  land,  as  the  world  has  witnessed  at  Sadowa 
and  Sedan,  and  in  the  colonial  policy  of  the  new  empire.  Even  so  religion 
will  not  forget  other  things,  but  she  does  accept  the  dominion  of  the  heart. 
Oh,  how  appropriately  “  Man  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God.”  (First  great 
commandment.)  “Man  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.”  (The  second 
ike  unto  it.) 

There  is  no  such  apostasy  in  religion  as  the  apostasy  from  love.  Now’ 
what  would  the  heart-life  of  the  race  become  without  religion?  Where 
would  we  go  without  the  mercy  of  God,  the  Father’s  pity;  without  the 
boundless  compass  of  a  dying  Christ?  To  what  utter  hardness  are  we  left 
by  law  and  morals  considered  only  in  themselves?  In  the  emotions  and 
affections  are  the  springs  of  action.  How  shall  the  world  do  its  work  with¬ 
out  the  religious  life  to  cultivate  and  enlarge  them? 

In  this  great  tract  of  the  soul  lies  far  the  largest  part  of  the  common 
life  of  all  men.  How  shall  it  be  made  the  source  of  happiness  it  ought  to 
become?  Here  are  the  materials  of  character.  How’  is  heaven  to  be  peopled 
and  days  of  heaven  to  come  upon  the  earth  unless  the  strong  forces  of 
religion  control  here?  Men  are  stirred  to  their  best  deeds  and  wTought  to 
their  best  permanent  shapes  through  the  affections.  And  all  men  concede 
to  the  religious  life  special  power  in  the  emotional  tract.  One  complains 
thus:  Many  term  the  ethics  of  science  dry  and  uninspiring  and  turn  to 
religions,  w’hich,  if  they  give  us  mysticism  or  pessimism,  give  us  fioetry  also, 
for  man  is  an  emotional  as  well  as  an  intellectual  being,  and  there  may  be 
much  poetry  and  pessimism. 

To  which  w’e  answer: 

1.  We  are  glad  that  it  is  confessed  that  men  want  something  more  interesting 
than  evolutional  ethics. 

2.  We  would  not  follow  poetry  away  from  truth;  but  we  know  no  truth  which 
has  in  it  so  much  poetry  as  the  deep,  wide,  high,  and  warm  things  of  religion. 
And  the  same  author  adds:  “The  highest  poetry  is  that  of  love,  and  it  is  the  reali¬ 
zation  of  this  poetry  that  the  ethics  of  evolution  teaches,  promises,  and  enjoins.” 

H.  Quite  right  then  to  join  in  the  lists  against  religion  as  to  producing  and 
appreciating  the  poetry  of  unselfishness  and  love.  The  history  of  the  world  thun¬ 
ders  its  answer:  love  has  made  it  from  God  to  man;  has  descended  from  the  cross 
a'^d  rippled  out  into  millionfold  currents  swelling  down  the  ages.  The  only  broth¬ 
erhood  ever  realized,  even  approximately,  has  been  from  Christian  sources. 


RELIGIOUS  AS  DISTINGUISHED  FROM  MORAL  LIFE.  431 


4.  Tlie  love  of  evolution— the  struggle  for  life  and  the  survival  of  the  fittest  is 
best  s^n  07  submerging  nine  rats  in  a  cage  and  watching  them  struggle  to  sur¬ 
vive.  The  love  of  ev9lution  is  a  minus  quantity. 

5.  The  religious  life  must  be  greater  than  the  moral  life,  even  though  the  lat¬ 
ter  be  all  that  Kant’s  one  eloquent  passage  makes  it  appear  to  be.  He  finds  the 
stars  annihilating  him  by  their  massiveness,  but  found  himself  greater  than  the 
stars.  You  remember  “  the  moral  nature  within  ”  spurning  any  compromise  and 
proposing  himself  as  the  end  of  his  being. 


The  whole  meaning  of  the  invincible  imperative  can  not  be  contained  in 
the  moral  life.  Even  Kant  did  not  find  it  so.  returning,  as  he  did,  through 
the  practical  reason  to  God  and  immortality.  Conscience  imjjlies  God,  as 
the  southward  winging  bird  implies  the  South.  All  that  is  in  us,  then,  all 
ttie  fundamental  departments  of  the  microcosm  we  call  man,  demand  the 
religious  life.  The  intellect  reaches  its  highest  principles  when  it  thinks 
God’s  thoughts  after  Him, ‘and  finds  mind  everywhere  in  the  universe.  The 
affectations  and  emotions  find  their  true  object  in  divine  things,  and  from 
these  run  out  exuberantly  and  beneficently  to  all  human  needs.  The  will 
finds  its  freedom  steadied,  and  the  man  back  of  the  will  certified  by  the 
infinite  personality  of  God.  The  conscience  whispers  approval,  or  them, 
and  rebukes  us.  The  spiritual  aspirations  find  their  true  direction  only  in 
the  religious  life.  How  much  of  man  is  denied  or  docked  by  moralism? 

And  now  we  come  to  the  religious  life  as  concerned  with  sin. 

Here  we  find  the  distinguishing  element  of  repentance,  which  has  no 
place  whatever  in  the  moral  life.  In  the  latter  there  may  be  regret  or 
remorse  (if  the  evil  consequences  of  sin  have  become  evident  or  have  gone 
beyond  our  power  to  arrest).  But  the  religious  life  above  can  know  repent¬ 
ance.  It  is  made  up  of  elements  which  do  not  appear  in  the  moral  life. 

1.  Fear  of  sin’s  eternal  consequences. 

2.  Regard  to  the  mercy  of  G<^. 

3.  Faith  in  God's  promises,  and  the  method  of  pardon  he  has  proclaimed. 

4.  Turning  unto  God  with  a  surrendered  will,  a  poignant  sorrow,  and  a 
full  purpose  of  obedience. 

Can  I  be  wrong  in  saying  that  the  moral  life  misses  the  greatest  possible 
joy  of  man  when  it  fails  of  repentance?  Did  not  all  divine  interpositions 
in  the  world,  from  the  first  voice  to  Cain,  to  the  last  ijleading  of  the  risen 
Christ  seek  to  awaken  it?  Does  not  the  tear  of  repentance  (as  in  Tom 
Moore’s  exquisite  fiction)  move  the  crystal  bar  of  Paradise?  And  does  not 
every  true  act  of  repentance  awaken  the  praises  of  intelligent  spirits— sin¬ 
less,  themselves,  in  the  presence  of  God? 

This  evangelical  repentance  refreshes  the  whole  world  of  sin  by  its  real 
sorrow.  There  is  a  “repentance  unto  life,”  and  there  are  “fruits  meet  for 
repentance.”  In  the  nature  and  fruits  of  it  is  a  greater  thing  than  the 
merely  moral  man  can  ever  know. 

It  is  the  pivot  of  the  wicked  man’s  perishing  or  saving.  It  is  the  better¬ 
ment  of  the  good  and  the  besting  of  the  better.  It  is  associated  with  every 
prayer.  It  is  the  leading  of  all  God’s  goodness.  It  may  be  anguish  to  the 
taste,  but  what  comfort  it  brings  the  soul!  The  cry  of  the  publican,  the 
moan  of  the  prodigal,  are  just  the  “  coming  to  ourselves,”  as  they  are  our 
coming  to  the  Father.  Nothing  can  be  more  just,  more  rational,  more  sen¬ 
sible,  as  nothing  can  be  deeper  and  nothing  more  important.  Moralism 
excludes  repentance  in  its  just  meaning  and  vital  nature.  It  stands  on 
the  brink  and  then  turns  away.  Its  calculations  as  to  sin  are  narrow  and 
worldly.  They  are  “of  the  world.”  They  are  born  of  to-day  and  die  with 
what  they  were  born  with.  Moralism  is  apt  to  make  much  more  of  discovery 
than  of  sin.  The  hideous  ingratitude  of  continuous  rebellion  against  God 
does  not  intensify  any  deed  of  wrong  against  man  for  him.  The  higher 
relations  of  a  sinning  soul  are  hidden  from  him  and  that  helps  him  to  hide 
from  himself  the  lower.  But  the  religious  life  never  loses  the  deep  tone 
(it  might  l>e  called  the  minor  third)  which  is  evoked  when  the  soul  knows 
its  sin  in  the  lights  from  above. 


432 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


How  necessary  to  religion  repentance  is,  is  seen  in  these  striking  words 
of  Robertson,  who  was  not  prone  to  exaggeration  in  such  a  direction: 

Formalism,  even  morality,  will  not  satisfy  the  conscience  of  man.  *  *  * 
For  when  man  comes  to  front  the  everlasting  God,  and  look  the  splendor  of  his 
judgments  in  the  face,  personal  integrity,  this  dream  of  spotlessness  and  inno¬ 
cence,  vanishes  into  thin  air.  Your  decencies  and  your  church-goings,  and  your 
regularities,  and  your  attachment  to  correct  school  and  party,  your  gospel  form¬ 
ulas  of  sound  doctrine— what  is  all  this  in  front  of  the  wrath  to  come? 

Hold  it  closely,  then,  this  distinguished  character  of  the  religious  life. 
The  forgiven  are  forgiving:  the  elder  son  is  implacable.  For  sinners  the 
religious  life  can  answer.  Ethics,  as  a  means  to  salvation,  must  be  left  to 
angels.  Repentance  is  moral  sanity.  It  is  the  truth  of  things.  It  sees 
God’s  frown  and  seeks  His  favor.  It  stops  sinning.  It  puts  the  stoniest 
barriers  in  the  way  of  sinning  again.  It  looks  to  what  we  must  be  as  well 
as  to  what  we  have  been.  It  bears  the  noblest  fruitage  in  a  hundred-fold 
of  good  deeds  and  turns  blasphemers  into  apostles.  And  the  moralist  can 
not  know  it. 

The  religious  life  is  sundered  wholly  from  the  moral  life  and  elevated 
above  it  by  the  initial  fact  of  regeneration. 

Here  is  a  “  new  life”  indeed.  It  is  a  “  new  man”  with  whom  we  have 
to  deal.  It  is  an  implanted  principle  which  goes  on  to  consequences  of 
greatest  moment  exactly  in  line  with  the  initial  impulse.  At  once  it  claims 
to  be  more  than  the  moral  life,  introducing  new  reasons  for  obedience  even 
to  what  was  obeyed  before  from  lower  considerations.  This  is  divine 
energy  received  into  the  almost  passive  soul  of  man,  but  lifting  it  into  a 
permanent  partaking  of  the  divine  life. 

Here  is  the  glory  of  the  religious  life — this  marvelous,  swift,  mysterious, 
subtle,  but  eternal,  change.  It  may  be  as  swift  as  the  light  and  is  as 
inscrutable  as  the  breathing  of  the  wind.  But  “  by  their  fruits  shall  ye 
know  them.”  Powerful  as  omnipotence  can  make  it  and  enduring  as  the 
stars;  that  change  which  no  one  can  produce  and  none  can  describe; 
to  which  the  soul  can  only  consent  to  its  possession  by  the  will  of  God  to 
turn  it  upside  down  and  change  its  texture,  color,  and  career — that  is  the 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  a  religious  life.  There  is  nothing  like  it 
in.  nature  or  in  morals  except  in  refined  analogies.  The  only  thing  the 
moralist  can  do  about  it  is  to  deny  it  because  he  can  not  comprehend  even 
the  experience  of  it. 


HOW  CAN  PHILOSOPHY  AID  THE  SCIENCE  OF 

RELIGION  ? 

J.  P.  LAMDIS,  D.  D.,  PH.  D.,  PROFESSOR  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT 
THEOLOGY  AND  HEBREW,  DAYTON,  OHIO. 

Schleiermacher  defined  religion  as  “a  sense  of  absolute  dependence.”  But 
it  includes  more  than  this  feeling,  namely,  the  apprehension  of  a  supreme,  or 
at  least  a  superior,  being;  that  is,  it  includes  knowledge.  Even  in  the  feel¬ 
ing  itself  there  is  more  than  a  mere  sense  of  dependence,  namely,  reverence, 
fear,  love.  An  eminent  philosophical  Christian  writer  says.  “Religion  is 
the  union  of  man  with  God;  of  the  finite  with  the  infinite,  expressed  in 
conscious  love  and  reverence.”  James  Freeman  Clarke,  seeking  for  a  sim¬ 
ple  and  comprehensive  expression,  says:  “Religion  is  the  tendency  in  man 
to  worship  and  serve  invisible  beings  like  himself,  but  above  himself.”  This 
is  purposely  comprehensive,  so  that  it  may  include  animism,  fetichism,  and 
many  forms  of  pantheism,  like  that  of  Spinoza,  who  declared  that  we  must 
“  love  God  as  our  supreme  good.”  There  have  been  and  are  many  religions, 
and  however  much  they  may  differ  in  other  respects,  in  this  they  agree. 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  THE  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 


433 


“that  man  has  a  natural  faith  in  supernatural  powers,  with  whom  he  can 
commune,  to  whom  he  is  related,  and  that  this  life  and  this  earth  are  not 
enough  to  satisfy  his*  soul.” 

What  is  science?  In  its  broadcast  definition  science  is  systematized 
knowledge.  This,  however,  implies  more  than  an  orderly  arrangement  of 
facts.  It  includes  the  discovery  of  the  principles  and  laws  which  underlie 
and  pervade  the  facts.  Science  seeks  to  reach  the  highest  principles,  those 
which  have  given  shape  and  character  to  the  facts,  and  among  these  prin¬ 
ciples  even  aspires  to  grasp  the  central  one,  so  as  to  give  rational  unity  to 
the  subject.  Now  is  there,  or  may  there  be  a  science  of  religion?  It  is  a 
gratuitous  assumption  to  claim  there  is  no  science  but  natural  science. 
This  assumption  would  exclude  grammar,  rhetoric,  logic,  political  economy, 
ethics,  psychology,  and  even  mathematics.  The  truth  is,  there  are  various 
kinds  of  sciences,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  truth,  to  be  investigated. 
“  Each  science,”  says  Aristotle,  “  takes  cognizance  of  its  peculiar  truths.” 
“  Any  facts,”  says  John  Stuart  Mill,  “  are  fitted  in  themselves  to  be  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  a  science  if  they  follow  one  another  according  to  constant  laws, 
although  those  laws  may  not  have  been  discovered,  nor  even  be  discoverable 
by  our  existing  resources.”  The  religious  phenomena  of  the  world  and 
human  experience  are  just  as  real  as  any  with  which  physical  science  has 
to  deal.  In  the  sense  in  which  he  means  it,  James  Freeman  Clarke  is  right 
when  he  says: 

The  facts  of  consciousness  constitute  the  basis  of  religious  science.  These 
facts  are  as  real  and  as  constant  as  those  which  are  perceived  through  the  senses. 
*  *  *  Faith,  hope,  love,  are  as  real  as  form,  sound  and  color.  The  moral  laws 
also,  which  may  be  deduced  from  some  such  experiences,  are  real  and  perma. 
nent,  and  these  laws  can  be  verified  in  the  daily  course  of  human  life.  The  whole 
realm  of  spiritual  exercises  may,  and  ought  to  be,  carefully  examined,  analyzed, 
and  verified. 

To  construct  a  science  of  religion  requires  the  collation  of  a  vast  histor¬ 
ical  data,  an  exhaustive  and  true  analysis  of  the  facts  of  consciousness,  the 
discovery  of  the  relations  of  these  facts  to  one  another  of  the  principles 
which  underlie  and  pervade  them  and  the  laws  by  which  they  are  governed 
and  the  logical  arrangements  or  systemization  of  these  elements  or  data. 

The  science  of  religion,  as  above  defined,  is  broader  than  systematic  the¬ 
ology  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  by  Christians,  but  if  the  term  theology 
be  used  in  a  somewhat  Aristotleian  sense  it  may  stand  to  designate  our 
science  of  religion.  Pherecydes  and  Plato,  who  wrote  philosophically  on 
the  gods  and  their  material  relations  to  the  universe  and  to  man,  were  called 
theologians.  Aristotle  divided  all  speculative  science  in  mathematical, 
physical,  and  theological.  He  says:  “There  is  another  science  which  treats 
of  that  which  is  immutable  and  transcendental.  If,  indeed,  there  exist  such 
a  substance,  as  we  shall  indeed  endeavor  to  show  that  there  does,  this  tran¬ 
scendental  and  permanent  substance,  if  it  exist  at  all,  must  surely  be  the 
sphere  of  the  divine,  it  must  be  the  first  and  highest  principle.”  This  he 
called  theology. 

Whatever  else  theology  or  the  science  of  religion  must  consider,  the 
three  most  prominent  subjects  must  be:  First,  God,  His  being  and  attri¬ 
butes,  the  source  of  our  idea  of  God,  proofs  of  His  existence.  His  rulership 
over  the  world,  etc.;  second,  nature  or* the  works  of  God;  third,  man  in  his 
relations  to  deity.  The  fact  of  sin,  its  nature  and  consequence,  the  quest¬ 
ion  as  to  the  possibility  of  man’s  recovery  from  sin  and  man’s  destiny,  or 
the  question  of  immortality,  are  also  prominent  subjects  for  consideration. 
Having  taken  a  glance  at  the  definition  and  scope  of  the  science  of  religion, 
let  us  do  the  same  for  philosophy.  Definitions  have  been  very  various 
from  the  days  of  Plato  and  Aristotle  to  the  present  time.  With  Aristotle 
philosophy  is  the  systematic  and  critical  knowledge  of  the  first  or  ultimate 
principle  of  capital  being.  Herbert  Spencer  calls  it  “  knowledge  of  the 
highest  degree  of  generality  ”  and  adds:  “  Science  is  partially  unified 


434 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


knowledge,”  philosophy  is  completely  unified  knowledge.”  Cicero  defines 
it  as  “  Scientia,  rerum  divinerum  et  humanarum  causarumque.”  Science 
is  a  divine  thing  and  is  the  fount  of  human  causes.  The  human  mind  can 
not  rest  satisfied  with  merely  phenomena  or  isolated  fact  or  even  the 
orderly  classification  of  facts  and  phenomena;  it  seeks  to  get  below  the 
phenomena  and  accidents,  to  find  the  ultimate  essence  and  meaning.  It 
would  fain  know  the  rationale  of  all  things,  physical  and  mental,  natural 
and  supernatural. 

Philosophy  strives  to  comprehend  in  unity,  and  to  understand  the 
ground  and  causes  of  all  reality.  This  necessarily  includes  life  in  all  its 
aspects  and  relations.  I  should  give  the  scope  of  philosophical  inquiry,  or 
the  philosophical  encyclopedia  as  follows:  Metaphysics  or  ontology,  psychol¬ 
ogy,  logic,  ethics,  religion,  esthetics,  politics.  These  divisions  partly 
overlap  one  another.  On  comparing  the.  scope  of  both  the  science  of  relig¬ 
ion  and  philosophy  it  is  seen  in  part  they  cover  the  same  ground.  The  ulti¬ 
mate  objects  about  which  they  both  treat  are  God,  nature,  and  man. 

Said  Lord  Bacon,  “The  three  objections  to  philosophy  are  God, 
nature,  and  man.”  The  relations  of  philosophy,  therefore,  to  the  science 
of  religion  are  of  necessity  very  intimate.  We  can  not  separate  them 
entirely,  try  we  ever  so  hard.  Schleiermacher  and  his  school  at  the 
beginning  of  our  century  attempted  this,  but  even  Schleiermacher  with  all 
his  genius,  failed,  and  his  very  procedure  showed  the  futility  of  such 
attempts,  for  he  was  almost  all  the  while  up  to  his  eyes  in  philosophy.  In 
our  day  another  school  has  arisen  which  is  proclaiming  a  like  aim.  But 
the  essential  relations  of  philosophy  to  religion  are  shown  by  the  history  of 
both,  from  ancient  times  to  the  present.  While  the  ultimate  aim  of  relig¬ 
ion  is  practical  and  that  of  philosophy  is  speculative,  no  serious  or  thought¬ 
ful  mind  can  rest  in  the  contemplation  of  the  practical  or  utilitarian  ele¬ 
ments  of  religion.  Moreover,  even  the  speculative  or  rational  elements  of 
religion  everywhere  underlie  the  practical.  But  the  consideration  of  these 
rational  elements ‘brings  her  within  the  domain  of  philosophy.  Rational 
theology  is  indeed  a  part  of  philosophy. 

Man  finds  himself  to  be  a  religious  being.  He  has  a  sense  of  dependence 
on  a  Superior  Being.  There  are,  we  may  say,  deposits  in  his  feelings  them¬ 
selves  which  are  peculiar,  and  may  turn  out  to  be  very  significant,  and  lead 
to  the  discovery  of  very  important  truths.  There  are  in  ail  men  certain 
spontaneous  religious  beliefs,  but  as  man  advances  in  intellectual  growth 
and  intelligence  he  begins  to  refiect  on  these  phenomena.  He  will  ask  into 
the  meaning  and  ground  of  these  feelings  and  of  his  beliefs.  He  believes 
in  God.  Have  we  any  true  or  real  knowledge  of  such  a  Being,  if  he  exists  ? 
What  are  the  sources  of  this  knowledge  ?  How  far  may  we  know  Him,  and 
of  what  character  is  our  knowledge  of  him  ?  These  are  all  questions  which 
must  be  answered  if  we  are  able  to  have  any  such  thing  as  scientific  theol¬ 
ogy  or  science  of  religion  at  all,  but  all  these  questions  are  also  questions  of 
philosophy.  The  attempt  to  answer  these  questions,  if  we  are  not  willing 
to  be  content  with  a  very  poetical  and  unscientific  inquiry,  will  necessarily 
conduct  to  others  which  will  land  us  in  the  very  profoundest  depths  of 
human  thought,  in  the  very  realm  of  inquiry  in  which  philosophy  as  such 
lives  and  has  its  being. 

As  in  the  case  of  other  subjects,  religion  must  come  to  philosophy  to 
settle  for  it  all  the  problems  which  are  purely  rational.  Philosophy  must 
furnish  the  ultimate  data,  the  basal  truths,  though  not  the  historical  facts 
upon  which  a  great  part  of  the  religious  doctrine  rests.  Natural  the¬ 
ology  is  constantly  assuming  a  more  metaphysical  or  philosophical  char¬ 
acter. 

The  sacred  books,  as  the  Bible  of  the  J ews  and  Christians,  proceed  upon 
the  assumption  of  the  existence  of  the  Divine  Being.  If  there  is  no  such 
being,  there  is  no  religion.  The  question,  then,  which  at  once  confronts  us 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  THE  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION. 


435 


in  inquiring  into  the  reality  of  religion  itself  relates  to  the  existence  of 
a  God.  This  is  the  fundamental  question,  but  it  is  philosophical  in  its 
nature,  and  its  solutions  belong  to  the  realm  of  philosophy.  It  is  not  my 
purpose  to  enter  further  into  this  question  than  to  show  its  relation  to 
philosophy.  Some  say  the  knowledge  or  the  conviction  of  the  existence  of 
God  is  innate,  that  it  can  not  be  proved.  Others  hold  that  it  is  innate  and 
is  a  matter  of  proof;  others  still  hold  that  it  is  a  matter  of  revelation,  while 
still  others  maintain  that  it  is  both  innate  and  the  subject  of  proof.  Kant 
held  that  metaphysics  can  neither  prove  nor  disprove  the  existence  of  God. 
Dr.  McCosh  does  not  admit  that  we  have  an  intuitive  knowledge  of  God, 
but  that  “  Our  intuitions,  like  the  works  of  nature,  carry  us  up  to  God, 
their  author.”  Yet  he  says:  “The  idea  of  God,  the  belief  in  God,  may  be 
justly  represented  as  native  man.”  Many  writers  go  so  far  as  to  speak  of  a 
God-consciousness.  Professor  Fisher  says:  “We  are  conscious  of  God  in  a 
more  intimate  sense  than  we  are  conscious  of  finite  things.”  Professor 
Luthardt,  of  Leipsic,  says:  “  Consciousness  of  God  is  as  essential  an  element 
of  our  mind  as  consciousness  of  the  world  or  self-consciousness.”  The 
names  of  many  other  writers,  philosophical  and  theological,  who  teach  that 
idea  is  innate,  might  be  added,  such  as  Des  Cartes,  Dr.  Julius  Miller,  Dr. 
Dorner,  Professor  Bowen,  of  Harvard  University;  Professor  Harris,  of  Yale 
University.  Dr.  McCosh  says:  “  Among  metaphysicians  of  the  present  day 
it  is  a  very  common  opinion  that  our  belief  in  God  is  innate.”  Their 
doctrines  may  be  expressed  thus:  We  have  an  intuitive,  necessary  belief  in 
the  divine  existence. 

But  belief  implies  knowledge  more  or  less  clear.  “  Necessary  belief  involves 
necessary  cognition.”  Hence  God,  as  the  object  of  our  intuitive  belief, 
becomes  in  some  sense  the  object  of  intuitive  knowledge.  For  instance,  if 
one  ask  for  an  explanation  of  finite  existence,  the  belief  in  the  one  infinite 
being  at  once  and  intuitively  presents  itself.  Says  Luthardt:  “  There  is 
nothing  of  which  man  has  such  an  intuitive  conception  as  he  has  of  the 
existence  of  a  God.  We  can  by  no  means  free  ourselves  from  the  notion  of 
God.”  The  eminent  Max  Muller  puts  the  statement  thus: 

As  soon  as  man  becomes  conscious  of  himself  as  distinct  from  all  other  things 
and  persons,  he  at  the  same  time  becomes  conscious  of  a  higher  self ;  a  power 
without  which  lie  feels  that  neither  he  nor  anything  else  would  have  any  life  or 
realty.  This  'S  the  first  sense  of  the  Godhead,  is  the  source  of  all  religion.  It  is 
that  without  which  no  religion,  true  or  false,  is  possible. 

When  objections  are  raised  to  this  doctrine,  the  examination  of  its' 
validity  can  be  determined  only  within  the  field  of  philosophy.  This  is 
done  by  appealing  to  the  criteria  of  intuition.  It  is  necessary  to  our  nature, 
so  that,  when  the  problem  is  put  before  the  mind,  the  opposite  can  not  be 
believed.  Its  denial  does  violence  to  our  whole  nature,  and  is  forced.  As 
soon  as  the  laws  of  nature  act  unrestrained,  the  belief  in  Deity  asserts 
itself.  It  is  necessary  somewhat  in  the  same  sense  as  our  conviction  of  the 
moral  law,  or  of  right,  is  necessary — we  can  not  rid  ourselves  of  it.  This  is 
not  disproved  by  the  fact  that  some  men  have  doubted  the  existence  of 
God.  Men  may  do  violence  to  their  mental  constitution,  either  by  wrong 
metaphysics  or  by  sin.  A  man  may  so  cauterize  his  hand  that  he  loses  the 
sense  of  touch.  Men  have  been  born  blind  or  deaf,  but  this  does  not  prove 
that  sight  and  hearing  are  not  native  to  man.  Some  have  doubted  whether 
there  is  an  external  world  at  all,  as  Bishop  Berkeley ;  others,  whether  there 
is  any  such  thing  as  spirit,  as  Auguste  Compte.  Some  have  denied  the 
reality  of  the  material  world  in  spite  of  metaphysical  subtleties  and  learned 
arguments. 

This  belief  in  a  divine  being  is  universal ;  i.e,,  it  is  held  in  some  form  by 
all  nations,  tribes,  and  tongues.  The  claitii  has  in  a  few  instances  been  set 
up  that  some  small  tribes  have  been  discovered  who  had  no  idea  whatever 
of  God,  but  when  the  case  was  narrowly  inquired  into,  the  statement  was 


436 


THE  PARLIAMEJSfT  OP  RELIGIONS. 


found  to  be  incorrect.  Even  Professor  De  Quatrefages,  professor  of 
anthropology  in  unbelieving  Paris,  writes  : 

Obliged  in  the  course  of  my  investigation  to  view  all  races,  I  have  sought 
atheism  in  the  lowest  as  well  as  the  highest.  I  have  nowhere  met  it  except  in 
individuals,  or  in  more  or  less  limited  schools,  such  as  those  which  existed  in 
Europe  in  the  last  century  or  which  may  still  be  seen  at  the  present  day. 

The  universality  of  this  belief  means,  further,  that  it  is  a  belief  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  nature  of  all  men.  This  denotes  that  all  men  are  capable  of 
having  this  belief.  A  horse  is  not  capable  of  this  belief,  but,  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  fact,  all  sane  men  do  have  it,  either  in  some  degraded  form  or  a 
form  more  exalted.  '“It  is  as  natural  to  man  to  believe  in  a  God  as  to  walk 
on  two  feet,”  said  Lichtenberger.  “What  is  certain  is  that  no  necessity 
makes  itself  felt  more  imperatively  in  man  than  this  which  compels  him 
to  believe  in  God,”  said  Van  Oosterzee.  “The  fundamental  presupposition 
of  our  personal  existence  and  personal  self-consciousness  is  the  existence  of 
the  Divine  Personality.”  “Just  as  the  outer  world  presents  itself  to  the 
senses  for  external  recognition,  so  God,  in  and  by  the  world,  presents  Him¬ 
self  to  reason  for  internal  recognition,”  said  Christlieb. 

The  statement  of  the  doctrine  above,  namely,  that  this  is  in  the  first 
instance  an  intuitive  belief,  which,  however,  involves  knowledge,  also  leads  to 
the  question  as  to  the  relation  of  faith  and  knowledge,  a  question  which  has 
been  much  discussed  ever  since  the  days  of  Origen.  He  uttered  the  dictum, 
“Fides  praecepit  intellectum.”  This  was  also  held  by  Augustine,  Anselm, 
Calvin,  Pascal.  Anselm’s  motto  was:  “Credo  ut  intelligam.”  The  doctrine 
thus  expressed  by  these  eminent  thinkers  has  been  much  discussed  by 
philosophers  and  theologians,  but  its  solution  belongs  to  the  domain  of 
philosophy.  I  need  only  mention  Calderwood,  Sir  William  Hamilton, 
Victor  Cousin',  Schiermacher,  Jacobi,  Christlieb. 

Can  the  existence  of  God  be  proved,  or  do  we  rest  solely  on  this  innate 
conviction?  There  is  a  vast  amount  of  cumulative  proof,  which  is  as  a 
large  reserve  to  support  the  inner  conviction.  The  well-known  classifica¬ 
tion  of  these  proofs  is  into  the  ontological,  the  cosmological,  the  teleologi¬ 
cal,  and  the  anthropological.  Without  discussing  these,  the  mere  statement 
of  them  itself  will  determine  their  character  as  philosophical.  The  deter¬ 
mination  of  their  validity  and  force  belongs  to  philosophy.  The  ontological 
argument  is  purely  metaphysical.  Anselm  was  the  first  to  put  it  into  form. 
Descartes  constructed  another,  and  after  him  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  and  still 
later  on,  Victor  Cousin.  Anselm’s  argument  is  in  substance  this: 

That  which  exists  in  reality  is  greater  than  that  which  exists  only  in  the  mind. 
There  exists  in  the  human  intellect  the  conception  of  an  infinitely  perfect  Being. 
In  infinite  perfection  necessary  existence  is  included;  necessary  existence 
implies  actual  existence,  for  if  it  must  be,  it  is.  If  the  perfect  being,  of  whom  we 
have  conception,  does  not  exist,  we  can  conceive  of  one  still  more  perfect,  i.  e.,  of 
one  who  does  of  necessity  exist.  Therefore,  necessity  of  being  belongs  to  perfec¬ 
tion  of  being.  Hence,  an  absolutely  perfect  being  exists,  who  is  God. 

Gaunilo,  a  contemporary  of  Anselm’s,  sought  to  show  that  there  is  a 
paralogism  in  this  argument.  We  have,  for  instance,  an  idea  of  a  Centaur, 
but  this  does  not  prove  that  a  Centaur  ever  existed.  Kant  also,  with  a 
quiet  smile,  remarked  that  he  might  have  an  idea  of  $300  in  his  pocket  and 
yet  be  actually  penniless.  Indeed  this  argument,  it  is  sometimes  said,  is 
now  not  much  in  repute.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  the  essence  of  it 
already  in  Plato;  hints  of  it  in  Aristotle,  Athanasius,  Augustine,  and 
Boethius.  Anselm  first  developed  it.  Descartes  first  adopted  it  with 
some  changes.  Leibnitz  followed.  The  great  theologians,  Cudworth, 
Stillingfleet,  Howe,  and  Henry  Moore,  adopted  it  in  their  debates  with  the 
infidels  of  their  time.  Cousin  developed  still  another  form  of  it.  Validity 
is  allowed  to  it  by  Luthardt,  Dr.  Dorner,  Henry  B.  Smith,  Dr.  Caird,  Pro¬ 
fessor  Shedd,  Ulrici  Thompson,  Tulloch,  and  others.  Dr.  Shedd  has  an 
elaborate  answer  to  the  objections  of  Gaunilo  and  Kant. 

The  cosmological  and  theological  arguments  ultimately  rest  on  the 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  THE  SCIENCE  OF  RELIGION.  437 


intuition  of  cause  and  effect.  Theological  has  always  been  considered  as 
the  most  persuasive  and  powerful.  Through  all  the  ages  since  Anaxagoras, 
but  especially  since  Socrates,  the  great  mass  of  thinkers  have  laid  special 
emphasis  upon  it.  John  Stuart  Mill  advised  theologians  to  adhere  to  it. 
Yet  it  has  been  vehemently  attacked  in  our  time.  Kant,  although  he  pro¬ 
fessed  respect  for  it,  regarded  it  as  inadequate,  and  so  does  Hermann 
Lotze.  John  Stuart  Mill,  on  the  other  hand,  says:  “  I  think  it  must  be 
acknowledged  that  in  our  present  state  of  knowledge,  the  adaptations  of 
nature  afford  a  large  balance  of  probability  in  favor  of  creation  by  intelli¬ 
gence.”  Jenet’s  “Final  Causes”  is  an  admirable  exposition  of  the  subject. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  moral  proof  is  not  mathematical  demon¬ 
stration;  that  no  one  line  of  argument  is  to  be  taken  by  itself  alone;  that 
taken  together,  the  ontological,  the  cosmological,  the  teleological,  and  the 
anthropological  arguments  are  like  so  many  converging  lines,  all  pointing 
toward,  even  if  they  do  not  in  strict  demonstration  reach,  the  common  cen¬ 
ter — God.  Says  Cousin:  “  These  various  proofs  have  different  degrees  of 
strictness  in  their  form,  but  they  all  have  a  foundation  of  truth  which 
needs  simply  to  be  disengaged  and  put  in  a  clear  light  in  order  to  give 
them  incontrovertible  authority.  Everything  leads  to  God — we  go  to  Him 
by  different  paths.”  Dr.  Carpenter  speaks  of  some  departments  of  science 
“  in  which  our  conclusions  rest,  not  on  any  one  set  of  experiences,  but  upon 
our  unconscious  co-ordination  of  the  whole  aggregate  of  our  experience; 
not  on  conclusions  of  any  one  train  of  reasoning,  but  on  the  convergence 
of  all  our  lines  of  thought  toward  one  center.” 

In  connection  with  these  arguments  philosophy  must  explain  the  mean¬ 
ing  and  vindicate  the  reality  of  cause.  For  religion  the  question  whether 
there  are  efficient  and  final  causes  is  very  vital.  If  Hume’s  position  be 
true  there  can  be  no  science  of  religion:  there  is  probably  no  God. 

Religion  says  God  is  infinite  and  absolute.  But  can  the  infinite  and 
absolute  be  known  by  the  finite?  Can  there  be  any  relation  between  the 
absolute  and  finite?  An  important  question  for  religion,  but  philosophy  must 
give  us  the  solution,  if  a  solution  is  possible.  Says  Herbert  Spencer  in  his 
“First  Principles  ”:  “ The  axiomatic  truths  of  physical  science  unavoid¬ 

ably  postulate  absolute  being  as  their  common  basis.  The  persistence  of 
the  universe  is  the  persistence  of  that  unknown  cause,  power,  or  force 
which  is  manifest  to  us  through  all  phenomena.  Such  is  the  foundation 
of  any  system  of  positive  knowledge.  Thus  the  belief  which  this  datum 
constitutes  has  a  higher  warrant  than  any  other  whatever.”  He  is  here  sub¬ 
stantially  on  Aristotelian  ground. 

Again,  can  personality  be  postulated  of  the  infinite  or  absolute?  Phil¬ 
osophy  must  both  explain  personality  and  how  this  can  be  consistent  with 
the  infinite  and  absolute.  This  has  been  a  great  subject  with  the  philos¬ 
ophers.  Witness  Kant,  Hegel,  Fichte,  Cousin,  Hamilton,  Mansel,  John 
Stuart  Mill,  Calderwood,  McCosh,  Spencer.  Here  we  shall  ultimately  come 
back  to  the  Cartesian  “  Cogito  ergo  sum.” 

The  deepest  revelation  of  consciousness  is  the  ego  and  the  non-ego.  In 
consciousness  we  become  aware  at  once  of  self,  a  modification  of  self,  which 
is  a  mental  state  or  act,  and  the  not-self.  We  find  here  sensations,  percep¬ 
tions,  memories,  imaginations,  beliefs,  volitions,  etc.,  but  in  connection  with 
each  of  these  is  also  invariably  given  the  self,  and  its  antithesis,  the  not- 
self.  This  conscious  self  thus  experiencing  or  exercising  sensations,  judg¬ 
ments,  volitions,  is  what  we  call  a  person.  If  we  should  here  adopt  the 
theory  of  James  Mill  and  his  son,  John  Stuart,  that  self  is  on  ly  a  “perma¬ 
nent  possibility  of  feeling,”  all  proper  notion  of  selfhood  or  personality  van¬ 
ishes.  The  self,  with  these  powers  of  thought,  feeling,  and  self-determina¬ 
tion,  we  call  a  spirit.  From  consciousness  then  we  have  the  idea  of  spirit, 
and  are  prepared  to  understand  the  doctrine,  “  God  is  spirit;  ”  and  a 
knowledge  of  our  own  personality  prepares  us  for  the  idea  of  the  personality 


438 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  God.  Materialism,  which  regards  thought  as  only  an  efflux  of  the 
brain,  or  as  one  of  the  correlated  forces  of  nature,  or  molecular  motion,  has 
logically  no  room  for  the  personality  of  man,  and  hence,  consistently,  none 
for  a  personal  God.  Pantheism,  which  identifies  matter  and  spirit,  or 
regards  them  as  only  different  aspects  or  sides  of  the  same  universal  sub¬ 
stance,  lands  us  precisely  in  the  same  place.  But,  as  Dr.  Fisher  truly  says: 
“  Belief  in  the  personality  of  man  and  belief  in  the  personality  of  God 
stand  or  fall  together.’' 

Religion  ascribes  attributes  to  the  absolute  and  infinite  being.  Philoso¬ 
phy  must  show  whether  this  is  possible,  and  if  so,  how.  In  John  Stuart 
Mill’s  criticism  of  Sir  William  Hamilton’s  doctrine  of  the  absolute  we  have 
a  hint  how  this  maybe  done.  Particularly  is  philosophy  of  service  in  the 
discussion  and  elucidation  of  such  attributes  as  trinity,  omnipresence, 
omnipotence,  eternity. 

In  many  religions  there  are  hints  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Godhead.  A 
great  mass  of  the  Christian  world  finds  in  the  Bible  the  doctrine  of  the  God¬ 
head  to  be  that  of  a  triune  being.  The  determination  of  the  meaning  of 
such  a  doctrine,  if  not  the  possibility  of  it,  belongs  almost  wholly  to  the 
rational  or  philosopfiical  side  of  religion. 

It  belongs  to  philosophy  or  reason  to  determine  the  laws  of  evidence 
which  are  to  prove  not  only  the  doctrines  but  also  the  facts  of  religion  as 
well.  Various  religions  claim  to  possess  the  truth  and  to  have  a  more  or 
less  positive  revelation.  Are  these  claims  all  false?  Or  is  there  one  religion 
which  possesses  the  truth  and  the  divine  revelation?  Or  are  these  elements 
of  truth  and  of  revelation  in  several  or  in  all  of  them?  Plainly  it  belongs 
to  philosophical  inquiry  to  determine  these  grave  questions.  I  am  a 
Christian,  and  accept  the  Bible  as  a  positive  revelation  from  God;  but  if  I 
would  justify  and  vindicate  to  myself  this  faith  I  must  have  recourse  to 
reason  and  philosophical  principles. 

The  doctrine  of  the  will,  especially  of  the  freedom  of  the  will,  is  also  a 
question  of  philosophy,  but  far-reaching  in  its  bearing  on  theological  doc¬ 
trine.  It  is  related  to  the  question  of  the  personality  of  man  and  of  God; 
to  the  question  of  moral  government,  of  responsibility,  and  of  virtue;  to  that 
of  sin  and  rewards  and  punishments.  Its  importance  is  seen  in  the  fact 
that  one’s  philosophy  of  the  will  determines  him  to  be  an  Augustinian,  an 
Arminian,  a  Pelagian,  or  a  fatalist.  Edwards  really  wrote  his  great  work 
in  the  interest  of  Calvinism  and  Dr.  Whedom  his  in  the  interest  of  Wes¬ 
leyan  Arminianism. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  philosophy  is  one  of  the  most  important  of  the 
secondary  sources  of  the  science  of  religion.  Philosophy  can  aid  the  science 
of  religion  by  keeping  to  her  own  proper  sphere  and  diligently  cultivating 
that,  and  by  teaching  religion  also  to  keep  her  proper  sphere.  A  true  philos¬ 
ophy  can  do  much  for  our  science  as  a  corrective  of  false  religious  dogmas 
and  philosophical  doctrine.  Hence,  finally,  with  the  advance  of  a  true 
philosophy  the  science  of  religion,  and  even  religion  itself,  must  advance 


HINDUISM  AS  A  RELIGION. 

SWAMI  VIYEKANANDA  OF  INDIA. 

Three  religions  now  stand  in  the  world  which  have  come  down  to  us 
from  time  prehistoric — Hinduism,  Zoroastrianism,  and  Judaism.  These  all 
have  received  tremendous  shocks  and  all  of  them  prove  by  their  revival 
their  internal  strength,  but  Judaism  failed  to  absorb  Christianity  and  was 
driven  out  of  its  place  of  birth  by  its  all-conquering  daughter.  Sect  after 
sect  has  arisen  in  India  and  seemed  to  shake  the  religion  of  the  Vedas  to 
its  very  foundations,  but,  like  the  waters  of  the  seashore  in  a  tremendous 


HINDUISM  AS  A  RELIGION. 


439 


earthquake,  it  has  receded  only  for  a  while,  only  to  return  in  an  all  absorb¬ 
ing  flood,  and  when  the  tumult  of  the  rush  was  over  these  sects  had  been 
all  sucked  in,  absorbed,  and  assimilated  in  the  immense  body  of  another 
faith. 

From  the  high  spiritual  flights  of  philosophy,  of  which  the  latest  discov¬ 
eries  of  science  seem  like  echoes,  from  the  atheism  of  the  Jains,  to  the  low 
ideas  of  idolatry,  and  the  multifarious  mythologies,  each  and  all  have  a 
place  in  the  Hindu’s  religion. 

Where  then,  the  question  arises,  where  then  the  common  center  to 
which  all  these  widely  diverging  radii  converge?  Where  is  the  common 
basis  upon  which  all  these  seemingly  hopeless  contradictions  rest?  And 
this  is  the  question  which  I  shall  attempt  to  answer. 

The  Hindus  have  received  their  religion  through  the  revelation  of  the 
Vedas.  They  hold  that  the  Vedas  are  without  beginniirg  and  without  end. 
It  may  sound  ludicrous  to  this  audience — how  a  book  can  be  without  begin¬ 
ning  or  end.  But  by  the  Vedas  no  books  are  meant.  They  mean  the 
accumulated  treasury  of  spiritual  laws  discovered  by  different  persons  in 
different  times.  J ust  as  the  law  of  gravitation  existed  before  its  discovery 
and  would  exist  if  all  humanity  forgot  it,  so  with  the  laws  that  govern  the 
spiritual  world;  the  moral,  ethical,  and  spiritual  relations  between  soul  and 
soul,  and  between  individual  spirits  and  the  father  of  all  spirits,  were  there 
before  their  discovery  and  would  remain  even  if  we  forgot  them. 

The  discoverers  of  these  laws  are  called  Rishis,  and  we  honor  them  as 
perfected  beings,  and  I  am  glad  to  tell  this  audience  that  some  of  the  very 
best  of  them  were  women. 

Here  it  may  be  said  that  the  laws  as  laws  may  be  without  end,  but  they 
must  have  had  a  beginning.  The  Vedas  teach  us  that  creation  is  without 
beginning  or  end.  Science  has  proved  to  us  that  the  sum  total  of  the 
cosmic  energy  is  the  same  throughout  all  time.  Then,  if  there  was  a  time 
when  nothing  existed,  where  was  all  this  manifested  energy  ?  Some  say  it 
was  in  a  potential  form  in  God.  But,  then,  God  is  sometimes  potential  and 
sometimes  kinetic,  which  would  make  Him  mutable,  andeverything  muta¬ 
ble  is  a  compound,  and  everything  compound  must  undergo  that  change 
which  is  called  destruction.  Therefore  God  would  die.  Therefore  there 
never  was  a  time  when  there  was  no  creation. 

Here  I  stand,  and  if  I  shut  my  eyes  and  try  to  conceive  my  existence, 
“I,”  “I,”  “I,”  what  is  the  idea  before  me?  The  idea  of  a  body.  Am  I, 
then,  nothing  but  a  combination  of  matter  and  material  substances?  The 
Vedas  declare,  “No,”  I  am  a  spirit,  living  in  a  body.  I  am  not  the  body. 
The  body  will  die,  but  I  will  not  die.  Here  am  I  in  this  body,  and  when  it 
will  fail,  still  I  will  go  on  living.  Also  I  had  a  past  The  soul  was  not 
created  from  nothing,  for  creation  means  a  combination,  and  that  means  a 
certain  future  dissolution.  If,  then,  the  soul  was  created,  it  must  die. 
Therefore,  it  was  not  created.  Borne  are  born  happy,  enjoying  perfect 
health,  beautiful  body,  mental  vigor,  and  with  all  wants  supplied.  Others 
are  born  miserable.  Some  are  without  nands  or  feet,  some  idiots,  and 
only  drag  out  a  miserable  existence.  Why,  if  they  are  all  created,  why 
does  a  just  and  merciful  God  create  one  happy  and  the  other  unhappy? 
Why  is  He  so  partial?  Nor  would  it  mend  matters  in  the  least  to  hold 
that  those  who  are  miserable  in  this  life  will  be  perfect  in  a  future  life. 
Why  should  a  man  be  miserable  here  in  the  reign  of  a  just  and  merciful 
God? 

In  the  second  place  it  does  not  give  us  any  cause  but  simply  a  cruel 
act  of  an  all-powerful  being,  and  therefore  it  is  unscientific.  There  must 
have  been  causes,  then,  to  make  a  man  miserable  or  happy  before  his 
birth,  and  those  were  his  past  actions.  Why  may  not  all  the  tendencies  of 
the  mind  and  body  be  answered  for  by  inherited  aptitude  from  parents? 
Here  are  the  two  parallel  lines  of  existence — one,  that  of  the  mind,  the 
other  that  of  matter. 


440 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


If  matter  and  its  transformation  answer  for  all  that  we  have,  there  is 
no  necessity  for  supposing  the  existence  of  a  soul.  But  it  can  not  be  proved 
that  thought  has  been  evolved  out  of  matter.  We  can  not  deny  that 'bodies 
inherit  certain  tendencies,  but  those  tendencies  only  mean  the  physical  con¬ 
figuration  through  which  a  peculiar  mind  alone  can  act  in  a  peculiar  way. 
Those  peculiar  tendencies  in  that  soul  have  been  caused  by  past  actions. 

A  soul  with  a  certain  tendency  will  take  birth  in  a  body  which  is  the  fittest 
instrument  of  the  display  of  that  tendency,  by  the  laws  of  affinity.  And 
this  is  in  perfect  accord  with  science,  for  science  wants  to  explain  every¬ 
thing  by  habit,  and  habit  is  got  through  repetitions.  So  these  repetitions 
are  also  necessary  to  explain  the  natural  habits  of  a  new-born  soul.  They 
were  not  got  in  this  present  life;  therefore,  they  must  have  come  down  from 
past  lives. 

But  there  is  another  suggestion,  taking  all  these  for  granted.  How  is  it 
that  I  do  not  remember  anything  of  my  past  life?  This  can  be  easily 
explained.  I  am  now  speaking  English.  It  is  not  my  mother-tongue,  in 
fact,  not  a  word  of  my  mother-tongue  is  present  in  my  consciousness;  but, 
let  me  try  to  bring  ^ch  words  up,  they  rush  into  my  consciousness.  That 
shows  that  consciousness  is  the  name  only  of  the  surface  of  the  mental 
ocean,  and  within  its  depths  are  stored  up  all  our  experiences.  Try  and 
struggle  and  they  will  come  up  and  you  will  be  conscious. 

This  is  the  direct  and  demonstrative  evidence.  Verification  is  the  per¬ 
fect  proof  of  a  theory,  and  here  is  the  challenge,  thrown  to  the  world  by 
Rishis.  We  have  discovered  precepts  by  which  the  very  depths  of  the  ocean 
of  memory  can  be  stirred  up — follow  them  and  you  will  get  a  complete 
reminiscence  of  your  past  life. 

So  then  the  Hindu  believes  that  he  is  a  spirit.  Him  the  sword  can  not 
pierce,  him  the  fire  can  not  burn,  him  the  water  can  not  melt,  him  the  air 
can  not  dry.  He  believes  every  soul  is  a  circle  whose  circumference  is 
nowhere,  but  whose  center  is  located  in  a  body,  and  death  means  the  change 
of  this  center  from  body  to  body.  Nor  is  the  soul  bound  by  the  condition 
of  matter.  In  its  very  essence  it  is  free,  unbound,  holy,  and  pure,  and  per¬ 
fect.  But  somehow  or  other  it  has  got  itself  bound  down  by  matter,  and 
thinks  of  itself  as  matter. 

Why  should  the  free,  perfect,  and  pure  being  be  under  the  thralldom  of 
matter?  How  can  the  perfect  be  deluded  into  the  belief  that  he  is  imper¬ 
fect?  We  have  been  told  that  the  Hindus  shirk  the  question  and  say  that 
no  such  question  can  be  there,  and  some  thinkers  want  to  answer  it  %  the 
supposing  of  one  or  more  quasi-perfect  beings,  and  use  big  scientific  names 
to  fill  up  the  gap.  But  naming  is  not  explaining.  The  question  remains 
the  same.  How  can  the  perfect  become  the  quasi-perfect,  how  can  the  i 
pure,  the  absolute,  change  even  a  microscopic  particle  of  its  nature?  The  | 
Hindu  is  sincere.  He  does  not  want  to  take  shelter  under  sophistry.  He  is 
brave  enough  to  face  the  question  in  a  manly  fashion.  And  his  answer  is: 

“  I  do  not  know.”  I  do  not  know  how  the  perfect  being,  the  soul,  came  to 
think  of  itself  as  imperfect,  as  joined  and  conditioned  by  matter.  But  the 
fact  is  a  fact  for  all  that.  It  is  a  fact  in  everybody’s  consciousness  that  he 
thinks  of  himself  as  the  body.  We  do  not  attempt  to  explain  why  I  am  in 
this  body. 

Well,  then,  the  human  soul  is  eternal  and  immortal,  perfect  and  infinite, 
and  death  means  only  a  change  of  center  from  one  body  to  another.  The 
present  is  determined  by  our  past  actions,  and  the  future  will  be  by  the 
present.  The  soul  will  go  on  evolving  up  or  reverting  back  from  birth  to 
birth  and  death  to  death — like  a  tiny  boat  in  a  tempest,  raised  one  moment 
on  the  fqaming  crest  of  a  billow  and  dashed  down  into  a  yawning  chasm  the 
next,  roiling  to  and  fro  at  the  mercy  of  good  and  bad  actions — a  powerless, 
helpless  wreck  in  an  ever-raging,  ever-rushing,  uncompromising  current  of 
cause  and  effect.  A  little  moth  placed  under  the  wheel  of  causation  which 


HINDUISM  AS  A  RELIGION. 


m 

rolls  on,  crushing  everything  in  its  way  and  waits  not  for  the  widow's  tear 
or  the  orphan’s  cry. 

The  heart  sinks  at  the  idea,  yet  this  is  the  law  of  nature.  Is  there  no 
hope?  Is  there  no  escape?  The  cry  that  went  up  from  the  bottom  of  the 
heart  of  despair  reached  the  throne  of  mercy  and  words  of  hope  and  con¬ 
solation  came  down  and  inspired  a  Vedic  sage,  and  he  stood  up  before  the 
world  and  in  a  trumpet  voice  proclaimed  the  glad  tidings  to  the  world. 
“  Hear,  ye  children  of  immortal  bliss,  even  ye  that  resisted  in  higher  spheres. 
I  have  found  the  ancient  one.  who  is  beyond  all  darkness,  all  delusion,  and 
knowing  him  alone  you  shall  be  saved  from  death  again.”  “Children  of 
immortal  bliss,”  what  a  sweet,  what  a  hopeful  name.  Allow  me  to  call  you, 
brethren,  by  that  sweet  name — heirs  of  immortal  bliss — yea,  the  Hindu 
refuses  to  call  you  sinners. 

Ye  are  the  children  of  God.  The  sharers  of  immortal  bliss,  holy  and 
perfect  beings.  Ye  divinities  on  earth,  sinners?  It  is  a  sin  to  call  a  man 
so.  It  is  a  standing  libel  on  human  nature.  Come  up,  live  and  shake  off 
the  delusion  that  you  are’sheep  —  you  are  souls  immortal,  spirits  free  and 
blest  and  eternal,  ye  are  not  matter,  ye  are  not  bodies.  Matter  is  your 
servant,  not  you  the  servant  of  matter. 

Thus  it  is  the  Vedas  proclaim,  not  a  dreadful  combination  of  unforgiv¬ 
ing  laws,  not  an  endless  prison  of  cause  and  effect,  but  that,  at  the  head  of 
all  these  laws,  in  and  through  every  particle  of  matter  and  force,  stands 
one  “  through  whose  command  the  wind  blows,  the  fire  burns,  the  clouds 
rain,  and  death  stalks  upon  the  earth.”  And  what  is  his  nature? 

He  is  everywhere,  the  pure  and  formless  one,  the  Almighty  and  the  all- 
merciful.  “Thou  art  our  father.  Thou  art  our  mother.  Thou  art  our 
beloved  friend.  Thou  art  the  source  of  all  strength.  Thou  art  He  that 
bearest  the  burdens  of  the  universe;  help  me  bear  the  little  burden  of  this 
life.”  Thus  sang  the  Rishis  of  the  Veda.  And  how  to  worship  Him? 
Through  love.  “  He  is  to  be  worshiped  as  the  one  beloved,  dearer  than 
everything  in  this  and  the  next  life.” 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  love  preached  in  the  Vedas,  and  let  us  see  how  it 
is  fully  developed  and  preached  by  Krishna,  whom  the  Hindus  believe  to 
have  been  God  incarnate  on  earth. 

He  taught  that  a  man  ought  to  live  in  this  world  like  a  lotus  leaf,  which 
grows  in  water  but  is  never  moistened  by  water — so  a  man  ought  to  live  in 
this  world — his  heart  for  God  and  his  hands  for  work. 

It  is  good  to  love  God  for  hope  of  reward  in  this  or  the  next  world,  but 
it  is  better  to  love  God  for  love’s  sake,  and  the  prayer  goes,  “  Lord,  I  do  not 
want  wealth,  nor  children,  nor  learning.  If  it  will  be  thy  will  I  will  go  to  a 
hundred  hells,  but  grant  me  this,  that  I  may  love  thee  without  the  hope  of 
reward — unselfishly  love  for  love’s  sake.”  One  of  the  disciples  of  Krishna, 
the  then  Emperor  of  India,  was  driven  from  his  throne  by  his  enemies  and 
had  to  take  shelter  in  a  forest  in  the  Himalayas  with  his  queen,  and  there 
one  day  the  queen  was  asking  him  how  it  was  that  he,  the  most  virtuous  of 
men,  should  suffer  so  much  misery,  and  Yuchistera  answered:  “Behold, 
my  queen,  the  Himalayas,  how  grand  and  beautiful  they  are.  I  love  them. 
They  do  not  give  me  anything,  but  my  nature  is  to  love  the  grand  and  beau¬ 
tiful;  therefore  I  love  them.  Similarly,  I  love  the  Lord.  He  is  the  source 
of  all  beauty,  of  all  sublimity.  He  is  the  only  object  to  be  loved.  My  nature 
is  to  love  him,  and  therefore  I  love.  I  do  not  pray  for  anything.  I  do  not 
ask  for  anything.  Let  him  place  me  wherever  he  likes.  I  must  love  him 
for  love’s  sake.  I  can  not  trade  in  love.” 

The  Vedas  teach  that  the  soul  is  divine,  only  held  under  bondage  of 
matter,  and  perfection  will  be  reached  when  the  bond  shall  burst,  and  the 
word  they  use  is,  therefore,  Mukto — freedom — freedom  from  the  bonds  of 
imperfection;  freedom  from  death  and  misery. 

And  they  teach  that  this  bondage  can  only  fall  off  through  the  mercy 


442 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  God,  and  this  mercy  comes  to  the  pure.  So  purity  is  the  condition  of 
his  mercy.  How  that  mercy  acts?  He  reveals  himself  to  the  pure  heart, 
and  the  pure  and  stainless  man  sees  God,  yea,  even  in  this  life,  and  then, 
and  then  only.  All  the  crookedness  of  the  heart  is  made  straight.  Then 
all  doubt  ceases.  Man  is  no  more  the  freak  of  a  terrible  law  of  causation. 
So  this  is  the  very  center,  the  very  vital  conception  of  Hinduism.  The 
Hindu  does  not  want  to  live  upon  words  and  theories— if  there  are 
Existences  beyond  the  ordinary  sensual  existence,  he  wants  to  come  face  to 
face  with  them.  If  there  is  a  soul  in  him  which  is  not  matter,  if  there  is 
an  all-merciful  universal  soul,  he  will  go  to  him  direct.  He  must  see  him, 
and  that  alone  can  destroy  all  doubts.  So  the  best  proof  a  Hindu  sage 
gives,  about  the  soul,  about  God,  is,  “I  have  seen  the  soul,  I  have  seen 
God.” 

And  that  is  the  only  condition  of  perfection.  The  Hindu  religion  does 
not  consist  in  struggles  and  attempts  to  believe  a  certain  doctrine  or  dogma, 
but  in  realizing — not  in  believing,  but  in  being  and  becoming. 

So  the  whole  struggle  in  their  system  is  a  constant  struggle  to  become 
perfect,  to  become  divine,  to  reach  God  and  see  God,  and  in  this  reaching 
God,  seeing  God,  becoming  perfect,  even  as  the  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect, 
consists  the  religion  of  the  Hindus. 

And  what  becomes  of  man  when  he  becomes  perfect?  He  lives  a  life  of 
bliss,  infinite.  He  enjoys  infinite  and  perfect  bliss,  having  obtained  the 
only  thing  in  which  man  ought  to  have  pleasure — God — and  enjoys  the 
bliss  with  God. 

So  far  all  the  Hindus  are  ageeed.  This  is  the  common  religion  of  all 
the  sects  of  India,  but  then  the  question  comes — perfection  is  absolute,  and 
the  absolute  can  not  be  two  or  three.  It  can  not  have  any  qualities.  It 
can  not  be  an  individual.  And  so  when  a  soul  becomes  perfect  and  abso¬ 
lute,  it  must  become  one  with  the  Brahman,  and  he  would  only  realize  the 
Lord  as  the  perfection,  the  reality  of  his  own  nature  and  existence — exist¬ 
ence  absolute;  knowledge  absolute,  and  life  absolute.  We  have  often  and 
often  read  about  this  being  called  the  losing  of  individuality  as  in  becom¬ 
ing  a  stock  or  a  stone.  “  He  jests  at  scars  that  never  felt  a  wound.” 

I  tell  you  it  is  nothing  of  the  kind.  If  it  is  happiness  to  enjoy  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  this  small  body,  it  must  be  more  happiness  to  enjoy  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  two  bodies,  or  three,  four,  five — and  the  ultimate  of  happiness 
would  be  reached  when  it  would  become  a  universal  consciousness. 

Therefore,  to  gain  this  infinite,  universal  individuality,  this  miserable, 
little  individuality  must  go.  Then  alone  can  death  cease,  when  I  am  one 
with  life.  Then  alone  can  misery  cease,  when  I  am  with  happiness  itself. 
Then  alone  can  all  errors  cease,  when  I  am  one  with  knowledge  itself.  And 
this  is  the  necessary  scientific  conclusion.  Science  has  proved  to  me  that 
physical  individuality  is  a  delusion;  that  really  my  body  is  one  little,  con¬ 
tinuously  changing  body  in  an  unbroken  jcean  of  matter,  and  Adwaitam 
is  the  necessary  conclusion  with  my  other  counterpart — mind. 

Science  is  nothing  but  the  finding  of  unity,  and  as  soon  as  any  science 
can  reach  the  perfect  unity  it  will  stop  from  further  progress,  because  it 
will  then  have  reached  the  goal.  Thus  chemistry  can  not  progress  farther 
when  it  shall  have  discovered  one  element  out  of  which  all  others  could  be 
made.  Physics  will  stop  when  it  shall  be  able  to  discover  one  energy  of 
which  all  others  are  but  manifestations.  The  science  of  religion  will  become 
perfect  when  it  discovers  Him  who  is  the  one  life  in  a  universe  of  death, 
who  is  the  constant  basis  of  an  ever-changing  world,  who  is  the  only  soul 
of  which  all  souls  are  but  manifestations.  Thus,  through  multiplicity  and 
duality,  this  ultimate  unity  is  reached,  and  religion  can  go  no  further.  This 
is  the  goal  of  all — again  and  again,  science  after  science,  again  and  again. 

And  all  science  is  bound  to  come  to  this  conclusion  in  the  long  run. 
Manifestation  and  not  creation  is  the  world  of  science  of  to-day,  and  the 


HINDUISM  AS  A  RELIGION. 


443 


Hindu  is  only  glad  that  what  he  has  cherished  in  his  bosom  for  ages  is 
going  to  be  taught  in  more  forcible  language  and  with  further  light  by  the 
latest  conclusions  of  science. 

Descend  we  now  from  the  aspirations  of  philosophy  to  the  religion  of 
the  ignorant?  At  the  very  outset,  I  may  tell  you  that  there  is  no  polythe¬ 
ism  in  India.  In  every  temple,  if  one  stands  by  and  listens,  he  will  find  the 
worshipers  apply  all  the  attributes  of  God — including  omnipresence — to 
these  images.  It  is  not  polytheism.  “  The  rose  called  by  any  other  name 
would  smell  as  sweet.”  Names  are  not  explanations. 

I  remember  when  a  boy  a  Christian  man  was  preaching  to  a  crowd  in 
India.  Among  other  sweet  things,  he  was  asking  the  people,  if  he  gave  a 
blow  to  their  idol  with  his  stick,  what  could  it  do?  One  of  his  hearers 
sharply  answered,  “If  I  abuse  your  God  what  can  he  do?  ”  “  You  would  be 

punished,’'  said  the  preacher,  “when  you  die.”  “So  my  idol  will  punish  you 
when  you  die,”  said  the  villager. 

The  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits,  and  when  I  have  been  amongst  them 
that  are  called  idolatrous  men,  the  like  of  whose  morality,  and  spirituality, 
and  love  I  have  never  seen  anywhere,  I  stop  and  ask  myself,  “  Can  sin  beget 
holiness?  ” 

Superstition  is  the  enemy  of  man,  but  bigotry  is  worse.  Why  does  a 
Christian  go  to  church?  Why  is  the  cross  holy?  Why  is  the  face  turned 
toward  the  sky  in  prayer?  Why  are  there  so  many  images  in  the  Catholic 
Church?  Why  are  there  so  many  images  in  the  minds  of  Protestants  when 
they  pray?  My  brethren,  we  can  no  more  think  about  anything  without  a 
material  image  than  we  can  live  without  breathing.  And  by  the  law  of 
association  the  material  image  calls  the  mental  idea  up  and  vice  versa. 
Ommipresence,  to  almost  the  whole  world,  means  nothing.  Has  God  super¬ 
ficial  area?  If  not,  when  we  repeat  the  word  we  think  of  the  extended 
earth,  that  is  all. 

As  we  find  that  somehow  or  other,  by  the  laws  of  our  constitution,  we 
have  got  to  associate  our  ideas  of  infinity  with  the  image  of  a  blue  sky,  or 
a  sea,  some  cover  the  idea  of  holiness  with  an  image  of  a  church,  or  a 
mosque,  or  a  cross.  The  Hindus  have  associated  the  ideas  of  holiness, 
purity,  truth,  omnipresence,  and  all  other  ideas  with  different  images  and 
forms.  But  with  this  difference.  Some  devote  their  whole  lives  to  their 
idol  of  a  church  and  never  rise  higher,  because  with  them  religion  means 
an  intellectual  assent  to  certain  doctrines  and  doing  good  to  their  fellows. 
The  whole  religion  of  the  Hindu  is  centered  in  realization.  Man  is  to 
become  divine,  realizing  the  divine,  and,  therefore,  idol  or  temple  or  church 
or  books,  are  only  the  supports,  the  helps,  of  his  spiritual  childhood;  but 
on  and  on  man  must  progress. 

He  must  not  stop  anywhere.  “External  worship,  material  worship,” 
says  the  Vedas,  “is  the  lowest  stage,  struggling  to  rise  high,  mental  prayer 
is  the  next  stage,  but  the  highest  stage  is  when  the  Lord  has  been  real¬ 
ized — ”  Mark  the  same  earnest  man  who  was  kneeling  before  the  idol  tell 
you,  “Him  the  sun  can  not  express,  nor  the  moon  nor  the  stars,  the  light¬ 
ning  can  not  express  Him,  nor  the  fire;  through  Him  they  all  shine.”  He 
does  not  abuse  the  image  or  call  it  sinful.  He  recognizes  in  it  a  necessary 
stage  of  his  life.  “  The  child  is  father  of  the  man.”  Would  it  be  right  for 
the  old  man  to  say  that  childhood  is  a  sin  or  youth  a  sin?  Nor  is  it  com¬ 
pulsory  in  Hinduism. 

If  a  man  can  realize  his  divine  nature  with  the  help  of  an  image,  would 
it  be  right  to  call  it  a  sin?  Nor,  even  when  he  has  passed  that  stage,  should 
he  call  it  an  error?  To  the  Hindu,  man  is  not  traveling  from  error  to  truth, 
but  from  truth  to  truth,  from  lower  to  higher  truth.  To  him  all  the  relig¬ 
ions,  from  the  lowest  fetichism  to  the  highest  absolutism,  mean  so  many 
attempts  of  the  human  soul  to  grasp  and  realize  the  infinite,  each  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  conditions  of  its  birth  and  association,  and  each  of  these 


THE  PARLIA  MENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


m 

mark  a  stage  of  progress,  and  every  soul  is  a  young  eagle  soaring  higher 
and  higher,  gathering  more  and  more  strength  till  it  reaches  the  glorious 
sun. 

Unity  and  variety  is  the  plan  of  nature,  and  the  Hindu  has  recognized 
it.  Every  other  religion  lays  down  certain  fixed  dogmas,  and  tries  to  force 
society  to  adopt  them.  They  lay  down  before  society  one  coat  which  must 
fit  Jack  and  Job  and  Henry,  all  alike.  If  it  does  not  fit  John  or  Henry,  he 
must  go  without  a  coat  to  cover  his  body.  The  Hindus  have  discovered 
that  the  absolute  can  only  be  realized  or  thought  of  or  stated  through  the 
relative,  and  the  images,  cross,  or  crescent  are  simply  so  many  centers,  so 
many  pegs  to  hang  the  spiritual  ideas  on.  It  is  not  that  this  help  is  neces¬ 
sary  for  everyone,  but  for  many,  and  those  that  do  not  need  it  have  no 
right  to  say  that  it  is  wrong. 

One  thing  I  must  tell  you.  Idolatry  in  India  does  not  mean  anything 
horrible.  It  is  not  the  mother  of  harlots.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  the 
attempt  of  undeveloped  minds  to  grasp  high  spiritual  truths.  The  Hindus 
have  their  faults,  but  mark  this,  they  are  always  toward  punishing  their 
own  bodies,  and  never  toward  cutting  the  throats  of  their  neighbors.  If 
the  Hindu  fanatic  burns  himself  on  the  pyre,  he  never  lights  the  fire  of 
inquisition.  And  even  this  can  not  be  laid  at  the  door  of  religion  any  more 
than  the  burning  of  witches  can  be  laid  at  the  door  of  Christianity. 

To  the  Hindu,  then,  the  whole  world  of  religions  is  only  a  traveling,  a 
coming  up,  of  different  men  and  women,  through  various  conditions  and 
circumstances,  to  the  same  goal.  Every  religion  is  only  an  evolution  out  of 
the  material  man,  a  God — and  the  same  God  is  the  inspirer  of  all  of  them. 
Why,  then,  are  there  so  many  contradictions  ?  They  are  only  apparent, 
says  the  Hindu.  The  contradictions  come  from  the  same  truth  adapting 
itself  to  the  different  circumstances  of  different  natures. 

It  is  the  same  light  coming  through  different  colors.  And  these  little 
variations  are  necessary  for  that  adaption.  But  in  the  heart  of  everything 
the  same  truth  reigns.  The  Lord  has  declared  to  the  Hindu  in  his  incar¬ 
nation  as  Krishna.  “  I  am  in  every  religion  as  the  thread  through  a  string 
of  pearls.  And  wherever  thou  seest  extraordinary  holiness  and  extraordi¬ 
nary  power  raising  and  purifying  humanity,  know  ye,  that  I  am  there.” 
And  what  was  the  result?  Through  the  whole  order  of  Sanskrit  philoso¬ 
phy,  I  challenge  anybody  to  find  any  such  expression  as  that  the  Hindu 
only  would  be  saved  and  not  others.  SaysVyas,  “We  find  perfect  men 
oven  beyond  the  pale  of  our  caste  and  creed.”  How,  then,  can  the  Hindu 
whose  whole  idea  centers  in  God,  believe  in  the  Buddhism  which  is  agnos¬ 
tic,  or  the  Jainism,  which  is  atheist? 

The  whole  force  of  Hindu  religion  is  directed  to  the  great  central  truth 
in  every  religion,  to  evolve  a  god  out  of  man.  They  have  not  seen  the 
father,  but  they  have  seen  the  son.  And  he  that  hath  seen  the  son  hath 
seen  the  father. 

This,  brethren,  is  a  short  sketch  of  the  ideas  of  the  Hindus.  The 
Hindu  might  have  failed  to  carry  out  all  his  plans.  But  if  there  is  ever  to 
be  a  universal  religion  it  must  be  one  which  will  hold  no  location  in  place 
or  time;  which  will  be  infinite,  like  the  God  it  will  preach;  whose  sun 
shines  upon  the  followers  of  Krishna  or  Christ,  saints  or  sinners,  alike; 
which  will  not  be  in  the  Brahmin  or  Buddhist,  Christian  or  Mohammedan, 
but  the  sum  total  of  all  of  these,  and  still  have  infinite  space  for  develop¬ 
ment,  which  in  its  catholicity  will  unbrace  in  its  infinite  arms  and  find  a 
place  for  every  human  being,  from  the  lowest  groveling  man,  from  the 
brute,  to  the  highest  mind  towering  almost  above  humanity  and  making 
society  stand  in  awe  and  doubt  his  human  nature. 

It  will  be  a  religion  which  will  have  no  place  for  persecution  or  intoler¬ 
ance  in  its  polity,  which  will  recognize  a  divinity  in  every  man  or  woman, 
and  whose  whole  scope,  whose  whole  force,  will  be  centered  in  aiding  human¬ 
ity  to  realize  its  divine  nature. 


THE  WORLHS  DEBT  TO  BUDDHA. 


445 


Aseka’a  council  was  a  council  of  the  Buddhist  faith.  Akbar’s,  though 
more  to  the  purpose,  was  only  a  parlor  meeting.  It  was  reserved  for  America 
to  proclaim  to  all  quarters  of  the  globe  that  the  Lord  is  in  every  religion. 

May  He  who  is  the  Brahma  of  the  Hindus,  the  Ahura  Mazda  of  the 
Zoroastrians,  the  Buddha  of  the  Buddhists,  the  Jehovah  of  the  Jews,  the 
Father  in  heaven  of  the  Christians,  give  strength  to  you  to  carry  out  your 
noble  idea. 

The  star  arose  in  the  East,  it  traveled  steadily  toward  the  West,  some¬ 
times  dimmed  and  sometimes  effulgent,  till  it  made  a  circuit  of  the  world, 
and  now  it  is  again  rising  on  the  very  horizon  of  the  East,  the  borders  of 
the  Tasifu  a  thousand-fold  more  effulgent  than  it  ever  was  before.  Hail, 
Columbia,  motherland  of  liberty !  It  has  been  given  to  thee,  who  never 
dipped  hand  in  neighbor’s  blood,  who  never  found  out  that  shortest  way  of 
becoming  rich  by  robbing  one’s  neighbors — it  has  been  given  to  thee  to 
-  march  on  in  the  vanguard  of  civilization  with  the  flag  of  harmony. 


THE  WORLD’S  DEBT  TO  BUDDHA. 

H.  DHARMAPALA  OF  CEYLON. 

He  furnishes  the  paper,  one  section  of  which  was  read  on 
Monday  (page  406).  The  distinguished  Indian  preacher  pre¬ 
faced  the  reading  of  his  paper  by  the  singing  of  a  song,  always 
repeated  in  the  temples  of  Ceylon  before  the  services  are  com¬ 
menced. 

It  is  difficult  to  properly  comprehend  the  system  of  Buddha  by  a  spirit¬ 
ual  study  of  its  doctrines,  and  especially  by  those  who  have  been  trained 
to  think  that  there  is  no  truth  in  other  religions.  When  the  scholar  Vach- 
cha,  approaching  Buddha,  demanded  a  complete  elucidation  of  his  doctrines, 
he  said:  “  This  doctrine  is  hard  to  see,  hard  to  understand,  solemn  and  sub¬ 
lime,  not  resting  on  dialectic,  subtle,  and  perceived  only  by  the  wise.  It  is 
hard  for  you  to  learn  who  are  of  different  views,  different  ideas  of  fitness, 
different  choice,  trained  and  taught  in  another  school.” 

A  systematic  study  of  Buddha’s  doctrine  has  not  yet  been  made  by 
the  western  scholars,  hence  the  conflicting  opinions  expressed  by  them  at 
various  times.  The  notion  once  held  by  the  scholars  that  it  is  a  system  of 
materialism  has  been  exploded.  The  positivists  of  France  found  in  it  a 
positivism.  Buckner  and  his  school  of  materialists  thought  it  was  a 
materialistic  system.  Agnostics  found  in  Buddha  an  agnostic  and  Dr. 
Rhys  Davids,  the  eminent  Palo  scholar,  used  to  call  him  the  “  agnostic 
philosopher  of  India.”  Some  scholars  have  found  an  expressed  monotheism 
therein.  Arthur  Lillie,  another  student  of  Buddhism,  thinks  it  a  theistic 
system.  Pessimists  identify  it  with  Schopenhaur’s  pessimism.  The  late 
Mr.  Buckle  identified  it  with  the  pantheism  of  India.  Some  have  found  in 
it  a  monoism,  and  the  latest  dictum  is  Professor  Huxley’s,  that  it  is  an 
idealism  supplying  “tfie  wanting  half  of  Bishop  Buckley’s  well-known 
idealist  argument.”  Dr.  Eikl  says  that  Buddhism  is  a  system  of  vast  mag¬ 
nitude,  for  it  embraces  all  the  various  branches  of  science,  which  our 
Western  nations  have  been  long  accustomed  to  divide  for  separate  study. 
It  embodies,  in  one  living  structure,  grand  and  peculiar  views  of  physical 
science,  refined  and  subtle  theories  on  abstract  metaphysics,  an  edifice  of 
fanciful  mysticism,  a  most  elaborate  and  far-reaching  system  of  practical 
morality,  and,  finally,  a  church  organization  as  broad  in  its  principles  and 


446 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


as  finely  wrought  in  its  most  intricate  network  as  any  in  the  world.  All 
this  is,  moreover,  confined  in  such  a  manner  that  the  essence  and  substance 
of  the  whole  may  be  compressed  into  a  few  formulas  and  symbols  plain 
and  suggestive  enough  to  be  grasped  by  the  most  simple-minded  ascetic, 
and  yet  so  full  of  philosophic  depths  as  to  provide  rich  food  for  years  of 
meditation  to  the  metaphysician,  the  poet,  the  mystic, and  pleasant  pastur¬ 
age  for  the  most  fiery  imagination  of  any  poetical  dreamer. 

In  the  religion  of  Buddha  is  found  a  comprehensive  system  of  ethics 
and  a  transcendental  metaphysic  embracing  a  sublime  psychology.  To  the 
simple-minded  it  offers  a  code  of  morality,  to  the  earnest  student  a  system 
of  pure  thought.  But  the  basic  doctrine  is  the  self-purification  of  man.  . 

Spiritual  progress  is  impossible  for  hmi  who  does  not  lead  a  life  of 
purity  and  compassion.  The  superstructure  has  to  be  built  on  the  basis  of 
a  pure  life.  So  long  as  one  is  fettered  by  selfishness,  passion,  prejudice, 
fear,  so  long  the  doors  of  his  higher  nature  are  closed  against  the  truth. 
The  rays  of  the  sunlight  of  truth  enter  the  mind  of  him  who  is  fearless  to 
examine  truth,  who  is  free  from  prejudice,  who  is  not  tied  by  the  sensual 
passion,  and  who  has  reasoning  faculties  to  think.  One  has  to  be  an 
atheist  in  the  sense  employed  by  Max  Muller: 

There  is  an  atheism  which  is  not  death ;  there  is  another  which  is  the  very  life 
blood  of  all  true  faith.  It  is  the  power  of  j^iving  up.what,  in  our  best,  our  most 
honest  movements,  ve  know  to  be  no  longer  true.  It  is  the  readiness  to  replace 
the  less  perfect,  however  dear,  however  sacred  it  may  have  been  to  us,  by  the 
more  perfect,  however  much  it  may  be  detested  as  yet  by  the  world.  It  is  the 
true  self-sacrifice,  the  truest  trust  in  truth,  the  truest  faith. 

Without  that  atheism  no  new  religion,  no  reform,  no  reformation,  no 
resuscitation  would  ever  have  been  possible;  without  that  atheism  no 
new  life  is  possible  for  any  one  of  us.  The  strongest  emphasis  has  been  put 
by  Buddha  on  the  supreme  importance  of  having  an  unprejudiced  mind 
before  we  start  on  the  road  of  investigation  of  truth.  The  least  attachment 
of  the  mind  to  preconceived  ideas  is  a  positive  hindrance  to  the  acceptance 
of  truth.  Prejudice,  passion,  fear  of  expression  of  one’s  convictions,  and 
ignorance  are  the  four  bias’es  that  have  to  be  sacrificed  at  the  threshold. 
To  be  born  as  a  human  being  is  a  glorious  privilege.  Man’s  dignity  con¬ 
sists  in  his  capability  to  reason  and  to  think  and  to  live  up  to  the  highest 
ideal  of  pure  life,  of  calm  thought,  of  wisdom,  without  extraneous  inter¬ 
ventions.  Buddha  says  that  man  can  enjoy  in  this  life  a  glorious  exist¬ 
ence,  a  life  of  individual  freedom,  of  fearlessness  and  compassionateness. 
This  dignified  ideal  of  manhood  may  be  attained  by  the  humblest,  and  this 
consummation  raises  him  above  wealth  and  royalty.  “  He  that  is  compas¬ 
sionate  and  observes  the  law  is  my  disciple.'’ 

Human  brotherhood  forms  the  fundamental  teaching  of  Buddha — uni¬ 
versal  love  and  sympathy  with  all  mankind,  and  with  animal  life.  Every¬ 
one  is  enjoined  to  love  all  beings  as  a  mother  loves  her  only  child  and  takes 
care  of  it  even  at  the  risk  of  her  life.  The  realization  of  the  ideal  of  broth¬ 
erhood  is  obtained  v/hen  the  first  stage  of  holiness  is  realized.  The  idea  of 
separation  is  destroyed  and  the  oneness  of  life  is  recognized.  There  is  no 
pessimism  in  the  teachings  of  Buddha,  for  he  strictly  enjoins  on  his  holy 
disciples  not  even  to  suggest  to  others  that  life  is  not  worth  living.  On 
the  contrary,  the  usefulness  of  life  is  emphasized  for  the  sake  of  doing  good 
to  self  and  humanity. 

Prom  the  fetich- worshiping  savage  to  the  highest  type  of  humanity  man 
naturally  yearns  for  something  higher.  And  it  is  for  this  reason  that 
Buddha  inculcated  the  necessity  for  self-reliance  and  independent  thought. 
To  guide  humanity  in  the  right  path,  a  Tathagata  (Messiah)  appears  from 
time  to  time. 

In  the  sense  of  a  Supreme  Creator,  Buddha  says  that  there  is  no  such 
being,  accepting  the  doctrine  of  evolution  as  the  only  true  one,  with  corol¬ 
lary,  the  law  of  cause  and  effect.  He  condemns  the  idea  of  a  creator,  but 


THE  WORLD'S  DEBT  TO  BUDDHA. 


447 


the  Supreme  God  of  the  Brahmans  and  minor  gods  are  accepted.  But  they 
are  subject  to  the  law  of  cause  and  effect.  This  Supreme  God  is  all  love, 
all  merciful,  all  gentle,  and  looks  upon  all  beings  with  equanimity.  Buddha 
teaches  men  to  practice  these  four  supreme  virtues.  There  is  no  difference 
between  the  perfect  man  and  this  Supreme  God  of  the  present  world. 

The  teachings  of  the  Buddha  on  evolution  are  clear  and  expansive.  We 
are  asked  to  look  upon  the  cosmos  “  as  a  continuous  process  unfolding  itself 
in  regular  order  in  obedience  to  natural  laws.”  We  see  in  it  all  not  a*yawn- 
ing  chaos  restrained  by  the  constant  interference  from  without  of  a  wise 
and  beneficent  external  power,  but  a  vast  aggregate  of  original  elements 
perpetually  working  out  their  own  fresh  redistribution  in  accordance  with 
their  own  inherent  energies.  He  regards  the  cosmos  as  an  almost  infinite 
collection  of  material,  animated  by  an  almost  infinite  sum  total  of  energy, 
which  is  called  Akasa.  I  have  used  the  above  definition  of  evolution  as 
given  by  Grant  Allen  in  his  “  Life  of  Darwin,”  as  it  beautifully  expresses 
the  generalized  idea  of  Buddhism.  We  do  not  postulate  that  man’s  evolu¬ 
tion  began  from  the  protoplasmic  stage;  but  we  are  asked  not  to  speculate 
on  the  origin  of  life,  on  the  origin  of  the  law  of  cause  and  effect,  etc.  So 
far  as  this  great  law  is  concerned  we  say  that  it  controls  the  phenomena  of 
human  life  as  well  as  those  of  external  nature,  the  whole  knowable  universe 
forms  one  undivided  whole. 

Buddha  promulgated  hfs  system  of  philosophy  after  having  studied  all 
religions.  And  in  the  Brahma-jola  sutta  sixty-two  creeds  are  discussed. 
In  the  Kalama,  the  sutta,  Buddha  says: 

Do  not  believe  in  what  ye  have  heard.  Do  not  believe  in  traditions  because 
they  have  been  handed  down  for  many  generations.  Do  not  believe  in  anything: 
because  it  is  renowned  and  spoken  of  by  many.  Do  not  believe  merely  because  the 
written  statement  of  some  old  sage  is  produced.  Do  not  believe  in  conjectures. 
Do  not  believe  in  that  as  truth  to  which  you  have  become  attached  by  habit.  Do 
not  believe  merely  on  the  authority  of  your  teachers  and  elders.  Often  observa¬ 
tion  and  analysis,  when  the  result  agrees  with  reason,  are  conducive  to  the  good 
and  gain  of  one  and  all.  Accept  and  live  up  to  it. 

To  the  ordinary  householder,  whose  highest  happiness  consists  in  being 
wealthy  here  and  in  heaven  hereafter,  Buddha  inculcated  a  simple  code 
of  morality.  The  student  of  Buddha’s  religion  from  destroying  life,  lays 
aside  the  club  and  weapon.  He  is  modest  and  full  of  pity.  He  is  compas¬ 
sionate  to  all  creatures  that  have  life.  He  abstains  from  theft,  and  he  passes 
his  life  in  honesty  and  purity  of  heart.  He  lives  a  life  of  chastity  and  purity. 
He  abstains  from  falsehood  and  injures  not  hisfellowman  by  deceit.  Put¬ 
ting  away  slander  he  abstains  from  calumny.  He  is  a  peacemaker,  a  speaker 
of  words  that  make  for  peace.  Whatever  word  is  humane,  pleasant  to  the 
ear,  lovely,  reaching  to  the  heart,  such  are  the  words  he  speaks.  He  abstains 
from  harsh  language.  He  abstains  from  foolish  talk,  he  abstains  from  intox¬ 
icants  and  stupefying  drugs. 

The  advance  student  of  the  religion  of  Buddha,  when  he  has  faith  in  him, 
thinks,  “full  of  hindrances  in  household  life  is  a  path  defiled  by  passion. 
Pure  as  the  air  is  the  life  of  him  who  has  renounced  all  worldly  things. 
How  difficult  it  is  for  the  man  who  dwells  at  home  to  live  the  higher  life 
in  all  its  fullness,  in  all  its  purity,  in  ail  its  freedom.  Let  me  then  cut  off 
my  hair  and  beard,  let  me  clothe  myself  in  orange-colored  robes,  let  me  go 
forth  from  a  household  life  into  the  homeless  state.”  Then  before  long, 
forsaking  his  portion  of  wealth,  forsaking  his  circle  of  relatives,  he  cuts  off 
his  hair  and  beard,  he  clothes  himself  in  the  orange-colored  robes  and  he 
goes  in  to  the  homeless  state,  and  then  he  passes  a  life  of  self-restraint, 
according  to  the  rules  of  the  order  of  the  blessed  one.  Uprightness  is  his 
object  and  he  sees  danger  in  the  least  of  those  things  he  should  avoid.  He 
encompasses  himself  with  holiness,  in  word  and  deed.  He  sustains  his  life 
by  means  that  are  quite  pure.  Good  is  his  conduct,  guarded  the  door  of 
his  senses,  mindful  and  self-possessed,  he  is  altogether  happy. 


44^ 


THE  parliament  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  Btudent  of  pure  religion  abstains  from  earning  a  livelihood  by  the 
practice  of  low  and  lying  arts,  viz.,  all  divination,  interpretation  of  dreams, 
palmistry,  astrology,  crystal  prophesying,  charms  of  all  sorts.  Buddha 
also  says: 

Just  as  a  mighty  trumpeter  makes  hims’elf  heard  in  all  the  four  directions 
without  difficulty,  even  so  of  all  things  that  have  life,  there  is  not  one  that  the 
student  passes  by  or  leaves  aside,  but  regards  them  all  with  mind  set  free  and 
deep-felt  pity,  sympathy,  and  eauanimity.  He  lets  his  mind  pervade  the  whole 
world  with  thoughts  of  love. 

To  realize  the  unseen  is  the  goal  of  the  student  of  Buddha’s  teachings, 
and  such  a  one  has  to  lead  an  absolutely  pure  life.  Buddha  says: 

Let  him  fulfill  all  righteousness;  let  him  be  devoted  to  that  quietude  of  heart 
which  springs  from  within;  let  him  not  drive  back  the  ecstasy  of  contemplation; 
let  him  look  through  things ;  let  him  be  much  alone.  Fulfill  all  righteousness  for 
the  sake  of  the  living,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  blessed  ones  that  are  dead  and  gone. 

Thought  transference,  thought  reading,  cliarordience,  clairvoyance,  pro¬ 
jection  of  the  sub-conscious  self,  and  all  the  higher  branches  of  psychical 
science  that  first  now  engage  the  thoughtful  attention  of  psychical 
researchers  are  within  the  reach  of  him  who  fulfills  all  righteousness,  who 
IS  devoted  to  solitude  and  to  contemplation. 

Charity,  observance  of  moral  rules,  purifying  the  mind,  making  others 
participate  in  the  good  work  that  one  is  doing,  co-operating  with  others  in 
doing  good,  nursing  the  sick,  giving  gifts  to  the  deserving  ones,  hearing  all 
that  is  good  and  beautiful,  making  others  learn  the  rules  of  morality, 
accepting  the  laws  of  cause  and  effect,  are  the  common  appanage  of  all 
good  men. 

Prohibited  employments  include  slave  dealing,  sale  of  weapons  of  war¬ 
fare,  sale  of  poisons,  sale  of  intoxicants,  sale  of  fiesh — all  deemed,  the  lowest 
of  professions. 

The  five  kinds  of  wealth  are:  Faith,  pure  life,  receptivity  of  the  mind  to 
all  that  is  good  and  beautiful,  liberality,  and  wisdom.  Those  who  possess 
these  five  kinds  of  wealth  in  their  past  incarnations  are  influenced  by  the 
teachings  of  Buddha. 

Besides  these,  Buddha  says  in  his  universal  precepts  :  He  who  is  faith¬ 
ful  and  leads  the  life  of  a  householder,  and  possesses  the  following  four 
(Dhammas)  virtues,  truth,  justice,  firmness,  and  liberality,  such  a  one  does 
not  grieve  when  passing  away.  Pray  ask  other  teachers  and  philosophers 
far  and  wide  whether  there  is  found  anything  greater  than  truth,  self- 
restraint,  liberality,  and  forbearance. 

The  pupil  should  minister  to  his  teacher ;  he  should  rise  up  in  his  pres¬ 
ence,  wait  upon  him,  listen  to  all  that  he  says  with  respectful  attention, 
perform  the  duties  necessary  for  his  personal  comfort,  and  carefully  attend 
to  his  instruction.  The  teacher  should  show  affection  for  his  pupil.  He 
trains  him  in  virtue  and  good  manners,  carefully  instructs  him,  imparts  to 
him  a  knowledge  of  the  sciences  and  wisdom  of  the  ancients,  speaks  well  of 
him  to  relatives,  and  guards  him  from  danger. 

The  honorable  man  ministers  to  his  friends  and  relatives  by  presenting 
gifts,  by  courteous  language,  by  promoting  as  his  equals,  and  by  sharing 
with  them  his  prosperity.  They  should  watch  over  him  when  he  has  negli¬ 
gently  exposed  himself,  guard  his  property  when  he  is  careless,  assist  him 
in  difficulties,  stand  by  him,  and  help  to  provide  for  his  family. 

The  master  should  minister  to  the  wants  of  his  servants,  as  dependents; 
he  assigns  them  labor  suitable  to  their  strength,  provides  for  their  comfort¬ 
able  support;  he  attends  them  in  sickness,  causes  them  to  partake  of  any 
extraordinary  delicacy  he  may  obtain,  and  makes  them  occasional  presents. 
The  servants  should  manifest  their  attachment  to  the  master;  they  rise 
before  him  in  the  morning  and  retire  later  to  rest;  they  do  not  purloin  his 
property,  do  their  work  cheerfully  and  actively,  and  are  respectful  in  their 
behavior  toward  him. 


WORLD'S  DEBT  TO  BUDDtlA. 


449 


The  religious  teachers  should  manifest  their  kind  feelings  toward  law¬ 
yers.  They  should  dissuade  them  from  vice,  excite  them  to  virtuous  acts — 
being  desirous  of  promoting  the  welfare  of  all.  They  should  instruct  them 
in  the  things  they  had  not  previously  learned,  confirm  them  in  the  truths, 
and  point  out  to  them  the  way  to  heaven.  The  lawyers  should  minister  to 
the  teachers  by  respectful  attention  manifested  in  their  words,  actions,  and 
thoughts;  and  by  supplying  them  their  temporal  wants  and  by  allowing 
them  constant  access  to  them. 

The  wise,  virtuous,  prudent,  intelligent,  teachable,  docile  man  will 
become  eminent.  The  persevering,  diligent  man,  unshaken  in  adversity 
and  of  indexible  determination,  will  become  eminent.  The  well-informed, 
friendly  disposed,  prudent-speaking,  generous-minded,  self-controlled,  self- 
possessed  man  will  become  eminent. 

In  this  world,  generosity,  mildness  of  speech,  public  spirit,  and  courte¬ 
ous  behavior  are  worthy  of  respect  under  all  circumstances  and  will  be 
valuable  in  all  places.  If  these  be  not  possessed  the  mother  will  receive 
neither  honor  nor  support  from  the  son,  neither  will  the  father  receive 
respect  or  honor.  Buddha  also  says: 

Know  that  from  time  to  time  aTathagata  is  born  into  the  world,  fully  enlight¬ 
ened,  blessed,  and  worthy,  abounding  in  wisdom  and  goodness,  happy  withknowl- 
edge  of  the  world,  unsurpassed  as  a  guide  to  erring  mortal,  a  teacher  of  gods  and 
men.  a  blessed  Buddha.  He,  by  himself,  thoroughly  understands  and  sees,  as  it 
were  face  to  face,  this  universe,  the  world  below  with  all  its  spirits  and  the 
worlds  above,  and  all  creatures,  all  religious  teachers,  gods  and  men,  and  he  then 
makes  his  knowledge  known  to  others.  The  truth  doth  he  proclaim,  both  in  its 
letter  and  its  spirit,  lovely  in  its  origin,  lovely  in  its  progress,  lovely  in  its  con¬ 
summation;  the  higher  life  doth  he  proclaim,  in  all  its  purity  and  in  all  its  per¬ 
fectness. 

1.  He  is  absolutely  free  from  all  passions,  commits  no  evil  even  in  secrecy,  ano 
is  the  embodiment  of  perfection.  He  is  above  doing  anything  wrong. 

2.  Self-introspection— by  this  he  has  reached  the  state  of  supreme  enlighten¬ 
ment. 

3.  By  means  of  his  divine  eye  he  looks  back  to  the  remotest  past  and  future. 
Knows  the  way  of  emancipation,  and  is  accomplished  in  the  three  great  branches 
of  divine  knowledge,  and  has  gained  perfect  wisdom.  He  is  in  possession  of  all 
psychic  powers,  always  willing  to  listen,  full  of  energy,  wisdom,  and  dhyana. 

4.  He  has  realized  eternal  peace  and  walks  in  the  perfect  path  of  virtue. 

5.  He  knows  three  states  of  existence. 

6.  He  is  incomparable  in  purity  and  holiness. 

7.  He  is  teacher  of  gods  and  men. 

8.  He  exhorts  gods  and  men  at  the  proper  time  according  to  their  individual 
temperaments. 

9.  He  is  the  supremely  enlightened  teacher  and  the  perfect  embodiment  of 
all  the  virtues  he  teaches.  The  two  characteristics  of  Buddha  are  wisdom  and 
compassion. 

Buddha  also  gave  a  warning  to  his  followers  when  he  said: 

He  who  is  not  generous,  who  is  fond  of  sensuality,  who  is  disturbed  at 
heart,  who  is  of  uneven  mind,  who  is  not  reflective,  who  is  not  of  calm  mind, 
who  is  discontented  at  heart,  who  has  no  control  over  his  senses— such  a  disciple 
is  far  from  me,  though  he  is  in  body  near  me. 

The  attainment  of  salvation  is  by  the  perception  of  self  through 
charity,  purity,  self-sacrifice,  self-knowledge,  dauntless  energy,  patience, 
truth,  resolution,  love,  and  equanimity.  The  last  words  of  Buddha  were 
these: 

Be  ye  lamps  unto  yourselves;  be  ye  a  refuge  to  yourselves;  betake  yourself  to 
an  eternal  voyage;  hold  fast  to  the  truth  as  a  lamp;  hold  fast  as  a  refuge  to  the 
truth;  look  not  for  refuge  to  anyone  besides  yourselves.  Learn  ye,  then,  that 
knowledge  which  1  have  attained  and  have  declared  unto  you,  and  walk  ye  in  it, 

f>ractice  and  increase  in  order  that  the  path  of  holiness  may  last  and  long  endure 
or  the  blessing  of  many  people,  to  the  relief  of  the  world,  to  the  welfare,  the 
blessing,  the  joy  of  gods  and  men. 


450 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


THE  RELATION  OF  THE  SCIENCES  TO  RELIGION, 

DR.  PAUL  CARUS,  EDITOR  OF  “  OPEN  COURT,”  CHICAGO. 

Among  other  things  he  said: 

That  conception  of  religion  which  rejects  science  is  inevitably  doomed. 
It  can  not  survive  and  is  destined  to  disappear  with  the  progress  of  civiliza- 
'  tion.  Nevertheless,  religion  will  not  go.  Religion  will  abide.  Humanity 
will  never  be  without  religion,  for  religion  is  that  innermost  conviction  of 
man  which  regulates  his  conduct.  Man  has  become  inan  only  through  his 
obedience  to  the  moral  law.  Every  neglect  of  the  moral  law  lowers  him; 
every  moral  progress  raises  him.  And  who  in  the  face  of  facts  will  say, 
that  the  authority  of  moral  conduct  is  not  a  reality  in  the  world,  that  God 
in  the  sense  that  science  understands  his  nature  and  being  does  not  exist, 
and  that  religion,  the  religion  of  scientific  truth,  is  error? 

Religion  will  undergo  changes,  but  it  can  not  disappear;  while  it  will 
free  itself  of  its  paganism,  it  will  evolve  and  grow.  Religion  is  as  inde¬ 
structible  as  science,  for  science  is  the  method  of  searching  for  the  truth, 
and  religion  is  the  enthusiasm  and  good-will  to  live  a  life  of  truth. 


HISTORY  AND  PROSPECTS  OF  EXPLORATION  IN 

BIBLE  LANDS. 

DR.  GEORGE  E.  POST. 

The  substance  of  the  paper  was  as  follows: 

The  work  of  biblical  criticism  is  to  present  us  with  a  correct  text  of  the 
books  of  the  Bible.  That  of  the  biblical  explorer  is  to  search  out  in  Bible 
lands  all  that  illustrates  and  confirms  this  text.  It  includes  the  study  of 
the  physical  geography,  meteorology,  geology,  mineralogy,  zoology,  and 
botany  of  these  lands.  It  concerns  itself  with  their  ethnology,  political, 
social,  and  religious  history,  and  their  present  and  past  manners  and 
customs. 

There  are  five  sources  of  information  open  to  the  biblical  explorer: 
Local  tradition,  ecclesiastical  tradition,  reports  of  travelers,  systematic 
sutvey,  and  excavation. 

To  America  belongs  the  credit  of  introducing  a  new  era  of  Palestine 
exploration.  This  era  dates  from  the  publication  of  the  immortal  “  Biblical 
Researches  in  Palestine,  ”  by  Edward  Robinson  and  Eli  Smith  in  1843,  and 
the  “  Narrative  of  an  Expedition  to  the  Jordan  Valley  and  the  Dead  Sea,” 
by  Lieutenant  Lynch,  U.  S.  N.,  in  1850. 

Now  we  find,  by  Biblical  exploration,  that  the  long-forgotten  names  of 
obscure  towns,  embalmed  in  the  often  unaltered  names  of  still  more 
obscure  modern  towns,  are  somewhat  altered,  but  none  the  less  easily 
recognizable  to  any  one  familiar  with  Semitic  philology  or  the  laws  of 
Semitic  transliteration,  and  substitution.  We  find  the  very  rock,  or  cleft 
in  a  rock,  where  some  trivial  event  of  Hebrew  history  took  place,  cor¬ 
responding  exactly  in  terms  of  neighborhood  and  distance,  and  often  of 
name,  to  the  necessities  of  the  ancient  narrative.  We  find,  on  excavation, 
a  complete  confirmation  of  the  representations  of  the  sacred  writers  on 
points  which  ignorant  critics,  who  have  only  studied  the  surface,  have 
disputed,  while  they  scoffed  at  the  statements  of  eye-wfitnesses  whose 
accuracy  in  these  local  details  gives  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  all 
else  they  say.  We  find  in  a  local  tradition,  of  other  than  Christian  parent¬ 
age,  the  exact  reproduction  of  an  obscure  passage  in  the  sacred  history. 


EXPLORATION  IN  BIBLE  LANDS 


451 


We  find  in  a  local  custom  preserved  through  long  ages  and  revolutions, 
such  as  no  other  land  has  undergone,  the  graphic  presentment  of  scenes  as 
old  as  Abraham  and  Moses,  David  and  Hezekiah. 

And  we  find  all  these  lines  of  e^'idence  converging  on  the  sacred  text, 
shedding  light  on  what  was  obscure,  making  more  vivid  that  which  was 
known,  and  gradually  establishing  the  ’certainty  of  the  volume  on  the 
utterances  of  which  we  build  the  structure  of  our  civilization  in  this 
world  and  our  hopes  of  eternal  life  in  the  next. 


CHAPTEE  X. 


TENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  20th. 


WORKING  FORCES  IN  RELIGION. 

The  three  sessions  of  the  parliament  on  the  tenth  day  were 
conducted  in  the  usual  manner.  On  this  date  the  Columbian 
Peace  Plow  arrived  at  the  Art  Institute.  It  is  made  of  imple¬ 
ments  of  war  emblematic  of  the  time  when  nations  shall  learn 
war  no  more,  and  is  a  contribution  to  the  parliament.  Dr. 
Ernest  Faber  of  China  led  in  the  universal  prayer  after  the 
morning  session  was  called  to  order.  Dr.  Barrows,  being  the 
presiding  officer,  introduced  Rev.  Henry  M.  Field,  who  spoke 
a  few  minutes  regarding  the  Parliament  of  Religions. 


PLEA  FOR  TOLERATION. 

KEV.  DR.  HENRY  M.  FIELD  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  EVANGELIST. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen :  I  am  glad  to  say  only  one  word,  one 
word  of  greeting,  and  to  express  the  joy  that  I  feel  in  seeing  such  an 
assembly  as  this  gathered  for  such  a  purpose.  It  has  been  my  fortune  to 
travel  in  many  lands,  and  I  have  not  been  in  any  part  of  the  world  so  dark 
but  that  I  have  found  some  rays  of  light,  some  proof  that  the  God  who  is 
our  God  and  Father  has  been  there  and  that  the  temples  which  are  reared 
in  many  religions  resound  with  sincere  worship  and  praise  to  Him.  I  am 
an  American  of  the  Americans.  Born  in  New  England,  brought  up  in  the 
strictest  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  believing  there  was  no  good  outside  of  our 
own  little  pale,  I  know,  when  I  was  a  child,  it  was  a  serious  question  with 
me  whether  Democrats  could  be  saved.  I  am  happy  to  have  arrived  at  a 
belief  that  they  can  be  saved,  though  as  by  fire. 

When  I  went  across  the  ocean,  I  thought  a  Roman  Catholic  was  a  terri¬ 
ble  person,  terrible,  When  I  came  to  know  the  Roman  Catholics,  how¬ 
ever,  I  found  that  I  was  a  very  poor  specimen  of  Christianity  beside  the 
Sisters  of  Charity  whom  I  saw,  and  the  noble  brothers  devoted  to  every  good, 
Christian,  and  benevolent  office.  Only  a  few  weeks  ago  I  was  in  Africa,  and 
there  made  the  acquaintance  of  some  of  the  White  Fathers  designated  by 
the  cardinal  to  carry  the  Gospel  into  the  center  of  Africa.  What  devotion 
is  there  we  can  hardly  parallel.  I  knew  that  some  of  them — the  first  that 
were  sent  out — had  been  killed  on  the  desert;  and  yet  at  Carthage,  I  said 

452 


insuke^  wrrH  tthb 

mutual  benefit 

insurance  company, 

OF  NEWARK,  N.  J« 

Paid  Policy-Holders  sieve  Organization  in  1845 

^159,200^884^3^ 


£•- 


!. 


L 


T-Ji^ 

%L 


CHRISTIAX  EVAXGELISM. 


4o3 


to  one  of  the  White  Fathers;.  “  Are  you  willing  to  go  into  all  those  dan¬ 
gers?"  •*  Yes."  said  he.  “When?"  “  To-morrow,"  was  the  reply.  Such 
a  spirit  is  magnificent,  and  wherever  we  see  it,  in  any  part  of  the  world,  in 
any  church,  we  admire  and  honor  it. 

Ah  I  but  those  followers  of  the  False  Prophet,  they  have  no  religion  in 
them!  So  I  said  until  I  had  been  in  Constantinople  and  other  cities  of  the 
ELiist.  when  I  hearvi  the  call  for  prayers  from  the  minaret  and  where  I  saw 
the  devotion  of  those  men  fluttering  their  white  turbans  like  so  many 
doves,  at  sunrise  and  sunset  going  to  the  house  of  prayer.  I  was  told  by 
one  of  the  White  Fathers  about  the  observances  of  the  Mohammedans.  He 
s;iid  to  me:  **  Do  you  know  this  is  the  first  day  of  Ramidan,  that 
of  the  Mohammedan  Lent?"  They  observe  their  lent  a  great  deal  better 
than  we  do  ours.  They  are  more  earnest  in  their  religion  than  we  are  in 
ours.  They  are  more  devoted  in  prayer.  The  poor  camel-driver  on  the 
desert  has  no  watch  to  tell  him  the  hour;  he  dismounts  from  his  camel  and 
stands  with  his  back  to.the  sun,  and  the  shadow  cast  on  the  sand  tells  him 
it  is  mid-afternoon  and  the  hour  of  prayer.  Shall  I  say  that  such  men  are 
beyond  the  pale  of  every  religion — that  they  are  not  r^arded  by  the  Great 
Father  as  his  children. 

So  in  Bombay  I  felt  a  great  respe^ct  when  I  saw  the  Parsees  at  the  rising 
and  setting  of  the  sun  uncovering  their  heads  in  homage  to  the  great  source 
of  life  and  light.  So  in  the  other  religions  of  the  East.  Underneath  all  we 
find  reverence  for  the  great  Supreme  Power,  a  desire  to  love,  and  worship, 
and  honor  Him.  On  the  defects  of  those  religions  I  will  not  speak.  There 
are  enough  people  to  talk  of  them,  but  this  I  do  say  here  and  in  this  pres¬ 
ence.  that  I  have  found  that  God  has  not  left  Himself  without  a  witness  in 
any  of  the  dark  climes,  or  in  any  of  the  dark  religions  of  this  world. 


CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISM  AS  ONE  OF  THE  WORKING 
FORCES  IN  OUR  AMERICAN  CHRISTIANITY. 

REV.  JAMES  BRAND  OF  OBERLIN. 

Christian  Evangelism  is  the  preaching  or  promulgation  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  But  this  is  too  general  for  our  present  purpose.  The  word  must 
be  used  here  in  a  more  restricted  sense,  I  must  avoid  narrowing  my  theme 
to  simply  the  work  of  itinerant  evangelists  on  the  one  hand,  and  widening 
it  to  the  general  preaching  of  Christian  truth  on  the  other.  My  purpose  is 
to  e:vamine  the  place  and  influence  in  the  development  of  American  Chris¬ 
tianity  of  specif  evangelistic  movements  which  have  appeared  from  time  to 
time  in  our  history.  The  theme  will  thus  cover  what  we  are  accustomed 
to  call  general  revivals  or  special  Pentecostal  seasons  in  the  prepress  of 
Christ's  kingdom. 

The  first  century  of  religious  history  in  this  country  was  largely  devoted 
to  church  polity  and  the  relation  of  religion  to  the  state.  Spiritually  it  was 
a  rather  bamen  period.  There  had  been  some  revivals  from  1670  to  1712. 
but  they  w«re  lo^  and  limited  in  extent.  The  first  great  movement  which 
really  moulded  American  Christianity  was  in  1740-1760.  called  “The  Great 
Awakening,"  under  the  leadership  of  Jonathan  Edwards,  Whitefield,  Wes¬ 
ley,  and  the  Tennants  of  Xew  Jersey.  This  movement  was  probably  the 
most  influential  force  which  has  ever  acted  upon  the  development  of 
the  Christian  religion  since  the  Protestant  Reformation.  In  1740  the  i)op- 
ulation  of  New  England  was  not  more  than  250,000,  and  in  all  the  colonies 
about  2.0CO.OIX).  Yet  it  is  estimated  that  more  than  ^,000  persons  were  con¬ 
verted  to  Christ  in  that  revival — a  far  greater  proportion  than  at  any  other 
period  of  our  history.  This  movement  overthrew  the  so-called  “half-way 


454 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


covenant,”  a  pernicious  system  which  had  filled  both  the  churches  and  the 
pulpits  with  unconverted  men.  In  1740  men  without  any  pretense  of  piety 
studied  theology,  and  “  if  neither  heretical  or  openly  immoral  were 
ordained  to  the  ministry,”  and  multitudes  of  men  were  received  to  church 
membership  without  any  claim  to  Christian  life. 

The  great  awakening  reversed  that  state  of  things.  Students  of  theol¬ 
ogy  were  converted  in  great  numbers,  and  prominent  men  to  the  number 
of  twenty,  who  had  been  long  in  the  pulpits  in  and  about  Boston,  regarded 
George  Whitefield  as  the  means,  under  God,  of  their  conversion  to  Christ. 
This  revival  was  not  confined  to  New  England  or  to  any  one  body  of  Chris¬ 
tians.  All  denominations  in  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and  the 
South  were  equally  blessed.  The  movement  awakened  the  public  mind 
more  fully  to  the  claims  of  home  missions,  especially  among  the  Indians. 
It  likewise  gave  a  great  impulse  to  Christian  education.  The  founding  of 
Princeton  College  was  one  of  the  direct  fruits.  Dartmouth  College,  founded 
in  1769,  also  sprang  from  the  same  impulse.  The  proposition  that,  in  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  the  distinction  should  be  maintained  between  the 
regenerate  and  unregenerate,  and  that  the  church  must  be  composed  of 
converted  souls  only,  has  been  accepted  by  substantially  all  evangelical 
denominations  since  that  time.  The  great  doctrines  made  especially  prom¬ 
inent  in  this  religious  movement  were  those  required  to  meet  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  the  times,  viz.,  the  sinfulness  of  sin,  the  necessity  of  con¬ 
version,  and  justification  by  faith  in  Christ  alone.  These  doctrines  were  the 
mighty  forces  wielded  by  the  leaders  of  that  time,  and  resulted  in  the 
recasting  of  the  religious  opinions  of  the  18th  century. 

The  second  general  evangelistic  movement,  1797-1810,  generally  called 
the  revival  of  1800,  was  hardly  less  important  as  a  factor  in  our  Christian 
life  than  its  predecessor.  It,  too,  followed  a  period  of  formalism  and  relig¬ 
iousbarrenness.  It  was  the  epoch  of  French  infidelity  and  of  Paine’s  “Age 
of  Reason,”  from  which  this  revival  emancipated  America  while  France 
was  left  a  spiritual  wreck.  Up  to  this  time  almost  nothing  had  been  done  in 
the  line  of  foreign  missions  and  there  were  hardly  any  permanent  institu¬ 
tions  of  a  national  character  for  the  spread  of  a  gospel  apart  from  the 
churches  and  three  or  four  colleges.  From  this  movement  sprang,  as  by 
magic,  nearly  all  the  great  national  religious  institutions  of  to-day.  The 
“Plan  of  Union”  in  1801  to  evangelize  New  Connecticut — Andover  Sem¬ 
inary  in  1808  to  provide  trained  pastors;  the  American  Board,  representing 
two  or  three  denominations  in  1801;  the  American  Baptist  Missionary 
Union,  in  1814;  the  American  Education  Society,  in  1815;  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Missionary  Society,  in  1819;  the  Yale  Theosophical  Department, 
in  1822;  American  Temperance  Society,  in  1826;  American  Home  Missionary 
Society,  in  1830;  East  Windsor  Theosophical  Seminary,  in  1833.  Here  again 
all  religious  bodies  were  equally  enriched  and  enlarged  by  the  stupendous 
impulse  given  to  religious  thought  and  activity  by  this  revival.  The  leading 
characteristic  of  this  movement,  so  far  as  doctrines  were  concerned,  was 
the  sovereignty  of  God.  The  success  of  the  colonies  in  the  Revolutionary 
War;  the  establishment  of  national  independence;  the  awakening  forces  of 
material  and  industrial  development,  together  with  the  prevailing  rational¬ 
istic  and  atheistic  influence  of  Prance,  had  produced  a  spirit  of  pride  and 
self-sufficiency  which  was  hostile  to  the  authority  of  God  and,  of  course, 
antagonistic  to  the  gospel.  To  meet  this  state  of  the  public  mind,  Evangel¬ 
istic  leaders  were  naturally  led  to  lay  special  emphasis  upon  the  absolute 
and  eternal  dominion  of  God,  as  the  infinitely  wise  and  benevolent  ruler  of 
the  universe  and  man  as  his  subject,  fallen,  dependent,  guilty,  to  whom 
pardon  was  offered.  Here  was  found  the  divine  corrective  of  the  perils 
which  were  threatening  to  overwhelm  the  country  in  barren  and  self¬ 
destructive  materialism. 

The  third  great  movement  was  in  1830-1840.  The  tendency  of  the 


CHRISTIAN  EVANGELISM, 


455 


human  mind  is  to  grasp  certain  truths  which  have  proved  specially  effect¬ 
ive  in  one  set  of  circumstances  and  press  them  into  service  under  different 
circumstances,  to  the  neglect  of  other  truths.  Thus  the  severity  of  God, 
which  had  needed  such  peculiar  emphasis  in  1800,  came  to  be  urged  to  the 
exclusion  of  those  truths  which  touch  the  freedom ‘and  responsibility  of 
man.  When,  therefore,  this  third  revival  period  began,  the  truths 
most  needed  were  the  freedom  of  the  will,  the  nature  of  the  moral  law,  the 
ability  and  therefore  the  absolute  obligation  of  man  to  obey  God  and  make 
himself  a  new  heart.  Accordingly,  these  wore  the  mighty  weapons  which 
were  wielded  by  the  great  leaders,  Finney,  Nettleton,  Albert  Barnes,  and 
others,  in  the  revival  of  that  period.  Thus  a  counter-corrective  was  admin¬ 
istered  which  tended  not  only  to  correct  and  convert  vast  multitudes  of 
souls,  but  also  to  establish  the  scriptural  balance  of  truth. 

The  fourth  pentecostal  season,  which  may  be  called  national  in  its  scope, 
was  in  1857-9.  At  that  time  inordinate  worldliness,  the  passion  for  gain 
and  luxury,  had  been  taking  possession  of  the  people.  The  spirit  of  reck¬ 
less  speculation  and  other  immoral  methods  of  gratifying  material  ambi¬ 
tion  had  overreached  itself  and  plunged  the  nation  into  a  financial  panic. 
The  Divine  Spirit  seized  this  state  of  things  to  convict  men  of  their  sins. 
The  result  was  a  great  turning  to  God  all  over  the  land.  In  this  waken¬ 
ing  no  great  leaders  seem  to  stand  out  pre-eminent.  But  the  plain  lessons 
of  the  revival  are  God’s  rebuke  of  worldliness,  the  fact  that  it  is  better  to 
be  righteous  than- to  be  rich,  and  that  nations,  like  individuals,  are  in  His 
hands. 

The  latest  evangelistic  movements  which  are  meeting  this  new  era  and 
are  destined  to  be  as  helpful  to  American  Christianity  as  any  preceding 
ones  are  those  under  the  present  leadership  of  men  like  Messrs.  Moody  and 
Mills  and  their  confreres.  These  revivals,  though  perhaps  lacking  the 
tremendous  seriousness  and  profundity  of  conviction  which  came  from 
the  Calvin  preachers  dwelling  on  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God, 
nevertheless  exhibit  a  more  truly  balanced  gospel  than  any  preceding  ones. 
They  announce  pre-eminently  a  gospel  of  hope.  They  emphasize  the  love 
of  God,  the  sufficiency  of  Christ,  the  guilt  and  unreason  of  sin,  the  privi¬ 
lege  of  serving  Christ,  and  the  duty  of  immediate  surrender.  If  men  said, 
“Is  not  the  gospel  being  outgrown?”  They  said,  “No,  that  can  not  be.”  If 
they  said,  “Is  the  doctrine  broad  enough  and  deep  enough  to  lead  the  prog-' 
ress  of  the  race  in  all  stages  of  its  development  and  be  the  text- book  of 
religious  teaching  to  the  end  of  time?”  They  said  “  Yes.”  Why?  Because 
Christ’s  teachings  are  based  upon  certain  indestructible  principles  of  human 
nature  that  never  change.  They  are  based  upon  the  moral  sentiment  of 
the  soul. 

I  have  spoken  of  these  general  revivals  as  evangelistic  movements.  It 
must  not  be  inf  erred,  however,  that  they  are  merely  human  undertakings. 
They  originate  with  the  spirit  of  God.  Leading  men,  whether  as  general  evan¬ 
gelists  or  evangelistic  pastors,  were  moved  by  the  divine  spirit  to  yearn  for 
the  deepening  of  religious  life  and  the  conversion  of  the  multitudes.  As 
of  old  God  from  time  to  time  chooses  Him  a  Moses,  tits  him  for  his  work, 
and  gives  him  a  message.  This  divine  superintendence,  rather  than  any 
human  sagacity,  explains  the  peculiar  types  of  truth,  and  the  special  adapt¬ 
ations  of  doctrines  to  the  circumstances  at  different  stages  of  our  national 
life,  to  meet  the  peculiar  perils  or  tendencies  of  such  times.  This  only 
proves  that  Christ  is  the  head  of  His  Church,  and  does  not  abandon  it  to 
the  discretion  of  any  set  of  men. 

The  Scripture  truths  which  have  been  specially  instrumental  in  these 
great  spiritual  awakenings,  perhaps,  should  have  a  non-specific  considera- 
Lon.  Manifestly  no  one  school  of  theology  can  claim  pre-eminence.  Calvin¬ 
ism,  old  school  and  new  school  on  the  one  hand,  and  Armenianism  on  the 
other,  have  been  alike  blessed  at  different  times  in  the  conversion  of 


456 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


souls.  The  earlier  evangelists  dwelt  upon  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the 
Divine  Being.  They  preached  the  utter  depravity  of  man,  the  unspeakable 
guilt  of  sin,  the  infinite  doom  of  final  impenitence.  They  said  “  Nothing 
but  eternal  woe  is  possible  to  one  who  will  not  come  into  harmony  with 
God.”  This  was  not  to  frighten  men  into  religion,  but  as  a  philosophical 
fact  in  the  nature  of  things.  It  was  to  arouse  them  out  of  deadly  apathy 
to  rational  concern  as  to  their  spiritual  conditional,  and  it  was  effective. 
Whitefield’s  great  topic  was,  “  The  necessity  of  the  New  Birth,”  because 
this  was  a  neglected  truth.  It  was  said  at- the  time  that  Whitefield  had 
“  infatuated  the  multitude  with  the  doctrine  of  regeneration,  and  free 
grace,  and  conversion,  all  of  which  was  repugnant  to  common  sense.” 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  form  of  evangelism  we  are  considering, 
has  had  a  very  helpful  influence  upon  the  development  of  our  American 
Christian  life.  Yet  it  must  be  said  in  conclusion,  that  these  powers  of 
evangelism  are  liable  to  be  attended  by  one  serious  peril.  Some  churches 
have  been  led  by  them  to  depend  almost  together  upon  outside  evangelists 
and  general  movements  for  the  winning  and  gathering  of  souls,  rather  than 
upon  the  regular  work  of  the  settled  pastor,  and  the  ordinary  service  of 
consecrated  church  members.  In  such  cases,  church  work  becomes 
spasmodic  and  the  preaching  of  the  pastor  has  otten  become  educational 
instead  of  being  also  distinctively  evangelistic.  This  dependence  of  a 
church  upon  great  periodical  movements  and  help  for  the  conversion  of 
souls  in  its  own  vicinity,  is  not,  of  course,  a  necessary  result  of  general 
revivals,  but  it  is  an  evil  which  is  liable  to  follow.  To  guard  against  the 
evil  two  things  are  essential. 

1.  A  higher  conception  of  the  mission  of  the  local  church.  The  fact 
should  never  be  lost  sight  of  that  the  local  church  itself  is,  after  all,  the 
responsible  body  for  the  evangelization  of  its  own  vicinity.  I  would  be  the 
last  to  disparage  outside  evangelists,  but  it  is  manifestly  not  God’s 
design  that  churches  should  depend  upon  any  great  combined  movement. 
They  are  to  depend  rather  upon  the  Christlikeness  of  their  own  member¬ 
ship  and  the  evangelistic  preaching  of  their  pastors.  The  true  aggressive, 
soul-reviving  power  under  God  for  any  community  is  the  real  people  of 
God  in  that  community,  if  there  are  any.  More  stress  must  be  laid  upon 
consecrated  church  membership. 

2.  A  new  evangelistic  ministry.  That  means  men  in  the  pulpits,  men 
impressed  with  the  infinitely  practical  reach  of  their  work,  the  awful 
responsibility  of  their  position,  and  their  utter  dependence  upon  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  means  men  closeted  more  with  God.  An  hour  with  Him  is 
worth  a  week  among  the  people.  We  must  get  ourselves  under  the  burden 
of  those  views  of  mankind  which  weighed  upon  the  soul  of  Christ  and  led 
Him  to  the  cross;  these  great  truths  which  underlie  God’s  government, 
which  undergird  the  Christian’s  hope,  which  appeal  to  the  sinner’s  reason 
and  intensify  his  rational  fears. 

Perhaps  the  supreme  suggestion  of  the  whole  subject  for  this  rushing, 
conceited,  self-asserting,  money-grasping,  law-defying,  sabbath-desecrat¬ 
ing,  contract-breaking,  rationalistic  age  is  that  we  are  to  return  to  the 
profound  preaching  of  the  sovereignty  of  God. 


RELIGIOUS  STATE  OF  GERMANY. 

COUNT  A.  BEENSTORFF  OF  GERMANY. 

r  shall  try  to  give  this  short  sketch  as  impartially  as  I  can,  though  this 
is  not  easy  for  one  who  stands  in  the  midst  of  the  contests  about  which  he 
is  going  to  speak.  Well-meaning  patriots  who  wish  to  stir  up  the  activity 


RELIGIOUS  STATE  OF  GERMANY. 


457 


of  good  men  often  give  a  pessimistic  view  of  things;  others  who  wish  to 
show  off  their  country  well  give  a  too  favorable  coloring  of  the  state  of 
things.  I  mean  only  to  say  what  is  true.  There  is  no  necessity  to  give 
any  coloring.  Things  are  bad  enough  without  being  exaggerated,  but  there 
is  also  sufficient  good  to  mention  without  being  obliged  to  add  to  the  truth. 

It  may  truly  be  said  that  Germany  is  a  country  where  spiritual  prob¬ 
lems  are  fought  out.  I  feel  happy  to  belong  to  such  a  country,  and  to  be 
able  to  take  an  active  share  in  those  struggles.  In  order  to  understand  the 
present  condition  of  Germany,  we  must  go  back  to  some  point  in  history 
which  gave  a  turning  to  affairs,  and  which  forms  even  now  the  basis  on 
which  religious  life  has  developed.  The  first  is  the  Reformation.  Germany 
is  emphatically  the  land  of  the  Reformation,  by  which,  of  course,  I  don’t 
mean  to  say  that  all  Germany  is  Protestant.  Oh,  no.  The  Reformation 
has  divided  Germany  into  two  hostile  camps.  It  has  been  the  source  of 
many  political  and  religious  difficulties.  Yet  we  praise  God’s  name  for  it. 
The  Reformation  luckily  had  no  political  sides;  it  was  a  purely  religious  act. 

Luther  sought  peace  with  God  for  his  own  soul,  and  all  the  acts  of  pen¬ 
ance  could  not  satisfy  the  yearning  of  his  heart.  It  was  only  when  he  got  to 
read  a  Bible — these  bound  teachers— and  when  he  found  in  it  that  the  just 
shall  live  by  faith,  that  he  found  the  peace  with  God  which  his  heart  was 
yearning  after.  Henceforth  the  two  great  principles  of  the  Reformation — 
that  the  Bible  is  the  only  and  all  sufficient  source  of  truth,  and  that  man 
is  saved  without  his  merits  by  faith  in  the  cleansing  blood  of  Christ.  How¬ 
ever,  the  mere  intellectual  truth  alone  does  not  suffice.  We  must,  there¬ 
fore,  consider  the  feeling  of  the  18th  century  as  the  second  turning  point. 

Protestantism  revived,  but  only  in  form;  unbelief  carried  the  day.  The 
great  minds  of  the  last  century  failed  to  see  the  truth  of  revelation.  This 
is  to  a  great  extent  due  to  the  fact  that  the  repression  of  orthodox  truths 
had  turned  into  enemies  scholars  who  found  a  xjleasure  in  quarreling  on 
points  of  minor  interest.  The  revival  in  religion  began  in  what  we  call  the 
wars  of  liberty.  When  the  great  Napoleon  wanted  to  stamp  Prussia  out 
of  the  maps  of  Europe,  when  the  whole  nation  rose  to  defend  its  national 
independence,  men  were  turned  to  seek  God  in  prayer,  and  since  that  day 
earnest,  liberal  Christianity  has  made  its  way  again  in  Germany.  National 
differences  seemed  of  comparatively  small  value  at  that  time,  and  King 
Frederick  William  III.  of  Prussia  combined  in  his  religion  the  union  of 
the  Lutheran  and  the  Calvinist  churches  into  one  church,  which  he  called 
Evangelist.  Such  a  measure  would  be  imi^ossible  now,  but  in  those  times 
of  unbelief  people  had  ceased  to  attach  any  value  of  differences  in  doctrine, 
and  the  new  revival  was  also  spiritual,  not  ecclesiastical.  Those  who  began 
to  love  their  Savior  gladly  joined  those  whom  they  found  similarly  affected, 
without  asking  to  what  church  they  belonged. 

The  increase  of  religious  convictions,  however,  also  increased  the  oppo¬ 
sition  of  special  doctrines.  The  old  feud  between  Lutherans  and  Calvin¬ 
ists  began  with  renewed  strength,  and  the  friendly  relations  between  Prot¬ 
estants  and  Catholics  made  way  to  a  sharp  antagonism.  About  half  a  cent¬ 
ury  later  the  revolution  of  1848  opened  the  eyes  of  many  Christians  to  the 
unsatisfactory  state  of  many  things,  and  the  numerous  works  of  home  mis¬ 
sions  began  about  that  time.  Finally,  in  1873,  the  organization  of  a  syn¬ 
odal  constitution  for  the  Protestant  Church  brought  a  new  element  into 
our  religious  life.  Excuse  my  having  begun  with  this  historical  introduc¬ 
tion.  The  present  is  always  in  many  respects  the  child  of  the  past,  and  I 
thought  it  would  help  to  ascertain  the  present. 

The  division  of  Germany  in  a  Catholic  and  Protestant  population  still 
exists  in  all  its  force.  I  am  a  poor  judge  of  the  inner  life  of  the  Catholic 
Church — but  I  must  say  that  she  has  greatly  consolidated  herself.  Unhappy 
measures  of  our  government  to  repress  her  influence,  which  were  in  force 
in  1873,  have  only  served  to  increase  her  power.  With  her  strong  discipline 


458 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OP  RELIGIONS. 


f 

/ 

on  the  power  she  wields  over  the  people  through  the  confessional,  witn  i;ne 
assistance  of  a  numerous  political  party  that  represents  her  interest  in  Par¬ 
liament,  she  undoubtedly  has  a  large  influence.  But  on  the  other  side, 
this  has  also  helped  much  to  arouse  the  Protestant  feeling  of  the  nation — 
a  large  Protestant  association  for  the  protection  of  Protestant  interests  is 
gaining  new  adherents  every  day.  The  commemoration  of  the  Lutheran 
jubilee  in  1883  has  deeply  stirred  the  heart  of  the  nation,  and  the  day  will 
not  easily  be  forgotten  when,  the  31st  of  last  October,  the  Emperor,  with 
most  of  the  German  princes  and  representatives  of  the  Queen  of  Great 
Britain  and  of  the  King  of  Sweden  and  Denmark,'of  the  Queen  of  the  Neth¬ 
erlands,  assisted  at  the  reopening  of  the  beautifully  restored  church  of  Wit¬ 
tenberg,  and  publicly  declared  their  adherence  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
Reformation. 

With  Protestantism  the  old  feud  between  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  has 
made  way  to  problems  of  greater  importance.  If  I  speak  of  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  Protestantism  I  can  only  speak  of  the  national  or  state  churches. 
The  free  churches,  Methodists,  Baptists,  Mennonites,  even  the  highly- 
honored  body  of  the  Moravian  brethren  and  the  Lutherans  in  Prussia,  do  a 
good  work  for  the  saving  of  individual  souls,  and,  weighed  in  the  balance 
of  heaven,  this  work  will  not  be  accounted  lightly,  but  their  numbers  are 
small  and  their  influence  in  the  national  life  of  Germany  is  smaller  still. 
The  great  struggle  and  problems  of  the  day  are  fought  out  within  the 
national  churches,  and  this  is  not  only  true,  is  voluntary  conviction  in  the 
press  and  by  similar  means,  but  also  is  the  official  battle  ground  provided 
in  the  synod.  Our  churches  have  their  own  voice  ever  in  public  life,  and 
the  very  abuse  heaped  on  the  general  synod  of  Prussia,  for  her  clear  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  old  truths  of  the  gospel,  is  a  sure  sign  of  her  influence. 

At  first  a  number  of  persons  were  elected  into  the  synod  only  because 
they  were  expected  to  make  opposition  to  the  clergy,  but  this  is  long  past. 
Even  the  Berlin  synod  has  a  majority  which  holds  in  part  the  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  and,  since  this  is  the  case,  she  has  a  noble  work  to  do  with  the 
spiritual  wants  of  our  large  metropolis.  A  large  party  of  our  church  is 
striving  at  a  greater  independence  from  the  state.  We  deny  not  that  we 
have  entered  with  mighty  adversaries,  but  we  are  prepared  for  the  struggle. 
The  socialist  movement  spreads  utter  atheism  among  the  working  classes. 
Perhaps  it  has  never  before  been  uttered  with  such  emphasis  that  there  is  no 
God.  But  often  all  this  is  only  the  case  among  the  neglected  masses  of  our 
large  cities.  In  the  country  even  the  leaders  of  social  democracy  restrain 
from  saying  anything  against  religion  because  they  know  that  it  would 
compromise  their  cause. 

We  have  men  who  want  to  form  a  new  religion,  or  a  moral  society  with¬ 
out  religion,  but  the  so-called  ethical  movement  found  but  few  adherents. 
A  lieutenant-colonel  left  the  army  to  work  for  a  colorless  Christianity,  in 
which  everybody  might  go  in,  but  his  followers  are  not  many.  All  these 
more  negative  forms  of  religious  beliefs  meet  with  loud  applause  at  first, 
but  very  few  join  them  actively.  Where  there  is  real  religious  work,  one 
turns  to  the  old  Bible. 

The  greatest  danger  we  are  under  is  perhaps  a  new  critical  school  of 
theology.  The  lately  deceased  Professor  Rietschl  has  introduced  a  new 
system  superior  to  the  old  rationalism,  eminently  clever,  yet  dangerous. 
Biblical  terms  are  used,  but  another  meaning  given  to  them.  To  this  the¬ 
ology  Christ  is  not  pre-existent  from  all  eternity,  but  only  a  man  in  whom 
divine  life  has  come  to  its  highest  development,  the  great  fact  of  redemp¬ 
tion  only  symbols;  prayer  is  some  way  only  a  gymnastic  exercise  of  the  soul, 
helpful  as  such  to  him  who  prays,  but  not  heard  in  heaven.  Numerous 
students  are  under  the  charm  of  this  school,  and  many  people  think  that 
it  will  soon  have  possession  of  all  our  pulpits. 

I  do  not  share  their  fear.  There  are  too  many  forces  of  divine  help  in 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  ISLAM. 


45d 


our  congregations  now  to  render  this  possible,  and  to  these  forces  I  must 
lastly  refer.  We  have  faithful  preaching  in  many  of  our  churches,  and 
where  the  gospel  is  preached  in  power  and  in  truth  the  churches  are  not 
empty.  We  have  an  honest  tight  for  the  truth  in  our  synods.  Eyen  in  the 
capital  the  orthodox  Christians  have  rallied  to  gain  the  victory  and  they 
carried  the  day. 

We  have  the  great  organizations  of  home-mission  work,  deaconesses’ 
institutions,  reformatories,  workingmen’s  city  missions,  and  so  forth.  These 
are  only  examples. 

We  have  a  large  religious  press.  The  sermons  published  by  the  Berlin 
City  Mission  are  spread  in  112,000  copies  every  week.  A  great  number  of 
so-called  Sunday  papers,  that  is,  not  political  papers,  which  appear  on  Sun¬ 
day,  but  small  religious  periodicals,  which  give  good  religious  reading  to 
the  people,  all  circulated,  besides  the  sermons,  to  a  great  extent  by  volun¬ 
tary  helpers.  We  are  making  way  to  better  observation  of  the  Lord’s  day. 
The  new  law  on  the  social  question  has  closed  our  shops  on  Sunday,  and 
the  complaints  raised  against  this  measure  at  first  soon  made  way  to  a 
sense  of  gratitude  for  the  freedom  to  weary  people  who  have  hard  work 
during  the  week. 

Our  emperor  and  empress  have  given  a  powerful  stimulus  to  the  build¬ 
ing  of  new  churches.  The  empress  tries  to  stimulate  the  ladies  to  more  of 
what  you  call  woman’s  work,  and  a  society  of  3,000  women  in  Berlin  last  * 
winter  shows  that  her  call  was  not  in  vain.  We  have  altogether  learned  a 
great  deal  more  of  aggressive  Christianity.  Our  Sunday  schools  have 
nearly  doubled  in  the  last  three  years.  The  institute  founded  for  training 
Evangelists  has  been  removed  to  Barmes,  where  it  works  more  efficiently. 
Lay  work,  unknown  in  former  generations,  quietly  but  steadily  gains 
ground.  I  would  mention  a  number  of  eminent  laymen  who  no  longer 
object  to  presenting  the  gospel  publicly.  We  are  not  afraid  for  the  cause 
of  believing  evangelical  Christianity  in  Germany;  it  is  more  a  power  now 
than  it  ever  was,  though,  of  course,  in  every  land  and  at  all  times  only  a 
minority«truly  and  fully  experience  the  depths  of  religious  feeling. 

I  did  not  mention  the  last  Jewish  movement  because  I  hold  it  to  be 
purely  political,  not  religious.  It  is  one  of  the  things  that  we  have  to  con¬ 
tend  with,  but  a  beginning  has  been  made.  There  is  much  darkness  in 
Germany,  but  there  is  also  much  light.  May  God  grant  that  the  light 
increase. 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  ISLAM. 

MOHAMMED  WEBB. 

I  wish  I  could  express  to  you  the  gratification  I  feel  at  being  able  to 
appear  before  you  to-day,  and  that  I  could  impress  upon  your  minds  the 
feelings  of  millions  of  Mussulmans  in  India,  Turkey,  and  Egypt,  who  are 
looking  to  this  Parliament  of  Religions  with  the  deepest,  the  fondest  hope. 
There  is  not  a  Mussulman  on  earth  who  does  not  believe  that  ultimately 
Islam  will  be  the  universal  faith.  It  may  surprise  you  to  know  that  five 
times  a  day,  regularly,  year  in  and  year  out,  from  every  Mussulman’s  heart 
goes  forth  the  sentiment  we  have  just  sung — “Nearer,  my  God,  to  Thee.’’ 
To-morrow  I  expect  to  speak  upon,  “The  Influence  of  Islam  on  Social 
Conditions,”  and  I  want  to  say  at  that  time  something  about  polygamy. 

But  to-day  I  have  been  requested  to  make  a  statement,  very  briefly,  in 
regard  to  something  that  is  considered  universally  as  part  and  parcel  of 
the  Islamic  system.  There  are  thousands  and  thousands  of  people  who 
seem  to  be  in  mortal  terror  that  the  curse  of  polygamy  is  to  be  inflicted 
upon  them  at  once.  Now,  I  want  to  say  to  you,  honestly  and  fairly,  that 


460 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


polygamy  never  was  and  is  not  a  part  of  the  Islamic  system.  To  engraft 
polygamy  upon  our  social  system  in  the  condition  in  which  it  is  to-day 
would  be  a  curse.  There  are  parts  of  the  East  where  it  is  practiced.  There 
are  conditions  under  which  it  is  beneficial.  But  we  must  first  understand 
what  it  really  means  to  the  Mussulman,  not  what  it  means  to  the  Amer¬ 
ican.  I  say  that  a  pure-minded  man  can  be  a  polygamist  and  be  a  perfect 
and  true  Christian,  but  he  must  not  be  a  sensualist. 

When  you  understand  what  the  Mussulman  means  by  polygamy,  what 
he  means  by  taking  two  or  three  wives,  any  man  who  is  honest  and  faithful 
and  pure  minded  will  say,  “  God  speed  him.”  Now,  I  don’t  intend  to  go 
into  this  subject.  With  the  gentleman  who  first  spoke,  I  am  an  American 
of  the  Americans.  I  carried  with  me  for  years  the  same  errors  that  thou¬ 
sands  of  Americans  carry  with  them  to-day.  Those  errors  have  grown  into 
history,  false  history  has  influenced  your  opinion  of  Islam.  It  influenced 
my  opinion  of  Islam  and  when  I  began  ten  years  ago,  to  study  the  Oriental 
religions,  I  threw  Islam  aside  as  altogether  too  corrupt  for  consideration. 

But  when  I  came  to  go  beneath  the  surface,  to  know  what  Islam  really 
is,  to  know  who  and  what  the  Prophet  of  Arabia  was,  I  changed  my  belief 
very  materially,  and  I  am  proud  to  say  that  I  am  now  a  Mussulman. 

I  have  not  returned  to  the  United  States  to  make  you  all  Mussulmans 
in  spite  of  yourselves;  I  never  intended  to  do  it  in  the  world.  I  do  not  pro¬ 
pose  to  take  a  sword  in  one  hand  and  the  Koran  in  the  other,  and  go 
through  the  world  killing  every  man  w’ho  does  not  say,  “La  illaha  illala 
Mohammed  resouls  Allah” — “There  is  no  God  but  one  and  Mohammed  is  the 
Prophet  of  God.”  But  I  have  faith  in  the  American  intellect,  in  the  Amer¬ 
ican  intelligence,  and  in  the  American  love  of  fair  play,  and  will  defy  any 
intelligent  man  to  understand  Islam  and  not  love  it. 

It  was  at  first  suggested  that  I  should  speak  on  the  theology  of  Islam. 
There  are  some  systems  which  have  in  them  more  theology  than  religion. 
Fortunately  Islam  has  more  religion  than  theology. 

There  are  various  explanations  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  religion. 
One  has  but  to  read  Max  Muller’s  gifted  lectures  to  understand  what  a 
variety  of  meanings  there  are  to  the  word.  We  may  simply  consider  that 
it  means  a  system  by  which  man  hopes  to  inherit  happiness  beyond  the. 
grave.  What  the  conditions  may  be  beyond  the  grave  may  be  questioned 
and  speculated  upon,  but  in  its  broader  sense  religion  is  that  system  which 
leads  to  or  gives  to  us  the  hope  of  a  future  life.  In  order  to  understand 
Islam  and  its  effects — to  understand  the  spirit  of  Islam ^ — it  is  necessary  to 
take  into  consideration  human  nature  in  all  its  aspects. 

Do  you  suppose  that  any  active  religionist  who  has  studied  only  his  own 
system  of  religion,  who  knows  nothing  about  any  other  system,  can  write 
fairly  of  any  other  system?  It  is  absolutely  impossible.  I  have  read  every 
history  of  Mohammed  and  Islam  published  in  England,  and  I  say  to  you, 
there  is  not  a  single  one  of  them,  except  the  work  of  Ameer  Ali  of  Calcutta, 
which  reflects  at  all  in  any'sense  the  spirit  of  Islam.  We  will  take  the 
work  of  Washington  Irving,  for  example.  Washington  Irving  evidently 
intended  to  be  fair  and  honest;  it  is  apparent  in  every  line  that  he  meant 
to  tell  the  truth,  but  his  information  came  through  channels  that  were 
muddy,  and  while  he  is  appalled  at  what  he  considers  the  vicious  character 
of  the  prophet,  he  is  completely  surprised  at  times  to  find  out  what  a  pure 
and  holy  man  he  was.  Now,  the  first  book  I  ever  read  in  English  upon 
Islam  was  “  The  Life  of  Mohammed,”  by  Washington  Irving,  and  the  strong¬ 
est  feature  of  that  work  to  me  was  its  uncertainty. 

In  one  page  he  would  say  Mohammed  was  a  very  good,  a  very  pure  and 
holy  man,  and  it  was  a  shame  that  he  was  not  a  Christian,  but  his  impious 
rejection  of  the  Trinity  shut  him  out  from  salvation,  and  made  him  an 
impostor.  These  are  not  the  exact  words  that  Irving  used,  but  they  con¬ 
vey  practically  his  meaning.  After  saying  these  things  he  goes  on  to  say 


MOHAMMED  ALEXANDER  RUSSELL  WEBB 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  ISLAM. 


461 


what  a  sensuous,  grasping,  avaricious  tyrant  the  prophet  was,  and  he  closes 
his  work  by  saying  that  the  character  of  the  prophet  is  so  enigmatical  that 
he  can  not  fathom  it.  He  is  uncertain,  finally,  whether  Mohammed  was  a 
good  man  or  a  bad  man. 

Now,  to  understand  the  character  of  Mohammed  and  his  teachings,  we 
must  learn  to  read  betjveen  the  lines ;  we  must  learn  to  study  human 
nature ;  we  must  carefully  analyze  the  condition  of  the  Arabians  at  the 
time  Mohammed  lived  ;  we  must  carefully  analyze  the  existing  social  con¬ 
ditions  ;  we  must  understand  what  woman’s  position  was  in  the  social 
system ;  the  various  conditions  that  had  possession  of  the  whole  Arabian 
nation.  They  were  not,  however,  a  nation  at  that  time,  but  divided  into 
predatory  tribes,  with  all  the  vices  and  weaknesses  that  man  possesses, 
almost  as  bad  as  men  in  some  of  the  slums  of  Chicago  and  New  York. 
Mohammed  came  among  this  people  intending  to  purify  and  elevate  them, 
to  make  them  a  better  people,  and  he  did  so.  The  history  of  Mohammed¬ 
anism  we  have  in  English,  as  I  have  shown,  is  inaccurate,  untruthful,  and 
full  of  prejudice. 

In  order  to  understand  the  spirit  of  Islam  let  us  take  the  prophet  as  a 
child.  He  was  born  in  Mecca.  All  historians — and  I  shall  simply  now 
state  what  Christian  historians  have  written  of  him — are  agreed  that  he 
was  remarkable  as  a  boy  for  the  purity  of  his  character.  He  was  utterly 
free  from  the  vices  which  afflicted  the  youth  of  Mecca.  As  he  grew  to  man¬ 
hood,  his  character  became  unimpeachable,  so  much  so  that  he  was  known 
all  over  the  city  as  “Al  Ma’mun,  the  trusty.”  Those  characteristics  with 
which  he  is  accredited  by  Christian  writers  were  manifested  in  no  degree 
whatever. 

He  began  life  as  a  merchant,  following  his  uncle’s  caravans  to  Southern 
Europe  and  Syria,  and  he  demonstrated  the  fact  that  he  was  an  excellent 
business  man.  He  was  successful,  so  much  so  that  the  wealthy  widow, 
“  Khadijah,”  whose  husband  had  died,  selected  him  to  take  charge  of  her 
business  interests.  He  had  never  displayed  any  disposition  to  associate 
with  the  fair  sex;  sensuality  was  no  part  of  his  character  at  all.  He  mar¬ 
ried  this  widow,  and  with  her  accumulated  a  large  fortune,  with  which  he 
engaged  in  the  same  trade  as  his  uncle,  Abu  Taleb. 

This  marriage,  by  the  way,  was  not  brought  about  by  Mohammed.  He 
did  not  go  to  Khadijah  and  ask  her  to  be  his  wife,  but  she,  taking  perhaps  a 
mercenary  view  of  the  situation,  engaged  him  for  life  to  be  her  business  man¬ 
ager.  Mohammed  rejected  the  proposal  at  first,  and  would  have  refused  it 
altogether,  but  his  uncle,  Abu  Taleb,  said  it  was  the  best  thing  he  could 
do  and  that  he  should  marry  her.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  laws 
of  his  country  allowed  him  to  take  as  many  wives  as  he  pleased,  Christian 
historians  agree  that  he  v/as  true  to  Khadijah  for  twenty-five  years,  and 
never  availed  himself  of  the  opportunity  to  take  another  wife.  He  was 
true  to  her  until  the  day  of  her  death. 

Now,  let  us  see  what  the  word  Islam  means.  It  is  the  most  expressive 
word  in  existence  for  a  religion.  It  means,  simply  and  literally,  resignation 
to  the  will  of  God.  It  means  aspiration  to  God.  The  Islam  system  is 
designed  to  cultivate  all  that  is  purest  and  noblest  and  grandest  in  the 
human  character.  Some  people  say  Islam  is  impossible  in  a  high  state  of 
civilization.  Now,  that  is  the  result  of  ignorance.  Look  at  Spain  in  the 
8th  century,  when  it  was  the  center  of  all  the  arts  and  sciences,  when  Chris¬ 
tian  Europe  went  to  Moslem  Spain  to  learn  all  that  there  was  worth 
knowing — languages,  arts,  all  the  new  discoveries  were  to  be  found  in  Mos¬ 
lem  Spain,  and  in  Moslem  Spain  alone.  There  was  no  civilization  in  the 
world  as  high  as  that  of  Moslem  Spain. 

With  this  spirit  of  resignation  to  the  will  of  God  is  inculcated  the  idea 
of  individual  responsibility,  that  every  man  is  responsible  not  to  this  man  or 
that  man,  or  the  other  man,  but  responsible  to  God  for  every  thought  and 


4G2 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


act  of  his  life.  He  must  pay  for  every  act  that  he  commits;  he  is  rewarded 
for  every  thought  he  thinks.  There  is  no  mediator,  there  is  no  priesthood, 
there  is  no  ministry. 

The  Moslem  brotherhood  stands  upon  a  perfect  equality,  recognizing 
only  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man.  The  Imam  who 
leads  in  prayer,  preaches  no  sermon.  He  goes  to  the  mosque  every  day  at 
noon  and  reads  two  chapters  from  the  holy  Koran.  He  descends  to  the 
floor  upon  a  perfect  level  with  the  hundreds,  or  thousands,  of  worshipers 
and  the  prayer  goes  on,  he  simply  leading  it.  The  whole  system  is  cab 
culated  to  inculcate  that  idea  of  perfect  brotherhood. 

The  subject  is  so  broad,  there  is  so  much  of  it,  that  I  can  only  touch 
upon  it.  There  is  so  much  unfamiliar  to  Americans  and  Englishmen  in 
Islam  that  I  regret  exceedingly  I  have  not  more  time  to  speak  of  it.  A 
man  said  to  me  in  New  York  the  other  day;  “  Must  I  give  up  Jesus  and 
the  Bible  if  I  become  a  Mohammedan?”  No,  no!  There  is  no  Mussulman 
on  earth  who  does  not  recognize  the  inspiration  of  Jesus.  Thy  system  is 
one  that  has  been  taught  by  Moses,  by  Abraham,  by  Jesus,  by  Mohammed, 
by  every  inspired  man  the  world  has  ever  known.  You  need  not  give  up 
Jesus,  but  assert  your  manhood.  Go  to  God. 

Now,  let  us  look  at  the  practical  side  of  Islam  in  reference  to  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  spirit  of  Islam  to  daily  life.  A  Mussulman  is  told  that  he 
must  pray.  So  is  everyone  else,  so  are  the  followers  of  every  other  religion. 
But  the  Mussulman  is  not  told  to  pray  when  he  feels  like  it,  if  it  does  not 
interfere  with  business,  with  his  inclinations,  or  some  particular  engage¬ 
ment.  Some  people  do  not  pray  at  such  times;  they  say  it  does  not  make 
very  much  difference,  we  can  make  it  up  some  other  time.  A  little  study  of 
human  nature  will  show  that  there  are  people  who  pray  from  a  conscien¬ 
tious  idea  of  doing  a  duty,  but  t‘here  are  a  great  many  others  who  shirk  a 
duty  at  every  chance  if  it  interferes  with  pleasure  or  business. 

The  wisdom  of  Mohammed  was  apparent  in  the  single  item  of  prayer. 
He  did  not  say,  “  Pray  when  you  feel  like  it,”  but  “  Pray  five  times  a  day 
at  a  certain  time.” 

The  Mussulman  rises  in  the  morning  before  daylight,  because  his  first 
prayer  must  be  said  before  the  first  streaks  of  light  ajjpear  in  the  East. 
At  just  the  first  trace  of  dawn  he  sinks  upon  his  knees  aud  offers  his 
prayer  to  God.  The  prayer  can  be  said  at  no  other  time.  That  is  the 
time  to  say  it.  The  result  is  he  must  get  up  in  the  morning  to  do  it.  It 
encourages  early  rising.  Now,  you  may  say  that  is  a  slavish  system.  Very 
true.  Humanity  differs  very  materially.  There  are  men  who  need  a  slavish 
system.  We  have  evidences  of  it  all  around  us,  in  every  religious  system 
known.  They  want  to  be  slaves  to  a  system,  and  let  us  take  that  system 
which  will  accomplish  the  best  results. 

His  next  prayer  is  said  between  12  and  1  o’clock,  or  just  as  the  sun  is 
passing  the  meridian.  At  no  other  time.  The  third  prayer  is  between  4 
and  5  o’clock.  The  fourth  prayer  is  just  as  the  sun  has  sunk  in  the  West. 
The  light  of  the  day  is  dying  out.  The  last  prayer  of  the  day  is  repeated 
just  before  he  steps  into  bed. 

There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  those  who  want  to  argue  over 
doctrinal  matters,  as  to  the  exact  time  of  this  evening  prayer,  but  there  is 
no  doubt  about  the  other  ones.  Some  Mussulmans  will  insist  upon  it  that 
you  can  pray  any  time  after  the  sunset  prayer.  Others  say  no,  you  must 
pray  when  you  go  to  bed.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  from  what  I  know  of 
the  prophet’s  character  that  he  intended  that  that  was  to  be  the  last  prayer 
of  the  day,  and  that  a  man  should  go  to  sleep  presenting  his  soul  purified 
to  God. 

Now  before  that  man  says  a  prayer  he  must  wash  himself — he  performs 
his  ablutions.  The  result  is  that  the  intelligent  Mussulman  is  physically  clean. 
It  is  not  optional  with  him  to  take  his  bath  and  perform  his  ablutions 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  ISLAM. 


4G3 


when  he  sees  fit,  but  he  must  do  it  just  before  he  prays.  That  system,  as 
applied  to  the  masses  intelligently,  must  secure  beneficial  results.  There 
are  Mohammedans  who  say  they  do  not  need  to  pray.  The  other  Moham¬ 
medans  say,  “That  is  between  you  and  God;  I  believe  I  must  pray.”  The 
system  is  so  thoroughly  elastic,  so  thoroughly  applicable  to  all  the  needs  of 
humanity,  that  it  seems  tome  it  is  exactly  the  system  that  we  need  in  our 
country,  and  that  is  why  I  am  here,  that  is  why  I  am  in  the  United  States. 

A  gentleman  asked  me  if  we  had  organized  a  mission  in  New  York.  I 
told  him  yes,  but  not  in  the  ordinary  sense;  that  we  simply  wanted  people 
to  study  Islam  and  know  what  it  was.  The  day  of  blind  belief  has  passed 
away.  Intelligent  humanity  wants  a  reason  for  every  belief,  and  I  say  that 
that  spirit  is  commendable  and  should  be  encouraged  wherever  it  goes  and 
that  is  one  of  the  prominent  features  of  the  spirit  of  Islam. 

We  speak  of  using  force,  that  Mohammed  went  with  a  sword  in  one  hand 
and  the  Koran  in  the  other.  I  want  to  show  to  you  to-morrow  that  he  did 
not  do  anything  of  the  sort.  No  man  is  expected  to  believe  anything  that 
is  not  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  reason  and  common  sense. 

There  is  one  particular  spirit  which  is  a  part  of  the  Islamistic  idea  that 
prevails  among  the  Moslems— and  now  I  am  speaking,  not  of  the  lower  classes, 
not  of  the  masses  of  the  Moslems  that  the  missionaries  see  when  they  go 
to  the  East,  but  I  am  speaking  of  the  educated,  intelligent  Moslems,  and 
they  are  the  safest  guides.  No  one  would  expect  me  to  go  into  the  slums 
of  Chicago  to  find  a  reflection  of  the  Christian  religion.  You  can  not 
expect  to  find  it  in  the  character  and  the  acts  and  the  thoughts  of  a  poor, 
ignorant  coolie,  who  can  neither  read  nor  write,  and  who  has  associated 
with  the  most  degraded  characters  all  his  life. 

But  the  spirit  that  prevails  among  the  Moslems  of  the  higher  class  is 
indifference  to  this  world.  This  world  is  a  secondary  consideration,  and 
the  world  beyond  is  the  world  to  strive  tor,  the  life  beyond  is  the  life  that 
has  some  value  to  it.  It  is  worth  devoting  all  our  lives  to  secure  in  that 
life  happiness  and  perfect  bliss.  The  idea  of  paradise  naturally  follows. 
It  is  popularly  believed  that  Mohammed  talked  of  a  paradise  where  beauti¬ 
ful  houris  were  given  to  men,  that  they  led  a  life  of  sensual  joy  and  lux¬ 
ury,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  That  idea  is  no  more  absurd  than  the 
golden  streets  and  pearly  gates  idea  of  the  Christian.  Mohammed  taught 
us  a  spiritual  truth,  he  taught  a  truth  which  every  man  who  knows  any¬ 
thing  of  the  spiritual  side  of  religion  ought  to  know,  and  he  taught  it  in 
a  manner  which  would  most  readily  reach  the  minds  and  hearts  of  his 
hearers. 

The  poor  Arabs  who  lived  in  the  dry,  sandy  desert  looked  upon  broad 
fields  of  green  grass  and  flowing  rivers  and  beautiful  trees  as  a  paradise. 
We  who  are  accustomed,  perhaps,  to  that  sort  of  thing,  some  of  us,  run 
away  with  the  idea,  perhaps,  that  a  golden  street  and  pearly  gates  are 
better  than  that.  His  idea  was  to  show  them  that  they  were  to  secure  a 
perfect  bliss,  and  to  an  Arab,  if  he  could  reach  an  open  field  where  the 
grass  grew  green  under  his  feet  and  the  birds  sang  and  the  trees  bore 
pearls  and  rubies,  and  all  that  sort  of  things,  it  would  be  bliss.  Mind  you, 
Mohammed  never  taught  that,  but  he  is  credited  with  teaching  it,  and  I 
believe  he  taught  something  to  illustrate  this  great  spiritual  truth  that  he 
was  trying  to  force  upon  their  minds,  and  it  has  been  corrupted  into  the 
idea  of  a  garden  full  of  houris. 

The  next  feature  of  the  spirit  of  Islam  is  its  fraternity.  One  of  the 
first  things  that  Mohammed  did  after  being  driven  out  of  Mecca  and 
located  in  Medinah  was  to  encourage  the  formation  of  a  Moslem  brother¬ 
hood,  with  a  perfect  community  of  property,  a  socialistic  idea  impracticable 
in  this  civilization  but  thoroughly  practical  at  that  time.  His  followers 
assembled  around  him  and  contributed  all  they  had.  The  idea  was,  “  Do 
anything  to  help  your  brother;  what  belongs  to  your  brother  belongs  to 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


464 

you,  and  what  belongs  to  you  belongs  to  your  brother.  If  he  need  help, 
help  him.” 

Caste  lines  are  broken  down  entirely.  We  find  on  one  occasion  Omar, 
one  of  the  most  energetic  and  vigorous  of  his  caliphs,  exchanged  with  his 
slave  in  riding  on  the  camel.  The  daughters  of  Mohammed  in  the  house¬ 
hold  would  divide  the  time  grinding  corn  with  the  slaves.  The  idea  was 
taught,  “your  slave  is  your  brother.”  Social  conditions  make  him  your 
slave,  but  he  is  none  the  less  your  brother.  This  idea  of  close  fraternity, 
this  extreme  devotion  to  fraternity,  was  the  cause  of  the  Moslem  triumph 
at  arms.  In  the  later  years,  after  tJie  death  of  Mohammed,  that  idea  was 
paramount  in  every  instance  and  it  was  only  when  that  bond  of  fraternity 
was  broken  that  we  find  the  decadence  of  the  Islamistic  power  in  Spain. 

Readers  of  history  can  very  readily  trace  where  the  first  serpent  made 
its  entry  into  the  Islamistic  social  system,  that  serpent  of  disunion  in  divis¬ 
ion.  We  find  the  Christians  coming  up  on  the  other  side,  closely  knit  in 
the  same  bond  of  brotherhood.  Does  that  bond  of  brotherhood  exist  to-day? 
It  exists  among  the  Mussulmans  of  India.  It  exists  among  the  better  class 
of  Mussulmans  of  Egj’pt  and  Turkey  in  a  degree  that  would  surprise  you. 
I  knew  an  old  man  in  Bombay  who  had  lost  everything  and  was  being 
helped  along  by  his  Mohammedan  brethren.  A  wealthy  man  reputed  to 
be  worth  something  like  half  a  million  or  a  million  and  a  half  dollars  owned 
a  very  beautiful  yacht  and  this  man  went  to  him  and  said:  “I  want  to 
borrow  your  yacht  to  go  fishing.”  “  Certainly;  take  it  whenever  you  want 
it;  it  is  yours.” 

During  my  stay  in  the  East  ever}*  time  I  visited  Bombay,  almost,  that  old 
fellow  would  go  out  fishing.  I  dined  in  the  house  of  a  wealthy  Mussulman 
and  that  same  old  man  came  in.  As  he  entered  the  door  he  said, ‘‘  Peace 
be  with  you.”  A  chair  was  set  for  him  at  the  taole.  We  were  eating  at 
the  table  at  that  time,  in  deference  to  me,  possibly.  Usually  they  eat  upon 
the  floor  in  the  most  primitive  fashion,  and  with  their  fingers,  but  the  bet¬ 
ter  class  of  Mohammedans,  or  rather  those  who  have  acquired  European 
ideas,  eat  with  the  fork  and  knife,  with  glass  furniture  on  the  table,  etc. 
On  that  occasion  we  were  at  the  table  and  this  old  man  was  invited  to  sit 
down  and  take  dinner  with  us.  That  fraternal  idea  impressed  me  more 
deeply,  possibly,  than  anything  else.  I  felt  that  I  was  among  my  brethren, 
and  that  Mussulmans  were  brothers  the  world  over,  and  I  know  that  is  one 
of  the  basic  principles  of  the  system,  and  that  belongs  strictly  to  the  spirit 
of  Islam. 

In  closing,  I  want  to  say  this:  that  there  is  no  system  that  has  been  so 
willfully  and  persistently  misrepresented  as  Islam,  both  by  writers  of 
so-called  historj'  and  by  the  newspaper  press.  There  is  no  character  in  the 
whole  range  of  history  so  little,  so  imperfectly  understood,  as  Mohammed, 
and  I  feel  that  Americans,  as  a  rule,  are  disposed  to  go  to  the  bottom  facts 
and  to  ascertain  really  what  Mohammed  was  and  what  he  did,  and  when 
they  have  done  so  I  feel  that  we  will  have  a  universal  system  which  will 
elevate  our  social  system  at  least  to  the  position  where  it  belongs. 


CHRIST,  THE  SAVIOR  OF  THE  WORLD. 

KEY.  B.  EAY  MILLS  OF  RHODE  ISLAND. 

We  are  all  agreed  that,  in  its  present  condition,  this  is  not  an  ideal 
world.  We  all  believe  that  it  is  not  what  it  is  meant  to  be;  we  all  hope 
that  it  is  not  what  it  is  to  become. 

The  doctrine  of  Christianity  centers  not  in  a  theory  of  morals,  nor  a 
creed,  but  in  a  person.  Christ  is  the  revelation  of  what  God  is  and  of 


CHRIST,  THE  SAVIOR  OF  THE  WORLD. 


465 


what  man  must  become.  He  revealed  the  character  of  God  as  love  suffer- 
iiig  for  the  sins  of  man.  He  showed  the  triumphant  possibility  of  life 
among  the  hardest  human  conditions,  when  lived  in  fellowship  with  God. 
He  taught  one  great  object  lesson  of  trial  and  triumph  that  there  could 
be  no  excuse  for  sin,  and  that  there  would  be  no  escape  from  righteousness. 
His  one  great  mission  and  message  was  that  God  had  “  sent  His  Son  into 
the  world  not  to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world,  through  Him, 
might  be  saved.” 

He  was  Himself  the  revelation  of  all  history  and  mystery  and  proph¬ 
ecy,  concerning  God  and  man,  the  origin  and  destiny  of  the  race.  His 
whole  conception  of  Himself  was  summed  up  in  these  words,  “  Christ,  the 
Savior  of  the  World,”  and  we  get  the  full  thought  of  His  revelation  by 
emphasizing  the  latter  part  of  this  supreme  title  and  realizing  that  He 
came  not  to  save  selected  individuals,  nor  any  chosen  race,  but  to  save  the 
world — that  H's  mission  was  to  save  humanity  in  all  its  relationships,  to 
save  individuals,  indeed,  but  also  to  save  society  and  the  nations. 

If  Christianity  is  not  fitted  and  destined  to  be  the  universal  life  of  man, 
it  is  fitted  for  “  nothing  but  to  be  cast  out  and  to  be  trodden  under  the  feet 
of  men,”  Christ  stands  or  falls  in  connection  with  His  claim  to  be  the  Savior 
of  the  entire  world. 

Whenever  in  the  teachings  of  Christianity  there  has  been  a  limitation 
of  the  extent  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  for  the  saving  of  this  world  from 
out  its  present  conditions  of  bondage  and  sin  in  the  glorious  liberty  of 
redemption,  there  has  come  a  deadly  paralysis  of  His  spirit  and  of  the  prog¬ 
ress  of  His  kingdom. 

There  is  a  very  real  sense  in  which  it  was  not  necessary  for  Christ  to 
come  into  the  world  in  order  that  individuals  might  become  acquainted 
with  God. 

In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word 
was  God. 

The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God. 

All  thintis  were  made  by  Him,  and  without  Him  was  not  anything  made 
that  hath  been  made. 

There  was  the  true  light,  even  the  light  which  lighteth  every  man  coming 
into  the  world. 

He  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  was  made  by  Him,  and  the  world  knew 
Him  not. 

But  as  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He  the  right  to  become  children 
of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  His  name, 

“The  true  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,” 
was  shining  in  darkness  for  all  the  ages  before  the  shepherds  heard  the 
angel  song,  and  “  as  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He  the  power  to 
become  the  sons  of  God.”  And  then  the  “Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us  and  we  beheld  His  glory,  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten  of  the 
Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth.” 

The  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  annals  of  all  nations  teach 
us  that  “there  never  was  a  time  when  a  penitent  and  consecrated  soul 
might  not  walk  with  God.”  Enoch  “walked  with  God,”  “and  before  his 
translation  he  had  his  testimony  that  he  pleased  God”’  Abraham  was 
called  “the  friend  of  God.”  Moses  was  called  “the  man  of  God.”  Soc¬ 
rates  was,  in  his  true  light,  a  true  prophet  of  the  Most  High  and  a 
forerunner  of  Jesus  Of  Nazareth. 

But  the  mission  of  Christ  was  to  save  the  world  itself.  As  a  recent 
writer  has  well  said,  it  is  a  deadly  mistake  to  suppose  that  “  Christ  simply 
came  to  rescue  as  many  as  possible  out  of  the  wretched  and  sinking  world.” 

He  came  to  give  the  church  a  “commission  that  includes  the  saving  of 
the  wreck  itself,  the  question  of  its  confusion  and  struggle,  the  relief  of  its 
wretchedness,  a  deliverance  from  its  destruction.”  This  certainly  was  His 
own  conception  of  His  mission  upon  earth. 

The  first  annunciation  by  his  immediate  forerunner,  when  he  stood  in 


46G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


his  presence,  was:  “  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sins 
of  the  world.”  He  said  of  Himself,  “  For  the  bread  of  God  is  He  which 
cometh  down  from  heaven  and  giveth  life  unto  the  world.”  “  I  am  the 
living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven;  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread, 
he  shall  live  forever;  and  the  bread  that  I  will  give  him  is  my  flesh,  which 
I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world.”  He  said  to  His  followers;  “In  the 
world  ye  shall  have  tribulation,  but  be  of  good  cheer;  I  have  overcome  the 
world.” 

The  mission  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Savior  of  the  world  may  be  expressed, 
as  has  already  been  suggested,  in  four  conceptions. 

1.  He  has  a  new  and  complete  revelation  of  God’s  eternal  suffering  for 
the  redemption  of  humanity.  He  showed  that  God  was  jjure  and  unselfish 
and  meek  and  forgiving,  and  that  He  had  always  been  suffering  for  the  sins 
of  men.  “God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto  Himself.”  He 
revealed  the  meaning  of  forgiveness  and  of  deliverance  from  sin. 

A  popular  writer  has  suggested  to  us  the  vast  distinction  between  indif 
ference  to  sin  and  its  forgiveness,  which  may  well  be  illustrated  by  the 
experience  of  an  individual  in  forgiving  injury  against  himself.  Resent 
ment  against  sin  is  a  far  higher  experience  than  that  of  indifference  to  it, 
but  there  is  something  far  better  than  either,  and  that  is  to  realize  the 
enormity  of  the  transgressor  at  its  very  worst,  and  then  to  let  resentment 
be  destroyed  and  a  self-sacrificing  love  till  the  place  that  had  been  occupied 
by  the  resentment. 

It  would  be  better  for  God  to  hate  sin  than  to  tolerate  it;  it  would  have 
been  better  to  punish  the  most  trivial  sin  of  the  most  thoughtless  sinner 
with  all  the  excruciating  tortures  of  the  most  terrible  unending  hell  con¬ 
ceived  by  the  imagination  of  man;  but  it  was  infinitely  better  to  take  up 
into  His  own  pure  heart  the  blackest  and  deadliest  sin  of  the  lowest  sinner, 
who  should  be  willing  to  forsake  it  and  return  to  God,  and  there  let  it  be 
forever  blotted  out;  to  bind  it  upon  the  bleeding  Lamb  of  God,  and  let  Him 
bear  it  away,  as  far  as  the  east  is  from  the  west,  into  God’s  eternal  forget¬ 
fulness  of  love. 

A  tender-spirited  follower  of  Jesus  Christ  said  to  me  not  long  ago  that 
it  had  taken  him  twelve  years  to  forgive  an  injury  that  had  been  committed 
against  him;  and  God’s  forgiveness  of  sin  means  something  infinite  in  con¬ 
trast  to  His  being  able  to  look  at  it  with  indifference,  and  something  even 
infinitely  beyond  the  mere  destruction  of  its  grasp  on  man  and  his  deliver¬ 
ance  from  its  penalty  and  power.  It  meant  the  realizing  of  it  in  God’s  own 
soul  in  all  its  foul  hideousness  and  deadly  strength,  and  the  consuming  it 
in  the  fires  of  his  infinite  love,  “  He  was  made  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin, 
that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Him.” 

It  has  been  costing  God  to  forgive  sin,  all  that  it  had  cost  man  to  bear 
it  and  more.  This  had  to  be  in  God’s  thought  liefore  He  made  the  world. 
In  the  words  of  a  modern  prophet,  “The  cross  of  Christ  indicates  the  cost, 
and  is  the  pledge  of  God's  eternal  friendship  for  man.”  Jesus  Christ  came 
to  show  us  what  God  was.  He  was  in  no  sense  a  shield  for  us  from  the 
wrath  of  God,  but  “  was  the  effulgence  of  God’s  glory  and  the  very  image 
of  his  substance.”  He  said  to  one  of  His  disciples,  “He  that  hath  seen  Me 
hath  seen  the  Father.”  The  heart  of  His  teaching  was  “  God  so  loved  the 
world,  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  son.”  He  taught,  not  that  He  had 
come  to  reconcile  God  unto  the  world,  but  that  “God  was  in  Christ  recon¬ 
ciling  the  world  unto  Himself.”  He  said  of  His  Father,  “I  delight  to  do  Thy 
will,  O  God,  Thy  law  is  written  on  my  heart.”  He  said  in  His  prayer  to  His 
Father,  “  I  have  declared  Thy  name  unto  them;  yea,  and  I  will  declare  it.  I 
have  glorified  Thee  on  the  earth,  I  have  finished  the  work.” 

He  came  to  show  us  that  the  world  had  never  belonged  to  the  powers  of 
evil,  but  that,  in  His  original  thought,  God  had  decided  that  a  moral  world 
should  be  created,  and  that  in  this  decision,  which  gave  to  humanity  the 


CHRIST,  THE  SAVIOR  OF  THE  WORLD. 


467 


choice  of  good  and  evil,  He  had  to  take  upon  Himself  infinite  suffering 
until  the  world  should  be  brought  back  to  Him.  The  redemxjtion  of  the 
world  by  Christ  is  a  part  of  the  creation  of  the  world  for  Christ.  The  cry 
upon  the  cross,  “My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsakeh  Me?”  was  the 
exhibition  of  what  had  been  in  the  heart  of  God  through  the  ages  of  the 
world,  and  was  God’s  eternal  cry  of  self-renunciation  as  He  forsook  Himself 
in  order  that  He  might  forgive  us. 

The  Son  of  God  was  “  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.” 
He  was  “  fore-ordained  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  but  was  mani¬ 
fested  in  these  last  times  for  us.”  Our  hope  of  eternal  life  was  promised 
by  “  God,  that  can  not  lie,  before  the  world  began,”  and  “  God  hath  saved 
us  and  called  us  with  an  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but 
according  to  His  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus 
before  the  world  began.” 

This  is  a  prodigal  world,  and  the  Father’s  eyes  have  been  looking 
through  the  centuries  until  He  should  see  it  coming  to  Him  from  the 
far-off  country  to  have  its  stripes  healed  with  His  love,  its  weakness  made 
strength  with  His  self-sacrificing  power,  its  hunger  appeased  unto  fullness 
in  the  banqueting  house  of  love,  the  new  robes  placed  upon  it,  the  dead 
made  alive  again,  and  the  lost  forever  found. 

Our  second  thought,  concerning  the  mission  of  Jesus,  is  that  His  life 
was  the  expression  of  the  origin  and  destiny  of  man.  We  are  told  that 
Adam  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  and  if  he  had  been  an  obedient 
child,  it  may  have  been  that  he  would  have  grown  up  to  be  a  full-grown 
son  of  the  Eternal,  but  he  sold  his  birthright  for  a  mess  of  pottage.  The 
second  Adam  was  the  son  of  man,  revealing  to  us  that  the  perfect  man 
differs  in  no  respect  from  the  perfect  God.  He  was  God.  He  became  man 
— not  a  man,  but  man.  He  was  God  and  man,  not  two  persons  in  one 
existence,  but  revealing  the  identity  of  man  and  God,  when  man  should 
have  attained  unto  the  place  that  he  had  always  occupied  in  the  eternal 
thought. 

The  marvelous  counterpart  of  this  revelation  is  that  when  God  shall 
have  perfected  His  thought  concerning  us,  that  man  shall  have  to  become 
in  all  things  like  unto  Jesus  Christ.  Maniel  says  that  all  depends  on 
whether  we  consider  the  first  or  second  Adam  the  head  of  the  human  race. 
“  I  would  have  you  know,”  says  the  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  “  tfiat  the 
head  of  every  man  is  Christ.” 

Jesus  says:  “I  know  whence  I  came  and  whither  I  go,”  and  he  thereby 
indicates  that  there  is,  in  another’s  words,  “  no  power  to  come  forth  out 
from  the  beginning  or  the  end,  from  the  first  to  the  last,  with  intimation 
of  force  or  fear,  that  can  claim  subjection  from  man  or  assert  dominion 
over  him,  or  can  effect  the  subversion  of  the  love  that  is  at  the  source  and 
center  of  all  things,  or  the  disruption  of  the  unity  that  is  in  the  will  of 
God,  that  is  manifesting  itself  in  the  reconciliation  of  all  things. 

Christ  says:  “I  am  the  first  and  the  last,  the  beginning  and  the  ending, 
I  am  He  that  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come.”  The  blood  of  the  world  was 
jjoisoned  and  needed  an  infusion  of  purity  for  the  correction  of  its  standards 
and  bestowal  of  desire  and  power  to  attain  unto  its  high  possibility.  This 
was  a  partial  object  and  result  of  the  mission  of  Christ.  “  He  was  tempted 
in  all  points  like  as  we  are,  ye  without  sin.”  He  said  that  His  own  body 
was  the  temple  of  God,  and  he  taught  his  followers  that  they  too  were 
to  become  temples  of  the  living  God  in  which  God  should  meet  with  man. 

He  showed  that  the  destiny  of  man  was  to  be  one  with  God,  and  that 
infinite  misery  would  be  the  result  of  the  avoidance  of  this  great  oppor¬ 
tunity,  and  that  God  would  count  nothing  “  dear  to  Himself  or  to  man  that 
this  might  be  accomplished.’"  “  Other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that 
which  is  laid;  which  is  Christ  Jesus.” 


468 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Under  the  pride  and  vanity  of  the  nation;  under  the  scheming  and  frivol¬ 
ity  and  dishonesty  and  self-will  of  those  who  sit  in  high  places  in  the 
earth;  under  the  disregard  of  the  law  of  love  by  the  social,  commercial, 
and  industrial  organizations  of  the  day;  under  every  disobedience  of  the 
domestic  and  individual  life,  is  the  eternal  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ, 
striving  for  manifestation  and  “straitened  until  its  baptism  is  accom¬ 
plished.” 

The  third  great  thought  in  connection  with  the  salvation  of  Jesus  Christ 
is  that,  through  the  completeness  of  His  redemption,  there  is  no  necessity 
nor  reason  for  any  form  of  sin  in  the  individual. 

For  ye  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  His  death,  we  shall  be 
also  in  the  likeness  of  His  resurrection.  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  cru¬ 
cified  with  Him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  bo  destroyed  that  henceforth  we 
shall  not  serve  sin.  Now  if  we  he  dead  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also 
live  with  Him.  Knowing  that  Christ,  being  raised  from  the  dead,  dieHi  no  more; 
death  hath  no  dominion  over  Him.  For  in  that  He  died,  He  died  unto  sin  once: 
but  in  that  Helivetb,  He  livethunto  God.  Likewise,  reckon  ye  also  yourselves 
to  be  (lead  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  body,  that  ye  should  obey  in  the 
lusts  thereof. 

Neither  yield  ye  your  members  as  instruments  of  unrighteousness  unto 
sin  But  yield  yourselves  unto  God,  as  those  that  are  alive  from  the  dead, 
and  your  members  as  instruments  of  righteousness  unto  God. 

For  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you;  for  ye  are  not  under  the  law, 
but  under  grace. 

A  great  preacher  has  toM  us  that  Christ  is  able  to  save  “  unto  the  utter¬ 
most  ends  of  the  earth,  to  the  uttermost  limits  of  time,  to  the  uttermost 
period  of  life,  to  the  uttermost  length  of  depravity,  to  the  uttermost  depth 
of  misery,  and  to  the  uttermost  measure  of  perfection.” 

The  Quaker  poet  has  beautifully  written: 

Through  all  the  depths  of  sin  and  loss. 

Drops  the  plummet  of  the  cross. 

Never  yet  abyss  was  found. 

Deeper  than  the  cross  could  sound. 

Paul  says,  “  If  any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  creature.  Old  things 
have  passed  away.  Behold,  all  things  have  become  new.” 

It  is  when  the  soul  is  willing  to  say,  “  He  was  wounded  for  my  trans¬ 
gressions,”  that  he  is  in  a  position  to  realize  that  if  he  will  surrender  him¬ 
self  unto  the  cross  of  Jesus  and  to  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  the  power  of 
death  and  hell  over  him  shall  have  forever  been  broken,  and  he  may  live  a 
life  of  freedom  in  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  way  of  salvation  for  the  individual  through  Christ  is  the  knowledge 
of  the  love  of  God  making  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  world;  the  discern¬ 
ing,  the  only  real  principle  of  power,  in  losing  the  life  in  order  to  save  it, 
and  the  glad  forsaking  of  all  things  to  become  His  disciple  and  to  “  fill  up 
that  which  is  behind  of  the  affections  of  Christ  for  His  body’s  sake.” 

It  is  here  that  the  teaching  and  the  life  of  Jesus  are  in  glorious  unity. 
The  cross  is  not  one  thing  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  another.  The 
kingdom  which  the  Prince  of  Peace  came  to  establish  on  earth  had  for  its 
constitution  those  vital  words  which  may  be  expressed  by  the  one  word, 
love. 

God  was  “  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,”  and  the  bitterest  drop  in 
the  dregs  of  the  unrepentant  sinner’s  cup  of  woe  will  be  that  it  is  utterly 
needless, and  worse  than  needless,  because  of  the  redemption  of  the  world 
through  Jesus  Christ. 

But  if  a  man  “sin  willfully  after  that  he  hath  received  1  he  knowledge 
of  the  truth  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin;”  and  to-day,  in  view 
of  the  infinite  love  and  purpose  of  God,  and  the  great  possibility  and  des¬ 
tiny  of  man,  I  do  “  beseech  you,  that  you  receive  not  the  grace  of  God  in 
vain.” 


CHRIST,  THE  SAVIOR  OF  THE  WORLD. 


460 


The  last  thought  concerning  the  salvation  of  the  world  through  Jesus 
Christ  is  that  the  loving  righteousness  of  God  must  be  finally  triumphant. 
We  can  not  conceive  of  a  heaven  in  which  man  should  not  be  a  moral  being, 
and  free  to  choose  good  or  evil,  as  he  is  upon  this  earth;  and  the  joy  of 
heaven  will  consist  largely  in  that  glad  fixity  of  will  that  shall  eternally  lose 
itself  in  God. 

But  what  a  terrible  conception  comes  to  us  of  the  lost  world,  when  we 
conceive  ourselves,  in  spite  of  all  the  loving  kindness  and  sacrifice  of  the 
eternal  God,  as  still  choosing  to  go  on  in  sin,  determining  to  resist  His  love, 
conscious  of  it,  and  yet  without  the  power  to  escape  it,  saying:  “If  I  make 
my  bed  in  hell,  behold  Thou  art  there,”  and  yet  choosing  through  the  ages 
and  ages  to  turn  away  from  the  righteousness  of  God,  and  to  pursue  a  life 
of  indifference  and  sin. 

Though  God  be  good  and  free  be  heaven. 

No  force  can  love  compel; 

And  though  the  songs  of  sin  forgiven 
Might  sound  through  lowest  hell; 

The  sweet  persuasion  of  His  voice 
Respects  thy  sanctity  of  will, 

He  giveth  day.  Thou  hast  thy  choice 
To  walk  in  darkness  still. 

No  hell  can  extinguish  the  righteousness  of  God,  and  no  flames  consume 
His  love,  which  is  the  manifestation  of  His  righteousness  and  must  pursue 
all  unrighteousness  in  every  sinner  with  a  “  worm  that  dieth  and  a  fire  that 
is  not  quenched.”  “  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living 
God.  For  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire.” 

And  as  for  our  conception  of  heaven,  when  the  world  shall  obey  Jesus 
Christ  and  when  all  those  who  have  surrendered  unto  His  heart  of  love 
and  have  been  working  with  Him  throughout  the  eons,  in  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  righteousness,  shall  be  with  Him  in  the  new  earth,  no  other  heaven 
can  be  imagined.  The  redeemed  earth  shall  be  at  least  a  part  of  heaven, 
and  the  city  which  John  saw,  the  new  Jerusalem  descending  out  of  heaven 
from  God,  shall  be  established. 

The  tabernacle  of  God  shall  be  with  men  and  He  will  dwell  with  them,  and 
they  shall  be  His  people,  and  God  Himself  shall  be  with  them  and  be  their 
God.  And  He  shall  wipe  away  every  tear  from  their  eyes  and  there  shall  be  no 
more  death,  neither  sorrow  nor  crying,  neither  shall  there  be  any  more  pain, 
for  the  former  things  are  passed  away. 

This  must  be  the  end  of  the  atonement  of  the  life  and  the  death  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  keeping  of  His  commandments,  which  are  all  summed 
up  in  the  great  name  of  God,  which  is  love. 

With  shame  I  confess  that  all  the  disciples  naming  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  have  not  fully  done  His  will  in  His  spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  and  indeed 
have  sometimes  scarcely  seemed  to  apprehend  it.  If  we  had,  it  is  my 
honest  conviction,  that  we  could  not  be  gathered  here  to-day  as  a  “  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  Religions,”  but  that  we  would  all  be  praising  God  together  for  His 
wonderful  salvation  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

We  have  already  in  this  parliament  been  rebuked  by  India  and  Japan 
with  the  charge  that  Christians  do  not  practice  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  If 
China  has  not  been  heard  from  in  words  of  even  keener  censure  it  has  not 
been  because  she  has  not  had  good  cause,  as  she  thinks  of  the  opium  curse 
forced  upon  her  by  the  laws  of  Christian  England  and  of  the  action  of  the 
corrupt  legislatures  and  congresses  and  presidents  who  have  enacted  or 
stood  by  and  consented  to  the  enacting  of  the  unjust,  selfish,  unreasonable, 
inhuman,  unchristian,  and  barbaric  anti-Chinese  laws  of  these  Christian 
United  States. 

I  might  reply  by  pointing  to  our  hospital  walls  and  college  towers  and 
myriad  missionaries  of  mercy,  but  I  forbear.  We  have  done  something, 
but  with  shame  and  tears  I  say  it — as  kingdoms  and  empires^nd  republics, 


470 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


as  states  and  municipalities,  and  in  our  commercial  and  industrial  organ¬ 
izations,  and  even,  in  a  large  measure,  as  an  organized  church,  we  have  not 
been  practicing  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  he  said  them  and  meant  them, 
as  the  earliest  disciples  understood  and  practiced  them,  and  as  we  must 
again  submit  to  them,  if  we  are  to  be  the  winners  of  the  world  for  Jesus 
Christ. 

It  is  no  excuse  to  say  that  with  Christians  the  nation  is  not  the  church. 
That  is  a  still  further  confession  of  comparative  failure  for,  in  so  far  as  the 
Christian  church  and  Christian  state  are  not  coincident,  the  church  has 
come  short  of  the  command  of  the  Master:  “  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  disci- 
jjle  all  nations,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you.” 

One  of  the  local  papers  said  the  other  day  that  perhaps  the  non-Chris¬ 
tian  delegates  to  this  parliament  might  be  converted  to  Christianity  if 
they  could  be  taken  about  Chicago  blindfolded. 

There  have  been  and  are  to-day  in  every  Christian  community  white- 
souled  saints  of  God,  who  are  following  “the  Lamb  whithersoever  He 
goeth  ”  and  bearing  His  cross  after  Him,  but  let  us  be  willing  to  say 
plainly,  although  with  shame,  that  while  we  have  in  the  life  and  death  and 
resurrections  and  teachings  of  Christ  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
the  complete  remedy  for  all  the  ills  of  individuals  and  nations,  we  have 
lacked  the  power  of  conquest  because  organized  Christianity  has  been 
saying,  “  Lord,  Lord,”  to  her  Master,  and,  as  regards  politics  and  society 
and  property  and  industry,  has  not  been  doing  the  things  that  he  said. 

Benjamin  Franklin  said  that  a  generation  of  followers  of  Jesus,  who 
practiced  his  teachings,  would  change  the  face  of  the  earth.  And  it  is 
true.  When  evil  shall  go  forth  with  its  deadly  poison  ready  for  dissemina¬ 
tion,  and  find  Christians  who  are  meek  and  merciful  and  poor  in  spirit 
and  pure  in  heart,  and  who  count  it  all  joy  to  be  persecuted  for  righteous¬ 
ness’  sake;  when  it  shall  dart  its  venomed  tongue  at  men  and  women  who 
“  resist  not  evil,”  who  “  give  to  him  that  asketh,”  and  from  the  borrower  do 
not  turn  away;  who  “  being  struck  upon  one  cheek  turn  the  other  also;” 
who  love  their  enemies,  bless  those  that  curse  them,  do  good  to  them  that 
hate  them,  and  pray  for  them  that  despitefully  use  them  and  persecute 
them,  who  forgive  their  debtors  because  God  has  forgiven  them;  then 
shall  the  old  serpent  find  no  blood  that  shall  be  responsive  to  his  poisonous 
touch,  and  shall  sting  himself  unto  the  death,  even  as  he  did  under  that 
other  cross  which  he  looked  upon  as  the  token  of  the  impotence  of 
righteousness,  but  which  was  the  wisdom  and  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation  and  the  prophecy  of  the  triumph  of  eternal  love. 

And  this  I  will  say:  That  our  brethren  from  across  the  sea  have  said 
all  we  need  ask  them  to  say,  when,  instead  of  attacking  the  life  and  teach¬ 
ings  of  Jesus,  they  show  that  we  fail  only  because  we  may  have  said  “  Lord, 
Lord,”  and  not  done  the  things  that  He  said.  And  this  also  I  say:  That 
the  only  hope  of  Asia,  as  of  America  and  of  Africa,  as  of  Europe,  is  in  the 
love  of  God,  and  the  establishment  of  His  Universal  Kingdom  of  Peace 
which  must  be  set  up  on  earth  and  which  shall  have  no  end. 

This,  my  brothers,  is  all  that  must,  is  all  that  can  endure — it  is  the 
teaching  of  teachings  and  the  inspiration  of  inspirations  for  the  sons  of 
men. 

It  is  of  universal  application.  Jesus  was  born  in  the  East  and  has  gained 
His  greatest  present  triumphs  in  the  West.  When  men  shall  have  begun 
again  to  practice  the  teachings  of  Jesus  in  every  walk  and  relationship  of 
life,  then  there  will  be  no  social  enigmas  unsolved  and  no  political  ques¬ 
tions  unanswered;  but  men  shall  be  in  union  with  God  and  at  peace  with 
one  another;  and  heaven  and  earth  shall  be  one  in  the  creation  of  the  “new 
earth  whereijn  dwelleth  righteousness.” 

And  there  are  indications  of  such  a  triumph  now.  Every  language  may 


RECONCILIATION  VITAL,  NOT  VICARIOUS. 


471 


be  translated  into  every  other  tongue  of  man.  The  last  religion  of  the 
world  has  been  investigated  and  its  teachings  are  open  to  the  eyes  of  all. 
God  to-day  looks  down  on  such  a  spectacle  of  sincere  desire  and  of  honest 
purpose  to  know  the  truth  as  the  groaning  and  travailing  creation  has 
never  before  seen,  and  the  only  solution  of  all  the  questionings  and  differ¬ 
ences  and  hopes  of  men  must  be  in  the  principles  of  the  ruler  of  the  king¬ 
dom  of  God:  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  and 
with  all  thy  soul  and  with  all  thy  mind  and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself.” 

No  message  of  love  to  God  and  man  has  ever  been  in  vain.  No  love  of 
man  or  God  has  ever  perished  from  the  universe;  no  life  of  love  has  ever 
been  or  ever  can  be  lost.  This  is  the  only  infinite  and  only  eternal  message; 
and  this  is  the  reason  why  the  mission  and  message  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
must  abide.  This  is  the  reason  that  the  life  of  Jesus  is  eternal  and  that  all 
things  must  be  subdued  unto  Him:  for  “Love  never  faileth;  but  whether 
there  will  be  prophecies,  they  shall  be  done  away;  whether  there  be 
tongues,  they  shall  cease;  whether  there  be  knowledge,  it  shall  be  done 
away.  For  we  know  in  part,  and  we  prophesy  in  part ;  but  when  that 
which  is  perfect  is  come,  that  which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away.  For 
now  we  see  in  a  mirror  darkly,  but  then  face  to  face;  now  we  know  in  part, 
but  then  shall  we  know  even  as  also  we  are  known.” 

* 

For  lo  the  days  are  hastening  on 
By  prophet  bards  foretold. 

When,  with  the  ever-circling  years. 

Comes  round  the  age  of  gold. 

When  peace  shall,  over  all  the  earth. 

Its  ancient  splendor  fling, 

And  the  whole  world  give  back  the  song 
Which  now  the  angels  sing. 

And  when,  at  last,  we  shall  clearly  know  what  we  now  dimly  see  in 
Jesus  Christ,  that  “  Love  is  righteousness  in  action”;  that  mercy  is  the 
necessary  instrument  of  justice,  that  “  good  has  been  the  final  goal  of  ill  ”; 
and  that  through  testing,  innocence  must  have  been  glorified  into  virtue; 
when  we  shall  see  that  God  is  love  and  law  is  gospel,  and  sin  has  been 
transformed  into  righteousness— then  shall  we  also  see  that  “  there  is  one 
body  and  one  spirit,  even  as  also  we  were  called  in  one  hope  of  our  calling: 
one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God,  and  father  of  all,  who  is  over 
all  and  through  all  and  in  all.”  Then  shall  we  see  “  that  unto  each  one  of 
us  was  this  grace  given  according  to  the  measure  of  the  gift  of  Christ,  and 
we  shall  all  attain  unto  the  unity  of  the  faith  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
Son  of  God;  unto  a  full-grown  man;  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the 
fullness  of  Christ,”  and  “  Every  kindred,  every  tribe,  on  this  terrestrial  ball, 
to  Him  all  majesty  ascribe  and  crown  Him  lord  of  all.” 


RECONCILIATION  VITAL,  NOT  VICARIOUS. 

REV.  THEODORE  F.  WRIGHT. 

There  are  certain  dicta  of  scripture  which  are  universal  because  funda¬ 
mental  and  fundamental  because  universal.  One  of  these  is  that  saying 
of  the  Apostle  John,  “God  is  love,  and  he  that  dwelleth  in  love  dwelleth  in 
God  and  God  in  him.”  Once  of  sympathies  so  nairow  that  he  was  for 
bringing  fire  from  heaven  down  upon  a  village  which  would  not  receive  his 
Lord  as  He  journeyed,  he  was  now  so  tenderly  conscious  of  the  infinite  love 
W'hich  had  sought  him  out  and  gathered  him,  that  ho  could  say:  “  He  that 
loveth  not  knoweth  not  God,  for  God  is  love;  beloved,  if  God  so  love  us,  we 
also  ought  to  love  one  another.” 


472 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


John  had  attained  to  this  conviction  by  the  process  of  religious 
experience.  Others  have  seen  the  same  infinite  fact  written  in  vernal  fields 
and  ripening  harvests.  Others  find  it  in  the  intricate  harmony  of  natural 
forces.  They  all  see  that  there  is  as  the  center  and  source  of  life  a  fount¬ 
ain  of  fatherliness  which  is  even  begetting  and  nurturing,  so  that,  indeed, 
we  can  not  conceive  of  the  idle  God,  the  neglectful  God,  or  the  God  of 
limited  interests.  Our  minds  will  not  work  until  we  place  before  them  the 
ever-creating  God  who  neither  slumbers  nor  sleeps;  the  ever-preseni  help. 
‘‘  Peradventure  He  sleepeth  ”  might  be  said  of  Baal,  for  there  was  no 
answer;  but  when  Elijah  called  on  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of 
Israel,  “  the  fire  of  the  Lord  fell.” 

It  is  in  the  light  of  this  fact  of  the  universal  divine  love  that  the  fallen 
condition  of  man  finds  its  remedy  disclosed.  There  may  have  been  a  time 
when  this  light  was  so  dim  that  Judaism  fancied  its  God  a  partisan,  and  a 
regressive  Christianity  thought  that  it  had  ascertained  the  limits  of  the 
divine  care,  but  now  we  know  that  God  is  one,  and  that  “  His  tender  mer¬ 
cies  are  over  all  His  work.”  This  being  so,  it  is  true  to  say  that  fallen  man 
was  succored  by  the  same  love  that  created  him.  The  father  of  the  prodi¬ 
gal  does  not  sulk  in  his  tent  while  some  elder  brother  is  left  to  search  out 
the  wanderer  and  bring  him  in,  pointing  to  the  wounds  he  got  in  rescuing 
him  as  a  means  of  softening  the  heart  of  the  father;  nay,  the  father  watches 
the  pathway  with  longings,  and  sends  his  love  after  the  boy,  and  when  the 
wayward  one  is  yet  a  great  way  off,  he  sees,  he  hath  compassion,  he  runs, 
he  falls  on  his  neck,  he  kisses  him,  he  bids  them  bring  the  robe,  the  ring, 
the  shoes,  the  fatted  calf,  he  reproves  the  cold  vindictiveness  of  the  elder 
brother,  he  is  all  shepherd-like. 

We  need  not  dogmatize  as  to  the  fallen  state  of  man.  Intellectually, 
man  has  not  fallen.  He  is  as  bright  as  he  ever  was.  He  is  growing  brighter. 
The  evolution  of  the  intellect  is  indisputable.  But  as  to  the  will,  what  is 
man?  Is  he  the  worshiping  child  tliat  he  once  was?  Does  he  eagerly  do 
the  truth  he  learns  or  does  he  find  it  necessary  to  compel  himself  to  do  it? 
There  is  a  degree  of  ignorance,  of  illiteracy,  but  it  is  easy  to  find  a  remedy 
for  it  in  the  common  school.  There  is  on  every  side  a  spectacle  of  lust  and 
greed  and  indolence  and  selfishness,  and  our  schools  touch  it  not.  We  are 
making  men  shrewd,  but  we  are  not  making  them  good.  The  human  mind 
wants  reaching  in  its  depths.  The  motives  behind  our  thinking  want 
renewal,  else  mind  life  is  like  John  Randolph’s  mackerel  in  the  moonlight, 
which  stank  as  it  shone.  So  was  man  in  the  sad  days  of  Roman  sensuality 
and  Jewish  hypocrisy,  and  so  do  our  daily  chronicles  testify  to-day. 

The  cure  for  the  lost  sheep  is  to  seek  for  it  till  it  is  found.  “All  we  like 
sheep  have  gone  astray;  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way.”  (Is.  liii. 
6.)  The  question  is:  How  should  the  Divine  Lord  accomplish  the  purpose 
with  which  it  mu,st  be  teeming — the  recovery  of  the  last  state?  Our  answer 
is  in  general  to  say  that  the  remedy  was  within  the  keeping  of  the  infinite 
love  and  wisdom  which  had  so  far  made  and  conducted  man,  or  we  must 
hold  some  view  which  limits  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  If  God  would  come 
with  any  mercy  He  must  descend  to  the  place  of  the  fallen.  If  He  would 
conquer  the  evil  without  destroying  them,  He  must  contend  with  them  on 
their  own  plane.  To  take  upon  Himself  the  nature  born  of  woman  would 
be  His  means  of  redemption,  He  must  take  on  the  office  of  Joshua,  who 
led  the  people  out  of  the  wilderness  into  their  inheritance.  And  a  virgin 
conceived  and  bore  a  son,  and  called  His  name  Jesus— that  is  Joshua.  The 
Wisdom  or  Word  of  God  was  made  flesh  so  that  we  behold  the  glory  of  the 
Father.  It  was  the  Father  in  the  Son  who  did  the  works. 

How  marvelously  clear  are  the  prophetic  songs  of  Mary  and  Zacharias! 
She  said:  “  My  spirit  hath  rejoiced  in  God,  my  Savior.  He  hath  showed 
strength  with  His  arm.  He  hath  holpen  His  servant,  Israel,  in  remem¬ 
brance  of  His  mercy,  as  He  spake  to  our  fathers.”  And  the  father  of  the 


RECONCILIATION  VITAL,  NOT  VICARIOUS. 


473 


forerunner  said:  “  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  for  He  hath  visited 
and  redeemed  His  people;  that  we,  being  delivered  out  of  the  hands  of  our 
enemies,  might  serve  Him  without  fear  all  the  days  of  our  life;  the  day¬ 
spring  from  on  high  hath  visited  us,  to  give  light  to  them  that  sit  in  dark¬ 
ness  and  the  shadow  of  death,  to  guide  our  feet  in  the  way  of  peace.” 
Therefore  John  the  Baptist  proclaimed  Him  as  the  “  Lamb  of  God  that 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,”  and  therefore  He  bade  His  hearers  pre¬ 
pare  the  way  of  Jehovah  and  make  strait  His  path. 

Born  of  woman,  and  so  open  to  every  temptation,  He  was  early  led  to 
find  the  written  word.  His  light  of  life.  He  went  about  his  Father’s  busi¬ 
ness  by  expounding  it.  Tried  in  the  wilderness,  he  made  no  other  answer 
than  the  law.  Going  about  doing  good.  He  healed  the  sick  and  gave  sight 
to  the  blind  and  brought  good  tidings  to  the  meek.  At  Jerusalem  he 
cleansed  the  temple  of  its  corruption  even  as  he  was  daily  rendering  His 
own  nature  the  temple  of  God.  The  inevitable  conflict  was  not  shunned. 
The  perceived  unfaithfulness  of  many  did  not  provoke  a  word  of  resent¬ 
ment.  The  attempts  of  habitual  sinners  of  this  world  and  the  other  to 
overthrow  him  failed  again  and  again,  but  it  was  inevitable  that  there 
must  be  a  last  and  most  direful  assault.  He  foresaw  it,  but  behold  the 
conduct  of  inflnite  love.  He  bathed  His  disciples’  feet  in  order  to  teach 
them  the  new  commandment  of  love  to  one  another.  He  bade  them  be 
not  troubled,  and  spoke  of  the  peace  He  had  to  give  to  them.  He  chas¬ 
tened  Himself  in  the  garden.  On  His  way  to  the  cross  He  asked  them  to 
weep  rather  for  themselves  than  for  Him.  He  gave  the  mother  a  son  to 
care  for  her  old  age.  To  perjured  Peter  His  answer  had  been  but  a  look. 
To  the  false  accusations  He  had  been  dumb.  For  His  love  they  were  His 
adversaries,  but  He  gave  Himself  unto  prayer. 

Rising  again  He  came  with  indescribable  gentleness  to  the  recognition 
of  Mary  Magdalene.  To  the  two  discouraged  disciples  He  was  all  patience. 
To  doubting  Thomas  He  was  infinitely  condescending.  As  He  stood  there 
for  the  time  made  visible  to  their  spiritual  sight,  having  entered  where  the 
doors  were  shut.  He  was  the  embodiment  of  prophecy  fulfilled,  of  divine 
love  triumphant.  He  was.  He  is  “  our  Lord  and  our  God,”  “  the  bright¬ 
ness  of  His  glory,  the  express  image  of  His  person.” 

This  is  no  merely  vicarious  act  of  a  subordinate  or  additional  person  of 
God.  It  was  the  act  of  God  Himself  to  restore  the  vital  union  between 
man  and  Himself,  that  union  which  man  had  severed  by  increasing  self- 
assertion,  waywardness,  and  wickedness,  and  which  could  only  be  renewed 
by  contrition  and  return  and  reconciliation.  In  the  case  of  the  man 
healed  of  his  blindness  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  John  we  have  first  the  evil 
condition,  then  the  remedy  offered,  next  the  remedy  accepted;  at  once  the 
cure  effected,  and  Anally  a  vital  union  of  safety  for  him  established  with 
the  Lord,  as  shown  by  his  saying,  “Lord,  I  believe,”  and  by  his  worshiping 
Him.  In  more  difficult  cases,  as  we  know  by  some  experience,  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  remedy  may  be  cold  and  unfruitful  in  the  memory  until  in 
seeking  to  lead  a  less  selfish  light,  to  be  worthy  of  a  loving  wife  or  a 
trusting  child,  or  to  consecrate  our  lives  in  full  to  the  Lord’s  service,  we 
begin  to  form  new  motives  with  the  divine  aid,  to  hate  what  we  once  wick¬ 
edly  loved,  and  to  love  what  we  once  wickedly  hated,  and  so,  little  by  little, 
born  from  above,  a  new  heart  is  formed  within  us,  and  we  come  to  act  as 
faithful  rather  than  as  unfaithful  servants  of  the  Lord,  as  friends  rather 
than  as  enemies.  So  do  we  cease  to  do  evil  and  learn  to  do  well,  if  we  will. 

Thus  we  may  see  that  the  will  and  the  power  to  rescue  and  to  reconcile 
V/ayward  souls  sprang  from  the  infinite  love;  that  the  method  is  that  of  the 
divine  order,  and  that  the  result  in  the  individual  redeemed  through  repent¬ 
ance  and  regeneration  is  just  what  man’s  fallen  state  required  and 
requires.  It  is  precisely  as  Paul  said:  “  God  was  in  the  Christ  reconciling 
of  the  world  unto  Himself.”  (2  Cor.,  v.,  19.)  And  again  he  said  “  In  him 


474 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.”  (Col.,  xi„  9.)  “  We  dwell 
in  Him,”  said  John  once  more,  “  and  He  in  us;  we  loved  Him  because  He 
first  loved  us.”  “  This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life.” 

That  uncreated  beauty  which  has  gained 
My  raptured  heart,  has  all  my  glory  stained; 

His  loveliness  my  soul  has  prepossessed. 

And  left  no  room  for  any  other  guest. 


THE  ESSENTIAL  ONENESS  OF  ETHICAL  IDEAS 

AMONG  ALL  MEN. 

KEY.  IDA  C.  HULTIN. 

Of  ethical  ideas,  not  of  ethical  systems  or  doctrines,  am  I  bidden  to  speak 
to-day.  Let  me  say  ethical  sense.  It  will  mean  the  same  and  be  more  sim¬ 
ple.  The  universality  of  the  ethical  sense.  Gravitation  is  not  more  surely 
a  fact,  it  seems  to  us,  than  is  the  unity  of  all  life.  If  life  is  a  whole  then 
that  which  is  an  essential  quality  of  one  part  must  be  common  to  the  whole. 
Through  all  life  not  only  an  eternal  purpose  runs,  but  an  eternal  moral  pur¬ 
pose.  Human  history  has  been  a  struggle  of  man  to  understand  himself 
and  the  other  selves,  and  beyond  that  the  infinite  self. 

The  laws  which,  with  unswerving  fidelity,  the  stars  obey  in  their  eternal 
sweep  through  space,  that  the  dewdrop  responds  to  when  it  becomes  an 
ocean  to  mirror  back  the  world,  that  chisels  the  lichen’s  circle  and  paints 
the  sunset,  that  draws  the  lily  from  the  black  ooze  of  the  pond  and  calls 
the  atoms  to  their  foreordained  places  in  the  crystal  —  this  law  is  ineradi- 
cably  written  in  the  nature  of  man  and  issues  as  ethical  sense.  Of  course  we 
understand  that  with  some  the  experiences  of  animal  and  human  life  in  the 
long  eons  of  their  existence  is  the  explanation  of  the  existence  of  this  sense. 
Add  to  the  experience  of  individuals  the  hereditary  tendency  which  accumu¬ 
lates  and  passes  on  in  increasing  power  from  generation  to  generation,  the 
results  of  all  struggle,  and  you  have  an  all-sufficient  answer  about  the  whence 
of  this  ethical  sense.  We  do  not  deny  the  truth  of  the  cumulative  tendency 
of  experience,  but  we  do  deny  that  it  solves  all  of  the  problem.  Would  this 
not  be  evolution  doing  that  which  it  claims  can  not  be  done,  creating  some¬ 
thing  out  of  nothing?  If  the  fittest  —  morally  as  well  as  physically  —  is  to 
survive,  then  there  must  have  been  something  that  had  the  element  of 
fitness  to  start  with.  In  the  fire-unit  and  world-stuff  of  our  solar  system’s 
beginning  there  were  the  elements,  or  element,  from  which,  through  change 
and  growth,  has  come  the  multiplicity  of  the  life  of  our  world.  What  is 
the  meaning  of  all  this  varied  life?  It  is  not  real.  It  is  not  stable.  To 
what  is  it  passing?  From  whence  does  it  come?  Is  there  no  infinite  fact 
to  match  the  finite  fact,  or  the  human  mind  and  soul?  Is  there  no  invisible 
real  to  which  the  visible  passing  stands  related? 

The  old  oak  tree  we  say  is  what  it  is  because  it  has  grown  through 
years  and  storms,  through  heat  and  cold,  withstanding  and  outliving  them 
all.  What  made  it  to  be  an  oak  tree?  It  \7ill  not  always  be  so,  and  what 
will  the  life  of  it  be  when  it  is  not  an  oak  tree?  Did  sun  and  rain  and  storms 
and  seasons  create  the  oak?  Then  plant  a  piece  from  your  polished  oak 
table,  give  it  to  the  earth  and  the  sun,  and  the  rain  and  storms,  and 
ask  them  to  make  it  grow.  Will  it?  What  is  in  the  acorn  that  answers 
back  to  the  call  of  the  voices  of  the  earth  and  air,  and  draws  from 
the  invisible  places  of  the  universe  the  atoms  that  come  trooping  to  take 
their  places  in  root  and  trunk,  and  limb  and  leaf,  and  blossom  and  fruit? 
Is  it  not  God  in  the  acorn?  And  could  it  grow  without  its  God?  I  ask 
this  question  reverentially,  and  when  I  say  God,  friends,  I  mean  the 


ESSENTIAL  ONENESS  OF  ETHICAL  IDEAS. 


475 


Game  invisible  spirit  that  you  mean  when  you  pronounce  another 
name.  We  each  know  that  the  other  is  but  naming  his  or  her  best  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  infinite,  and  if  we  should  put  all  of  these  words  together,  we 
would  not  have  the  whole  name,  for  the  secret  of  its  pronunciation  lieth 
with  Him,  whose  children  we  all  are.  This  all-pervading  principle — this 
sense  of  right,  of  good,  that  we  find  to  be  the  possession  of  all  peoples,  of  life, 
isitnot  God  in  us !  You  may  call  it  a  categorical  imperative,  a  primitive  ele¬ 
ment  in  the  soul,  a  sense  rooted  in  the  nature  of  things,  the  moral  sense  of 
the  universe,  what  you  will,  it  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  our  heredity  from 
God.  Mine,  yours,  ours,  humanity’s.  Humanity  is  not  God-touched  in 
spots,  with  primitive  exterior  revelations  on  mountain  tops  for  a  chosen 
few.  He  is  the  Divine  Immanence,  the  source  of  all — revealing  Himself 
to  all ;  recognized  just  so  fast  as  His  children  grow  able  to  discover  Him. 
It  is  an  infinite  revelation — an  eternal  discovery.  Hunger  is  the  goad  to 
growth;  hunger  for  protoplasm,  and  then — Oh,  the  weary  way  that 
stretches  between  ! — then  hunger  for  righteousness.  An  eternal  search — 
an  eternal  finding.  The  resistless  sweep  of  the  divine  forces  bears  man  on 
to  newer  and  ever  newer  births. 

We  find  that  we  can  not  speak  of  ethical  principles  without  touching 
religious  realities.  Det  us  identify  morals  with  religion.  Is  it  not  time? 
I  do  not  mean  by  religion  theological  formulas,  creeds,  doctrines.  I  do  not 
mean  a  religion.  I  mean  religion.  The  science  of  man’s  highest  develop¬ 
ment,  physical,  mental,  moral  development.  There  is  no  part  of  life  that 
may  not,  ought  not  to  be  religious.  You  can  not  make  one  part  of  your 
nature  religious,  as  though  it  were  a  side  issue  of  real  living.  In  the  last 
analysis  it  becomes  at-one-ment  with  the  nature  of  things  with  God.  Not 
simply  dependence  on,  as  though  there  was  a  full  sway  from  Him,  but  con¬ 
sciousness  of  unity,  and  as  if  we  craved  the  unity  as  if  He  needed  us  and 
e  were  hastening  to  do  His  will  and  ours.  The  doing  of  the  will  is  ethical 
action.  It  is  man  at  work  on  the  problem,  the  making  of  religious  condi¬ 
tions.  It  is  humanity  on  the  road  toward  God 

How  rarely  do  we  enter  into  the  full  possibilities  of  our  high  heritage. 
They  who  have  learned  to  live  on  the  heights  have  been  the  proi)het  souls 
of  all  ages  and  all  races.  The  multitudinous  voice  of  humanity  has  uttered 
itself  through  them.  I  know  that  there  are  sore  souls;  but  if  we  would 
know  humanity,  we  must  interpret  it  at  its  best.  What  these  are,  all 
humanity  may  be.  The  ideal  man  is  the  actual  man.  It  is  what  all  men 
may  become.  The  ought  that  moves  one  man  to  deeds  that  thrill  a  nation 
is  essentially  the  same  in  kind  with  the  ought  that  impels  the  lowliest  deed 
in  the  obscurest  corner  of  the  world.  If  one  human  soul  has  come  into 
being  without  a  tendency  toward  goodness,  toward  the  right,  the  true,  and 
with  hope  to  at  length  reach  a  divine  destiny,  then  the  universe  is  a  failure. 
There  is  a  place  where  God  is  not,  and  infinite  goodness,  infinite  justice,  is 
a  myth.  Morality  may  not  be  possible  in  ant  and  bee  and  beaver  and  dog, 
but  ethical  principle  is  there.  Striving  to  be  man,  the  worm  struggles 
through  all  the  spheres  of  form.  Not  that  man  is  recognized  and  there  is 
a  conscious  reach  toward  him,  but  because  back  of  worm  and  clod  there  is 
the  same  persuasive  power  that  impelled  man  to  be  man,  that  led  him  to 
lay  hold  of  the  forces  of  the  universe  and  compel  them  to  serve  him. 
Through  the  realization  of  the  divine  potency  of  the  ethical  sense  in  the 
experience  of  his  own  life,  man  becomes  conscious  of  God,  of  God  as  good. 
Rising  to  this  higher  realization  through  the  lesser,  the  lesser  takes  on  new 
meaning.  Our  relations  to  tree,  to  dog,  to  man,  assume  new  dignity.  We 
find  the  ultimate  meaning  of  these  common  relationships.  Here  is  the 
explanation  of  life’s  details.  They  are  all  manifestations  of  God.  He  is 
Lord  of  these  hosts;  He  is  all.  And  we  find  Him  only  as  we  tread  loyally 
the  pathway  of  the  common  place.  Relationship  to  Him  is  the  culmination 
of  all  these  lesser  relationships. 


476 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


We  turn  from  seeking-  Thee  afar 
And  in  unwonted  ways. 

To  build  from  out  our  daily  lives 
The  temples  of  Thy  praise. 

Humanity  does  not  reach  its  best  life  through  any  scheme  of  redemp¬ 
tion,  but  through  an  age-long  struggle  with  God.  It  is  not  “  What  shall  I 
do  to  be  saved?”  but  “  What  shall  J  do  to  inherit  eternal  life.”  The  moral 
man  is  obeying  the  God-voice,  whether  he  knows  to  call  it  that  or  not.  Is 
he  denied  theological  classification?  Well,  it  will  not  be  surprising  if  he 
enters  heaven  without  a  label.  He  who  can  not  hear  God,  see  God,  feel 
God  in  the  living,  potent  things  of  the  every  day  must  buy  a’  book  and  find 
God  and  His  law  there.  But  if  the  church  disband,  or  his  book  is  burned, 
where  shall  he  turn  for  authority?  May  he  steal  now  with  impunity?  Pity 
the  man  whose  moral  nature  is  not  a  law  unto  itself.  Shrink  from  it  though 
we  may,  the  truth  appears,  when  we  are  honest  with  ourselves,  that  churches 
and  creeds  have  never  done  the  world’s  best  work.  The  church  has  never 
freed  the  slave  of  any  land.  In  this  country,  even  while  the  armies  were 
gathering,  which  eventually  freed  the  slave,  ministers  were  preaching  that 
slavery  was  divinely  ordained  and  right  according  to  the  word  of  God.  But 
the  spirit  of  eternal  justice,  revealing  itself  in  the  ethical  sense  of  thousands 
of  men  and  women,  ignoring  the  dogma  and  its  expounders,  moved  against 
the  wrong  and  overcame  it.  There  were  those  who  could  read  but  one  page 
of  God’s  word,  but  in  the  “  terrible  swift  lightning”  of  that  judgment  day 
men  read  the  law  written  by  human  hearts. 

Try  to  evade  the  truth,  if  you  will;  you  must  face  it  at  last.  No  creedal 
church  and  no  form  of  ecclesiasticism  has  ever  lent  itself  to  the  emancipa¬ 
tion  of  the  woman  half  of  humanity.  She 'has  suffered  and  still  suffers 
because  of  the  results  of  dogmatic  beliefs  and  theological  traditions,  but 
the  ethical  sense  of  the  humanity  of  which  she  is  a  part  is  lifting  her  out 
into  the  fullness  of  religious  liberty.  She  does  not  come  into  the  fellow¬ 
ship  to  write  creeds  nor  to  impose  dogmas,  but  to  co-operate  in  such  high 
living  as  shall  make  possible  religiousness.  She  comes  to  help  do  away 
with  false  stan,dards  of  conduct  by  demanding  morality  for  morality,  purity 
for  purity,  self-respecting  manhood  for  self-respecting  womanhood.  She 
will  help  remove  odious  distinctions  on  account  of  sex  and  make  one  code 
of  morals  do  for  both  men  and  women.  This  not  alone  in  the  Western 
world,  where  circumstances  have  been  more  propitious  for  woman’s  advance¬ 
ment,  but  in  all  parts  of  the  world. 

Churches,  as  a  whole,  do  not  feed  the  hungry,  clothe  the  sick,  turn 
prisons  into  reformatories,  and  unite  to  stay  the  atrocities  of  legalized 
cruelties.  If  churches  were  doing  the  humane  work  of  the  world  there 
would  not  be  needed  so  many  clubs  and  associations  and  institutions  for 
philanthropic  work.  Men  and  women  in  the  churches  and  out  of  them  do 
this  work.  While  theologians  are  busy  with  each  other  and  the  creeds 
these  men  and  women,  belonging  to  all  countries  and  all  races,  who,  perhaps, 
have  not  had  time  to  formulate  their  beliefs  about  humanity,  are  busy 
working  for  it.  Those  who  have  never  known  how  to  define  God  are  finding 
Him  in  their  daily  lives.  Faith?  Yes,  but  faith  without  works  is  dead. 
When  the  ethical  intent  has  been  removed  from  a  theological  system  it  is  a 
dead  faith. 

Interesting  is  the  history  of  a  religious  convention,  and  not  to  be  lightly 
estimated,  but  as  a  working  force  in  spiritual  advancement  it  is  useless.  It 
was  well  said  from  this  platform  a  few  days  ago,  not  Christianity,  but 
Christ,  I  plead.  Many  of  us  are  not  particular  about  the  Christian  name, 
but  we  do  care  about  the  Christ  spirit;  that  same  spirit  that  has  been  the 
animating  force  in  every  prophet  life.  The  religious  aspirations  that  give 
birth  to  the  ethical  science,  that  made  to  be  alive  old  forms,  have  passed  on 
to  vivify  new  forms  and  systems  that  yet  shall  have  a  day  and  give  place  to 
others.  “  It  is  the  spirit  that  gives  it  life;  the  letter  kills  it.” 


RELIGION  AND  MUSIC. 


477 


When  you  remember  some  of  the  things  that  have  been  taught  and  have 
been  done  in  the  name  of  Christ,  do  you  wonder  that  our  brother  said,  “  If 
such  be  the  Christian  ethics,  well,  we  are  perfectly  satisfied  to  be  heathen.” 
Do  you  wonder  that  the  calm-souled  prophet  from  India  pleads  with  us  for 
a  manifestation  of  the  spirit  that  was  in  Jesus?  Do  we  need  assurance 
that  boasting  of  our  religion  will  not  prove  us  to  be  a  religious  people?  This 
penticostal  session  is  rich  with  blessing  if  we  are  able  to  bear  it.  May  it 
help  us  to  help  each  other,  to  understand  each  other,  to  believe  in  each 
other,  and  out  of  the  fellowship  of  this  time  may  there  grow  a  divinal  love 
for  all  that  is  human;  a  deeper  reverence  and  braver  faith  in  its  possibility; 
a  surer  knowledge  of  this  essential  oneness.  Learning  to  love  each  other, 
may  we  abide  in  the  measureless,  matchless  love  which,  because  we  know 
no  better  naming,  we  call  our  Father,  Mother,  God. 


RELIGION  AND  MUSIC. 

PROF.  WALDO  S.  PRATT  OF  HARTFORD  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY. 

Where  religion  has  been  exalted  among  men  there  music  has 
been  among  her  most  honorable  handmaidens.  This  union,  seen 
among  the  barbarous  and  civilized  alike,  is  a  reasonable  and  natural 
union.  It  is  not  a  caprice  or  fashion,  nor  an  arbitrary  or  accidental  connec¬ 
tion.  The  more  we  know  of  the  real  nature  and  sources  of  both  religion 
and  music  the  better  we  see  why  they  should  co-exist  and  co-operate. 
Essentially  diverse  as  the  two  certainly  are,  in  themselves  belonging  to 
different  categories  of  thought,  yet  experience  shows  that  between  the 
inward  realities  of  religion  and  the  outward  realities  of  music  there  exists 
a  genuine  correspondence.  Religion  is  the  most  ideal  interest  of  practical 
life,  and  music  is  the  most  ideal  of  the  fine  arts.  The  spiritual  ideality  of 
religion  lays  hold  eagerly  upon  the  artistic  ideality  of  music  as  a  fit  means 
for  its  own  incorporation,  and  the  means  proves  singularly  suited  to  the 
desire.  The  basal  substance  of  religion  is  essentially  spiritual,  but  religion 
in  practical  life  is  constantly  taking  on  concrete  forms,  and  for  this  purpose 
what  could  be  more  natural  than  to  utilize  such  an  artistic  vehicle  as  that 
of  the  art  of  tone? 

To  be  sure,  music  naturally  belongs  with  the  social  side  of  religion  rather 
than  with  its  private  side.  The  secret  intercourse  between  the  soul  and 
God  has  no  absolute  need  of  music  or  any  other  sensuous  formulation. 
Only  so  far  as  this  inmost  intercourse  expands  into  a  social  institution, 
where  outward  expression  is  a  necessity,  is  there  a  special  demand  for  such 
a  voice  as  that  of  music.  The  solitary  worshiper  may  set  his  prayers  and 
praise  in  forms  of  song  as  a  fuller  mode  of  utterance  than  cold  words,  but  he 
is  not  likely  to  do  this  unless  he  has  first  learned  the  value  of  song  as  an 
implement  of  social  intercourse.  Music,  in  all  its  typical  developments,  is 
a  golden  currency  flowing  back  and  forth  among  men,  and  is  hardly  con¬ 
ceivable  except  where  evoked  by  some  strong  social  motive. 

I  am  aware  that  this  statement  will  be  thought  extreme.  The  old  spec¬ 
tacular  or  pyrotechnic  notion  of  music  still  lingers  as  one  of  the  relics  of  a 
lifeless  theory  of  the  fine  arts  generally.  To  not  a  few,  music  is  nothing  but 
the  manufacture  and  explosion  of  tone  fireworks,  whose  noise  and  brilliance 
tickle  the  senses  and  amuse  the  attention  without  transmitting  or  being 
able  to  transmit  any  particular  message,  certainly  not  a  message  of  any 
serious  import.  But  such  a  notion,  however  common  and  well  received,  is 
a  crudity  and  an  anachronism.  Surely  it  totally  fails  to  explain  the  patent 
facts  of  music’s  imperial  position  in  civilized  society. 

Music  stands  with  the  drama  and  with  literature  as  chief  among  the 


478 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


lino  arts  to-day,  not  because  of  the  sensuous  sparkle  and  sweetness  of  its 
products,  or  because  of  their  curious  intricacy  and  statuesque  sublimity, 
as  mere  constructions,  but  because,  like  the  drama  and  like  literature,  it 
presents  in  a  mobile  and  vivid  way  a  transcript  of  emotional  life,  a  tran¬ 
script  that  is  also  a  voice  from  one  life  to  other  lives,  an  electric  arm 
reaching  forth  from  one  man  to  another,  a  message  of  vitality  and  purpose. 
Whatever  imiiersonal  value  it  may  have,  however  it  may  be  cultivated 
merely  as  a  surface  delight,  by  whomsoever  it  may  be  put  to  lesser  uses, 
this  personal  eloquence  of  music  is  its  essential  fascination  and  its  secret  of 
power.  Music  is  a  voice  proclaiming  something  that  demands  utterance. 
It  is  also  an  intelligible  and  persuasive  voice,  setting  the  user  in  real  rela¬ 
tions  of  fellowship  and  intlueiice  as  regards  the  hearer.  No  other  view  of 
the  nature  of  music  will  comport  with  the  known  facts  of  its  place  in  the 
economy  of  the  civilized  world. 

Herein  is  the  justihcation  of  the  almost  constant  presence  of  music  in 
the  social  rites  of  religion.  Common  sense  perceives,  even  in  spite  of  tra¬ 
ditional  pressure  to  the  contrary,  that  the  core  of  religion  is  not  mere 
beliefs,  not  mere  sentiments,  not  mere  resolves,  certainly  not  merely  exter¬ 
nal  ritual  or  regimen.  Religion  is  not  anything  merely  of  or  in  or  for 
the  individual  man.  The  core  of  religion  is  mutual  Communion  or  inter¬ 
course  between  personalities,  intercourse  multiform,  progressive,  and  of 
incalculable  spiritual  content;  and  theprimary  communion  that  constitutes 
religion  is  between  man  and  God.  One  side  of  this  mutual  process,  that 
from  man  to  God,  is  what  we  call  “  worship,”  using  the  word  in  the  broad 
sense  that  includes  conduct  as  well  as  formal  prayer  and  praise.  Theother 
side  of  the  process,  that  from  Cod  to  man,  is  variously  covered  by  terms 
like  “  revelation,” providence,”  “  redemption,”  and  the  like.  The  recip- 
rocality  of  the  two  processes  is  obvious,  and  the  two  together  make  up  the 
heart  of  religion.  Just  how  the  reciprocation  occurs,  by  what  terms  its 
many  stages  shall  be  distinguished,  how  the  several  stages  are  related  to 
each  other — these  and  many  other  kindred  questions  are  not  pertinent  to 
this  paper. 

For  us  the  important  thing  is  to  observe  two  features  of  the  visible 
working  of  religion  in  the  world.  The  first  of  these  is  that,  although  relig¬ 
ion  is  essentially  a  spiritual  affair,  all  we  can  know  of  it  outside  of  our  own 
souls  is  through  various  sensuous  embodiments;  it  is  made  manifest  in 
word  and  deed  and  character.  The  second  feature  is  that,  although  relig¬ 
ion  is  essentially  a  persoiu^l  affair  between  every  individual  and  God,  its 
necessity  of  outward  manifestation  makes  it  also  a  social  affair;  here,  as  so 
universally  in  human  life,  the  interaction  of  man  with  man  is  inevitable. 

These  two  practical  necessities  in  religion,  the  necessity  of  concrete  man¬ 
ifestation  and  the  twin  necessity  of  social  value  in  such  manifestation,  have 
their  fullest  expression  in  the  institution,  historic  everywhere,  of  public 
worship.  In  public  worship  may  always  be  seen  some  concrete  manifesta¬ 
tion  of  currents  of  intercourse  both  from  man  to  God  and  from  God  to 
man,  and  in  this  manifestation  there  is  a  decided  social  reaction  of  man 
upon  man  as  they  stand  together  in  God’s  presence.  These  thoughts  enable 
us  to  see  why  music  plays  so  large  a  part  in  the  social  manifestations  of 
religion  in  public  worship.  Music  is  a  voice  whereby  unseen  spiritual  states 
and  motions  are  embodied  and  realized.  As  such  a  voice,  it  is  an  instru¬ 
ment  of  intercourse  between  man  and  God  and  between  men.  Music  may 
have  other  reasonable  a])plications,  but  there  should  be  no  question  about 
its  religious  application.  The  union  of  religion  and  music,  as  we  said  at  the 
outset,  is  a  reasonable  union. 

Time  fails  for  the  amplification  of  these  basal  thoughts.  Let  us  rather 
turn  to  the  corollaries  that  issue  from  them.  Religious  music,  I  have 
claimed,  is  a  language,  not  a  mere  festal  robe,  not  a  spectacular  display,  not 
a  lifeless  apparition,  but  a  language  expressive  of  one  personality  and 


RELIGION  AND  MUSIC. 


479 


impressive  upon  other  personalities.  Assume  that  this  is  true,  what 
follows? 

It  follows,  first,  that  as  a  language  its  message  or  content  should  be 
consonant  with  its  occasion.  Religious  music  appears  chiefly  as  a  part  of 
public  worship.  What  is  the  design  of  public  worship?  Is  it  not  by  the 
help  of  symbolic  sound  and  act  to  embody  and  consummate  the  inter¬ 
actions  between  man  and  God  which,  are  religion,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
embody  and  consummate  the  interactions  between  men  in  God’s  presence, 
which  make  religion  a  social  as  well  as  a  personal  power?  The  interactions 
intended  are  between  the  spirits  of  the  jjarticipants.  The  means  employed- 
music  among  the  rest — are  pertinent  only  when  they  are  expressive  of  some 
spiritual  reality.  Spiritual  truth  is  the  first  of  the  qualities  to  be  demanded 
in  the  thorough  criticism  of  religious  music.  The  message  conveyed  by 
such  music  must  be  a  genuine  one,  a  heartfelt  one,  and  one  germane  to  the 
ideal  inter-relations  between  God  and  men  and  between  men  in  his 
I^resence. 

But  it  will  at  once  be  objected  that  this  doctrine  is  easy  to  preach,  but 
impossible  to  apply.  It  will  be  said  that  music  has  a  protean  suggestive¬ 
ness,  but  no  absolute  content;  that  it  is  a  powerful  mental  stimulant,  but 
yields  no  solid  nutriment;  that  it  presents  universal  symbols  or  formulae  of 
emotional  processes  without  suj)plying  definite  values  for  any  of  the 
’  inknown  quantities  employed. 

Taking  the  relative  accuracy  of  speech  as  a  standard,  this  indictment 
of  vagueness  is  seemingly  valid  against  music.  Yet  all  language  is  made 
up  of  conventional  symbols,  the  precision  and  depth  of  which  vary  infinitely 
according  to  the  standpoints  of  both  speaker  and  hearer.  Speech  seems 
precise  and  adequate  because  through  extended  usage  the  values  of  its 
symbols  have  become  relatively  established  and  individualized.  Music, 
on  the  contrary,  seems  to  many  a  mere  haze  or  cloud  of  tones — massive, 
perhaps,  curiously  compounded,  roseate  as  with  the  glow  of  morning,  but 
impenetrable  and  mysterious  nevertheless.  Of  what  use  is  it,  then,  to  talk 
of  the  content  of  music?  How  can  the  message  of  religious  music  be  made 
consonant  with  the  design  of  public  worship  when  no  one  can  demonstrate 
just  what  that  message  is  and  when  some  flatly  deny  that  there  is  any 
message  whatever? 

This  charge  that  music,  if  it  be  in  any  sense  a  language,  is  a  language 
without  any  hxed  values  and  manageable  powers  is  natural  enough  and 
common  enough.  Yet  it  can  be  successfully  met  in  a  variety  of  ways.  Of 
the  many  possible  retorts  I  shall  utilize  here  only  three.  On  the  subjective 
side  the  known  character  of  a  man  goes  far  toward  fixing  the  meaning  of 
what  he  says.  This  fact  is  of  radical  importance  in  sacred  music.  The 
time  has  been  (and  even  still  is)  when  the  personal  character  of  religious 
musicians  has  been  counted  as  of  no  value  in  fixing  the  meaning  of  their 
music.  Scoffers  and  profligates  have  been  supposed  capable  of  uttering 
genuine  messages  of  peace  and  love  and  joy,  provided  only  that  they  use 
the  dialect  of  tone.  Happily  this  foolishness  is  becoming  antiquated. 
Musical  eloquence  is  being  more  and  more  tested  as  to  subjective  sin¬ 
cerity  exactly  as  every  other  kind  of  eloquence  is  tested. 

Again,  on  the  objective  side,  in  every  period  and  country  established 
manners  and  forms  of  musical  utterance  may  be  found  among  those  who 
are  engaged  in  its  study  and  use.  A  distinguished  musician  is  reported  to 
have  said,  when  asked  to’speak  of  church  music:  “  There  is  no  such  thing,” 
meaning  that  there  is  no  style  of  music  peculiar  to  church  use.  But  this 
opinion  is  not  held  by  musicians  generally.  Most  of  them  recognize  a  cir¬ 
cle  of  qualities  that  constitute  a  religious  style.  In  practical  work  their 
artistic  instinct  leads  them  to  determine  with  decided  unanimity  that  cer¬ 
tain  compositions  are  by  nature  suitable  for  sacred  use,  and  certain  are  not. 
This  artistic  concensus  regarding  styles  or  forms  is  of  the  highest  import- 


480 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


ance  in  a  truly  constructive  theory  of  religious  music.  And  once  again, 
the  greater  part  of  sacred  music  is  vocal,  and  as  such  is  a  musical  setting 
of  words.  Surely  this  fact  is  decisive  in  fixing  much  of  the  value  of  musi¬ 
cal  expression  in  relation  to  religious  purposes.  Everyone  will  admit  that 
a  verbal  utterance  must  conform  to  the  design  of  its  occasion.  Whether  or 
not  a  musical  setting  of  words  fully  displays  the  verbal  jewel  committed  to 
it,  to  be  otherwise  determined  in  each  case,  but  if  a  fair  degree  of  suitable¬ 
ness  between  text  and  setting  be  given,  the  problem  of  the  consonance  of 
vocal  music  with  its  occasion  should  be  plain  almost  to  obviousness. 

To  recapitulate  up  to  this  point.  Regarding  sacred  music  as  capable  of 
containing  a  message  evidently  and  powerfully  pertinent  to  the  social  man¬ 
ifestations  of  religion,  particularly  in  public  worship,  we  have  three  ways 
of  controlling  the  nature  of  this  content  or  message,  three  paths  always 
open  for  earnest  and  enterprising  progress.  These  three  directions  are, 
briefly,  the  personality  of  religious  musicians,  the  style  of  religious  music, 
and  the  words  chosen  for  musical  setting  for  religious  use,  including  the 
artistic  consonance  of  the  setting  of  the  text.  I  forbear  entering  upon 
details  since  the  variety  of  views  here  represented  about  the  methods  of 
public  worship  is  too  great  to  make  detailed  exposition  proper,  but  the 
application  of  these  principles  is  manifest. 

Every  musician  is  not  fitted  to  be  a  religious  musician  simply  because 
he  is  an  artist.  All  kinds  of  music  are  not  suited  to  be  used  as  sacred 
music  simply  because,  artistically,  they  are  interesting  or  even  beautiful. 
Setting  words  to  music,  however  good,  does  not  make  the  compound  fit  for 
religious  use,  unless  apart  from  the  music  they  are  thus  fit  and  unless  the 
setting  makes  their  fitness  more  apparent.  These  are  cardinal  principles 
applicable  to  every  phase  of  Christianity,  and  to  every  sincere  religious 
system  whatsoever.  They  are  axiomatic  principles,  needing  only  to  be 
stated  to  be  accepted.  And,  yet,  the  history  of  religious  music  shows  that 
they  have  not  always  been  perceived  and  certainly  not  always  conscien¬ 
tiously  adopted  as  the  rules  of  action.  So  long  as  they  are  unobserved, 
religious  music  will  be  meaningless  and  neutral,  if  not  false  and  positively 
injurious.  The  specious  cry  of  “art  for  art’s  sake  ”  can  not  remove  the 
stubborn  fact  of  experience  that  the  finer -line  art  is  the  more  potent  in  its 
message  for  good  or  for  evil  to  every  participant. 

But  there  is  another  equally  important  side  to  this  matter.  We  have 
noted  that  if  music  be  a  language,  its  content  should  be  consonant  with 
its  occasion.  We  must  now  add  that  if  it  be  a  language  its  actual  effect¬ 
iveness  should  be  diligently  cultivated  and  perfected.  Religious  music,  as 
we  have  seen,  should  be  genuinely  expressive  of  something  germane  to 
public  worship.  It  should  also  be  powerfully  impressive  to  be  really  worth 
while.  Spiritual  truth  is  the  first  of  the  qualities  demanded;  spiritual 
power  is  the  second.  The  first  quality  is  mainly  to  be  secured  by  magnify¬ 
ing  sincerity  on  the  part  of  the  one  using  such  music.  The  second  is 
mainly  to  be  secured  by  developing  skill  and  by  providing  favorable  cir¬ 
cumstances. 

One  frequently  hears  music  in  humble  places  among  untrained  singers 
and  players  that  is  evidently  sincere  in  its  spiritual  intent,  but  whose  appli¬ 
cation  is  so  inartistic  and  untactful  as  to  be  quite  ineffective.  The  zeal  of 
the  gunner  is  most  commendable,  but  his  ammunition  is  poor  and  his  aim 
wide  (d’  the  mark.  Religious  musicians  of  this  sort  ought  to  be  respected 
for  their  lldelity,  but  they  suffer  severely  from  technical  criticism  and 
from  the  reaction  of  practical  failure.  It  is  unfortunately  true  that  tech¬ 
nical  expertness  without  serious  purpose  often  seems  to  be  far  more  effect¬ 
ive  and  valuable  than  even  great  earnestness  of  purpose  without  adequate 
skill.  So  it  has  come  to  pass  too  often  that  religious  music  has  been 
intrusted  to  those  to  whom  art  is  first  and  piety  and  edification  second  or 
worse. 


RELIGION  AND  MUSIC. 


481 


It  has  been  sometimes  supposed  that  typical  patriotism  could  be  dis¬ 
played  by  mercenary  troops,  if  only  they  were  veterans  at  their  work. 
Now,  I  venture  to  say  that  there  will  be  unrest  and  difficulty  wheiever 
religious  music  is  handled  without  due  regard  to  both  truth  and  effective¬ 
ness  in  conjunction  and  in  due  co-ordination.  If  a  choice  must  be  made 
no  doubt  truth  is  ideally  of  infinitely  more  value  than  mere  outward 
effectiveness.  But  sincerity  without  skill  bungles  its  work  so  seriously  as 
really  to  discredit  that  which  it  seeks  to  serve.  Music  as  a  language  is 
highly  special  and  peculiar.  It  may  do  more  harm  than  good;  even  with 
the  best  of  intentions.  Sincerity  may  carve  the  arrow,  forge  the  tip,  and 
fit  the  feathers;  but  skill  must  see  the  mark  and  draw  the  bow.  Truth  is 
as  potent  as  steam  or  electricity,  or  any  other  natural  force;  but  truth,  like 
every  physical  force,  must  be  made  practically  efficient  by  intelligent  appli¬ 
cation  to  a  purpose  before  its  power  is  manifest. 

This  brings  me  to  two  practical  remarks.  The  first  of  these  is  that, 
in  many  communities,  there  is  altogether  too  much  so-called  religious 
music.  The  forms  of  music  are  cultivated  for  traditional  or  sentimental 
reasons,  without  a  due  sense  of  either  the  sincerity  or  the  skill  requisite  to 
make  them  valuable.  The  best  interests  of  both  religion  and  music  would 
be  benefited  by  so  checking  such  use  as  to  force  it  to  justify  itself  in  both 
directions.  Many  good  things  can  be  kept  from  deterioration  only  by  some 
kind  of  enforced  rarity  or  choiceness.  Speech  is  silver;  but  loquacity  is 
pewter.  The  pure  beauty  and  choiceness  of  words  are  sometimes  only 
seen  when  duly  set  off  by  golden  silence.  Love  is  sweet;  but  a  life  of 
uninterrupted  kisses  ends  in  heart  nausea.  The  divine  cordial  of  tender¬ 
ness  must  be  sipped  in  drops  or,  perhaps,  even  put  by  for  a  time,  if  we  would 
keep  its  flavor  and  its  restoring  efficacy. 

The  poet,  Sidney  Lanier,  with  his  seerlike  insight,  called  music  “  love 
in  search  of  a  word.”  His  sensitive,  music-loving  soul  would  have  been 
quick  to  agree,  however,  that  a  constant,  heedless  iteration  of  love’s  search 
for  utterance  through  tones  would  strip  the  language  of  song  of  all  value 
as  a  message  bearer  and  Anally  debase  the  love  itself  to  a  puppet.  This  is 
what  has  happened  with  not  a  little  religious  music.  It  has  been  mechanic¬ 
ally  turned  out  by  the  yard  and  duplicated  by  the  thousand  until  it  is  no 
longer  a  message  from  one  heart  to  another,  and  until  it  has  actually 
turned  some  fiearts  to  stone.  Christianity  has  borne  consummate  flowers 
of  song,  hymns  that  palpitate  with  precious  heart  throbs,  melodies  that 
mount  up  on  eagle’s  wings,  anthems  and  oratories  that  seem  to  be  fore¬ 
tastes  of  the  angelic  praises;  and  yet  these  very  blossoms  have  been  so 
imitated  and  reproduced  in  clumsy  wax  and  flimsy  paper  that  thousands 
of  would-be  worshipers  know  nothing  of  the  fragrant  and  fruitful  orig¬ 
inals  and  are  even  disgusted  with  the  sham  and  paltriness  of  everything 
called  sacred  music.  This  prevalent  vulgarity  of  music  in  religious  uses 
is  a  grievous  evil.  It  degrades  the  service  of  the  art  which  is  most 
divine,  not  only  by  caricaturing  its  true  serviceableness  but  by  turning  its 
power  to  the  slow  destruction  of  the  healthy  religious  feeling  it  was  made 
to  build  up.  The  remedy  is  largely  to  be  sought  in  restriction,  in  absten¬ 
tion,  in  prohibition,  except  when  knowledge  and  skill  and  purpose  all  unite, 
under  favorable  conditions,  to  take  the  tremendous  forces  of  tone,  as  con¬ 
centrated  into  the  songs  of  voice  and  instrument,  and  turn  them  into  pro¬ 
pulsive  and  productive  religious  engines.  Music  is  too  precious  to  be 
wasted  or  misused,  least  of  all  when  on  its  golden  petals  is  stamped  the  very 
image  of  God’s  love  as  revealed  in  the  Christian  heart. 

This  suggests  the  other  practical  thought.  Merely  negative  restraints 
upon  religious  music  will  never  make  it  good.  They  may  cut  off  foolish  and 
fraudulent  simulations  of  it.  But  currency  is  not  coined  by  suppressing 
counterfeits.  Side  by  side  with  restriction  must  be  positive  education. 
Beligion  throughput  the  civilized  world  is  a  great  social  institution.  It  has 


482 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


its  ecclesiastical  organizations,  its  ranks  of  official  leaders,  its  specialized 
systems  of  instruction  and  training,  its  widespread  and  multifarious  litera¬ 
ture.  In  all  these  organized  departments  of  religious  activity,  music  should,- 
more  than  ever  hitherto,  be  a  prominent  special  object  of  thought,  and  care, 
and  effort.  We  have  just  been  arguing  that  of  certain  pseudo-religious 
music  there  should  be  less  and  less.  What  provision  is  being  made  by  our 
chief  religious  agencies  that  of  real  religious  music  there  shall  be  more 
and  better  ?  This  question  is  a  pressing  one.  It  is  one  to  which  little 
satisfactory  answer  is  being  given  by  our  various  religious  bodies. 

Among  the  many  branches  of  the  Christian  church,  for  example,  there 
are  only  a  few  communions  in  which  music  is  explicitly  recognized  as  a 
true  spiritual  weapon,  only  isolated  cases  in  which  systematic  musical  dis^ 
cipline  is  regarded  as  in  any  way  pertinent  to  religious  education  and 
ministerial  training,  only  a  few  noble  men  and  women  devoting  their  lives 
to  the  study  and  use  of  religious  music.  One  of  the  surest  signs  of  neglect 
of  the  subject  is  the  rarity  and  poverty  of  literary  work  upon  it.  The 
luminous  treatises  upon  religious  music  in  its  larger  aspects  may  be  counted 
on  the  fingers  of  one  hand.  Only  in  the  single  department  of  hymnody  is 
there  any  strong  and  ample  thinking  and  publication,  and  even  here  hym¬ 
nody  is  considered  rather  as  a  branch  of  poetry  than  as  a  mode  of  social 
religious  action.  The  consequence  is  that  popular  thought  about  religious 
music,  hymns,  tunes,  anthems,  cantatas,  oratorios,  especially  as  related  to 
public  worship,  is  notoriously  defective,  weak,  fanciful,  and  unfruitful. 
Speaking  in  a  large  way,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  churches  have  only  barely 
begun  to  master  the  skill  to  use  music  with  thorough  effectiveness,  and 
have  not  yet  begun  to  supply  that  atmosphere  of  diffused  popular  appre¬ 
ciation  of  religious  music  which  is  prerequisite  to  general  and  hopeful 
progress. 

I  firmly  believe  that  religious  music  as  applied  to  Christian  purposes  is 
as  yet  only  in  its  infancy.  How  it  is  with  non-Christian  religions  I  do  not 
know;  but  with  us  the  actual  and  the  typical  are  very  far  apart.  Nothing 
but  well  considered  and  prolonged  processes  of  education  will  bring  them 
together.  The  strong  prejudices  of  some  whose  notion  of  music  is  wholly 
wrong,  the  strong  inertia  of  those  whose  eyes  have  never  seen  its  majesty, 
the  deep-rooted  traditions  of  the  medieval  time  when  music  was  only  a 
worldly  luxury  and  diversion,  the  distrust  engendered  by  the  character  and 
work  of  many  who  wear  the  name  of  musician,  the  difficulties  resulting 
from  the  many  secular  uses  to  which  music  has  been  successfully  put  and 
to  which  it  has  even  been  supposed  exclusively  to  belong,  the  drift  of  our 
time  away  from  the  more  poetic  and  ideal  of  the  fine  arts — upon  these  and 
many  other  obstacles  to  the  desired  educational  advance  we  need  not 
enlarge.  The  path  of  true  progress  is  beset  with  barriers,  and  is  steep  and 
slippery.  But  unless  our  Christian  energy  and  faith  are  willing  to  climb  it 
patiently  and  persistently  the  alternative  is  clear;  either  wise  education,  so 
that  sacred  music  shall  better  achieve  its  assumed  mission,  or  a  general 
reduction  and  exclusion  of  it  as  an  intruder  and  an  alien.  This  thesis  is 
capable  of  much  amplification  and  varied  illustration,  for  which  there  is 
here  no  time. 

I  do  not  share  the  belief  of  some  musical  enthusiasts  that  the  coming 
century  will  see  such  a  degree  of  musical  progress  as  to  set  music  as  the 
exclusive  language  of  higher  sentiments  of  every  sort.  But  I  do  believe 
that  in  music,  both  instrumental  and  vocal,  there  are  hidden  vast  treas¬ 
ures  of  poetic  truth  and  magazines  of  emotional  power  which  are  now 
known  only  to  the  few  and  expended  only  for  minor  ends.  The  transcend¬ 
ent  human  interest  is  religious  truth  and  religious  living.  Music  will  cer¬ 
tainly  not  have  reached  the  culmination  of  its  career  as  a  fine  art  until  it 
has  justly  exhibited  its  unique  aptitude  for  religious  utterance  and  its 
unique  potency  in  religious  stimulation.  Within  certain  limits  it  is  truly 


RELATION  BETWEEN  ^RELIGION  AND  CONDUCT.  483 


unique.  Within  those  limits  its  dignity  ought  to  be  beyond  debate,  its  serv¬ 
ice  freighted  only  with  genuine  benefit,  and  its  use  guarded  and  enhanced 
by  the  best  wisdom  and  the  highest  spirituality  that  religion  can  attain. 


THE  RELATION  BETWEEN  RELIGION  AND 

CONDUCT. 

PROF.  C.  H.  TOY  OF  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 

At  the  present  time  the  external  relation  between  conduct  and  religion 
is  an  intimate  one.  All  religious  ministers  and  manuals  are  also  instruct¬ 
ors  in  ethics;  our  sacred  books  and  our  pulpits  alike  emphasize  conduct. 
This  has  been  the  case  in  human  history  a  long  time,  but  not  always.  In 
the  very  early  times,  in  the  childhood  of  the  race,  if  we  may  judge  from 
existing  savage  life  from  the  earliest  records  of  civilized  peoples,  religion 
and  morality  occupied  quite  separate  spheres,  which  rarely  or  never 
touched  each  other. 

The  God  was  approached  and  propitiated  by  methods  known  to  the 
purest  by  magic  formulas  which  had  no  more  to  do  with  conduct  than  the 
word  by  which  Aladdin  controlled  the  slaves  of  the  lamp.  But  the  inter¬ 
mingling  of  moral  and  religious  ideas  has  been  parallel  with  the  growth  of 
society.  One  test  of  the  elevation  of  a  religion,  in  some  respects  the  best 
test,  is  the  closeness  of  its  reliance  with  morality.  This  is  equivalent  to 
saying  that  religion  and  morality  stand  hand  in  hand  on  the  same  stratum 
of  civilization;  it  is  in  general  the  highest  culture  that  has  the  purest 
religion.  The  union  between  the  two  elements  of  life  is  further  strength¬ 
ened  by  the  fact  that  religion  has  given  powerful  sanctions  to  morality. 
By  a  natural  process  of  thought  men  have  always  identified  their  moral 
conceptions  with  the  will  of  the  Deity,  and  ethical  rules  have  been  sup¬ 
ported  by  theories  of  divine  rewards  and  punishments. 

The  subject  of  our  inquiry  is  to  discover,  if  possible,  the  precise  relation 
between  the  religions  and  the  ethical  sides  of  our  nature  in  order  that  each 
may  have  due  recognition  and  best  perform  its  function  in  human  develop¬ 
ment.  The  necessary  harmonious  co-operation  of  the  two  can  be  secured 
only  by  doing  justice  to  both,  by  allowing  neither  to  usurp  the  place  of  the 
other. 

Our  thesis,  then,  may  be  expressed  as  follows:  Morality  is  comple¬ 
mentary  to  religion,  or  it  is  the  independent  establishment  of  the  laws  of 
conduct  which  help  to  furnish  the  content  of  the  unrefined  religious  ideal. 
Religion,  properly  speaking,  has  no  thought  content;  it  is  merely  a  senti¬ 
ment,  an  attitude  of  soul  toward  an  idea,  the  idea  of  an  extra  human 
power.  The  religious  sentiment  does  not  know  what  is  the  ethical  char¬ 
acter  of  its  object  till  it  has  learned  it  from  human  life.  Morality  is  the 
human  reflection  of  divine  goodness,  produced  by  the  same  human  endow¬ 
ments  whence  springs  the  sentiment  of  relation  to  God.  Or  to  state  the 
case  more  fully,  the  content  of  the  conception  of  God  is  the  perfect  ideal  in 
truth,  beauty,  and  goodness,  as  given  by  science,  aesthetics,  and  ethics.  Let 
us  look  at  certain  facts  in  man’s  moral  religious  history  which  appears  to 
illustrate  our  part  of  this  thesis. 

First,  it  may  be  noted  that,  in  the  ancient  world,  about  the  same  grade 
of  morality,  theoretical  and  practical,  was  attained  by  all  the  great  nations. 
The  great  teachers  in  Egypt,  China,  India,  Persia,  Palestine,  and  Greece, 
show  remarkable  unanimity  in  the  rules  of  conduct  which  they  lay  down. 
The  common  life  of  the  people  was  about  the  same  in  all  lands.  Whatever 
the  status,  a  member  in  a  given  class  in  one  country  is  not  to  be  dis¬ 
tinguished  on  the  ethical  side  from  his  confreres  elsewhere.  Judean  and 


484 


THE  PABLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Persian  prophets,  Chinese  and  Greek  sages,  when  they  are  called  on  to  act, 
show  the  same  virtues  end  the  same  weaknesses.  The  higher  family  life, 
as  far  as  we  can  trace  it,  was  the  same  everywhere. 

The  moral  principles  regulating  commerce  and  general  social  relations 
were  scarcely  different  throughout  the  ancient  civilized  world  if  we  com¬ 
pare  similar  periods  and  circles. .  David  acts  toward  his  enemies  very  much 
as  does  one  of  the  Homeric  chieftains  or  one  of  the  heroes  of  the  Mahab- 
harata.  The  internal  politics  and  court  life  of  Judea  remind  us  of  the 
parallel  history  of  China,  India,  and  Egypt.  The  prevarication  of  Jere¬ 
miah  and  the  trickery  of  Jacob  may  be  compared  with  the  wiles  of  Odysseus 
and  with  double-dealing  the  world  over.  Instances  of  beautiful  friendship 
between  men  like  those  of  Jonathan  and  David,  and  Damon  and  Pythias 
are  found  everywhere.  We  find  charming  pictures  of  home  life  in  Plato, 
in  Confucius,  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Special  laws  were  the  same  throughout  the  world.  Slavery,  polygamy, 
and  child  slaughter  were  universal,  yet  everywhere  yielded  gradually  in 
part  or  in  the  whole  to  the  increasing  refinement  and  the  increasing  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  value  of  the  individual.  The  position  of  woman  was  not 
materially  different  in  the  different  peoples.  Notwithstanding  certain 
restrictions  she  played  a  great  role,  not  only  as  wife  and  mother,  but  also  in 
literature  and  statesmanship,  among  Egyptians,  Chinese,  Hindus,  Greeks, 
and  Romans. 

From  this  ethical  uniformity  we  must  infer  that  the  moral  development 
was  independent  of  the  particular  form  of  religion.  Under  monotheism, 
dualism,  and  polytheism,  whether  human  or  zoomorphic  images  of  the 
deity  were  fashioned  or  no  images  at  all,  with  varying  methods  of  sacrifice 
and  widely  different  conceptions  of  the  future  life,  the  moral  life  of  man 
went  its  way  and  was  practically  the  same  everywhere. 

Another  fact  of  the  ancient  world  is  that  the  ethical  life  stands  in  no 
direct  ratio  with  the  religiousness  of  a  people  or  a  circle.  While  ancient 
life  was  in  general  deeply  religious,  full  of  recognition  of  the  Deity,  there 
were  several  great  moral  movements  which  were  characterized  by  an  almost 
complete  ignoring  of  the  divine  element  in  human  thought.  These  are 
Confucianism,  Buddhism  and  Stoicism  and  Epicureanism.  Whatever  we 
may  think  of  the  philosox^hic  soundness  of  these  systems,  it  is  undisputed 
that  their  moral  codes  were  pure,  and  that  they  exerted  a  deep  and  lasting 
influence  on  ancient  life.  They  all  arose  in  the  midst  of  polytheistic  sys¬ 
tems,  against  which  they  were  a  protest,  and  they  attained  a  moral  height 
and  created  a  type  of  life  to  the  level  of  which  society  has  not  yet  reached. 
We  may  set  the  phenomenon  over  against  the  picture  of  kindliness  and 
honesty,  which  sometimes  presents  itself  in  savage  tribes,  every  act  of 
whose  lives  is  regulated  by  religion. 

Turning  to  modern  Europe,  it  is  evident  that  progress  in  morality  has 
been  in  proportion  to  the  growth  rather  of  general  culture  than  of  religious 
fervor.  Jf  religion  alone  could  have  produced  morality  the  crusades  ought 
to  have  converted  Europe  into  an  ethically  pure  community;  instead  of 
which  they  of tener  fostered  barbarity  and  vice.  The  Knights  Templar,  the 
guardians  of  what  was  esteemed  the  most  sacred  spot  in  the  world,  came 
to  be,  if  report  does  not  belie  them,  shining  examples  of  all  the  vices. 
Medieval  Rome  was  a  hotbed  of  corruption.  Protestants  and  Catholics 
alike  burned  heretics. 

The  English  Puritans  of  the  17th  century  were  the  most  religious  and  • 
the  most  barbarous  and  unscrupulous  of  men.  In  our  day  the  same  evil 
spirit  sometimes  disfigures  our  political  assemblies  and  appears  sometimes 
also  in  our  religious  bodies.  Trades  and  professions  are  characterized  by 
certain  virtues  and  vices  without  respect  to  the  religious  relations  of  their 
members.  In  a  word  religion  has,  as  a  rule,  not  been  able  to  maintain  a 
high  moral  standard  against  adverse  circumstances  and  has  not  extended 
its  proper  influences. 


RELATION  BETWEEN  RELIGION  AND  CONDUCT 


485 


Let  us  take  some  typical  case  of  moral  rule.  The  idea  of  honesty 
assumes  the  existence  of  property,  and  of  property  belonging  to  another. 
In  an  unorganized  communism  or  in  the  case  where  I  alone  am  owner  there 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  dishonesty.  Thus,  in  a  family,  a  father  can  not  be 
dishonest  toward  the  children  absolutely  dependent  upon  him.  Further, 
the  idea  of  property  is  at  first  physical,  non-moral,  involving  the  mere  notion 
of  possession. 

A  dog  or  a  savage  has  a  bone.  He  thinks  of  it  simply  as  something 
good,  as  the  means  of  supplying  a  want.  Another  dog  or  savage  snatches 
it.  What  is  the  feeling  of  the  original  possessor?  Simply  that  he  has 
lost  a  good  thing,  and  that  he  desires  to  get  it  back.  If  he  fails  to  recover 
it  his  judgment  of  the  situation  is  two-fold;  he  says  to  himself  that  he  has 
suffered  loss  and  that  the  invader  is  an  enemy  of  his  well-being.  In  all  this 
there  is  nothing  ethical;  but  the  successful  marauder  in  his  turn  suffers 
similar  loss  and  makes  similar  reflection.  When  this  has  happened  a 
number  of  times  the  difference  between  the  brute  and  the  man  begins  to 
show  itself.  The  former  keeps  up  the  struggle  from  one  generation  to 
another  without  ceasing;  the  latter  reflects  on  the  situation. 

The  savage  after  a  while  acquires  permanent  property,  a  bow  and  arrow, 
the  loss  of  which  involves  not  merely  a  momentary  but  a  permanent  failure 
of  resources.  He  perceives  that  he  secures  the  greatest  good  for  himself 
by  an  understanding  with  his  fellows  which  assume  to  each  the  use  of  his 
own  possessions.  As  social  relations  have  become  more  numerous  the 
advantage  of  such  an  arrangement  becomes  more  and  more  evident,  and 
the  respect  for  the  property  of  others  becomes  an  established  rule  of  the 
community.  The  moral  sentiment  now  makes  it  apparent,  at  first  dim  and 
untrustworthy,  but  gathering  strength  with  every  advance  in  reflection 
and  intelligence,  until  finally  the  rule  of  life  is  embodied  in  the  law,  “Thou 
shalt  not  steal.” 

From  this  point  the  progress  is  steady  with  the  growing  estimate  of  the 
worth  of  the  individual,  and  the  increasing  dependence  of  members  of  the 
community  on  one  another,  the  rights  of  property  are  more  clearly  defined, 
and  there  is  a  greater  disposition  to  punish  the  invasion  of  these  rights. 
Recognition  of  the  property  rights  becomes  a  duty,  but  always  under  the 
condition  that  gave  it  birth,  namely,  the  well-being  of  the  community.  So 
soon  as  it  appears  that  this  right  stands  in  the  way  of  general  property,  it 
ceases  to  exist.  Society,  for  example,  does  not  hesitate  to  seize  the  prop¬ 
erty  of  an  enemy  in  war,  or  to  confiscate  the  property  of  its  own  citizens  by 
fines  or  taxes.  Or,  in  another  direction,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  take 
what  is  not  our  own  if  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  it  will  not  injure 
the  possessor,  and  if  there  is  a  general  presumption  of  his  consent,  as  when, 
in  passing  by  a  field,  we  pluck  an  apple  from  a  tree  whose  owner  is 
unknown  to  us. 

In  the  same  way  the  duties  of  truthfulness  and  of  respect  for  human 
life  have  arisen,  and  these  are  limited  by  the  same  condition.  The  right  to 
slay  a  criminal  by  legal  process,  to  slay  an  enemy  in  war,  to  slay  a  midnight 
burglar  or  would-be  assassin  is  recognized  by  all  codes  as  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  society.  Men  everywhere  claim  the  right  to  state  what  is  con¬ 
trary  to  fact  in  certain  cases,  as,  to  enemies  in  war,  to  maniacs,  in  fiction, 
and  in  jest.  The  statement  of  a  novelist  that  a  knight  called  Ivanhoe  fol¬ 
lowed  King  Richard  to  Palestine,  the  declaration  of  the  poet  that  the  waves 
ran  mountain  high,  the  assertion  of  Tallrand  that  language  is  meant  to 
conceal  thought,  though  all  contrary  to  fact,  are  not  injurious,  for  they 
deceive  nobody,  and  the  obligation  of  truthfulness  results  from  its  bearing 
on  our  well-being.  Under  certain  circumstances  a  man  may  conceal  his 
opinion  without  offense  to  his  conscience,  namely,  when  he  is  convinced 
that  such  concealment  will  work  no  harm. 

But  there  are  two  situations  in  which  concealment  is  violation  of  truth¬ 
fulness;  when  a  man  from  his  position  is  expected  to  speak  and  his  silence 


486 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS.  - 


will  be  misleading,  and  when,  being  a  public  teacher  in  science,  art,  or 
religion,  he  uses  phrases  which  he  knows  to  be  understood  by  his  audi¬ 
ence  in  one  sense  while  he  employs  them  in  another  sense.  There  is  still  a 
more  subtle  form  of  untruthfulness  in  which  a  man  deliberately  turns  his 
mind  away  from  certain  evidence  for  fear  it  will  change  his  opinion.  This 
procedure  is  fatal  to  the  intellect  and  to  the  soul;  it  obscures  thought  and 
prevents  conscience,  and  is  therefore  a  worry  to  oneself.  This  is  an  illus¬ 
tration  of  how  the  clever  recognition  of  the  dignity  of  the  individual  refines 
our  conceptions  of  duty. 

The  same  law  of  growth  governs  the  history  of  the  more  general  ethical 
conceptions.  Love  in  its  earliest  form  is  non-moral — it  is  mere  desire  or 
instinct.  The  affection  of  the  untrained  man  for  his  child,  or  his  family, 
or  tribe,  is  not  controlled  by  considerations  of  right.  It  must  be  ethically 
ineffective  till  experience  and  culture  have  determined  its  proper  objects. 
Two  conditions  must  be  fulfilled  before  love  can  rise  to  the  ethical  jdane. 
First,  it  must  be  transformed  from  selfish  desire  into  a  single-minded  wish 
to  secure  the  well-being  of  its  object,  and  then  it  must  know  what  is  well¬ 
being.  Both  these  conditions  are  attained  through  social  intercourse. 

The  standard  of  good  is  determined,  as  we  have  seen  above,  by  the 
observation  of  what  is  needed  in  society  for  the  perfecting  of  each  and  all. 
The  devotion  to  the  interests  of  the  individual  is , likewise  a  generalization 
from  the  facts  of  experience.  The  consciousness  of  one’s  own  personality 
and  its  needs  leads  to  the  recognition  of  the  other  personalities  and  her 
claims.  Thus  the  best  ethical  thinkers  of  the  world  have  in  different  lands 
come  to  the  identification  of  oneself  with  others  as  the  leading  principle 
of  moral  life — the  golden  rule.  Only  is  it  to  be  observed  that  this  rule  is 
valueless  unless  a  moral  standard  has  been  previously  established.  To  do 
to  others  as  I  wish  them  to  do  to  me  is  morally  inefficacious  in  conduct 
unless  I  wish  what  is  right.  In  a  word,  love  is  an  impulse  without  moral 
content.  Its  proper  objects  must  be  determined  in  part  by  ethical  expe¬ 
rience  and  its  method  of  procedure  must  be  learned  in  the  same  way. 

It  is  no  less  true  that  it  is  from  social  intercourse  that  we  gain  the  final 
and  fundamental  standard  of  conduct,  the  idea  of  justice.  The  recognition 
of  individual  rights  is  a  product  of  reflection  on  social  experience  out  of 
which  two  conceptions  inevitably  flow — namely,  the  absolute  right  of  the 
individual  to  perfection,  and  the  absolute  right  of  society  to  perfection. 
These  two  conceptions,  which  appear  on  the  surface  to  be  mutually  antago¬ 
nistic,  are  reconciled  by  the  fact  that  the  individual  finds  his  perfection 
only  in  society. 

A  fundamentally  wrong  theory  of  life  is  involved  in  the  statement  that 
the  individual  surrenders  certain  rights  for  the  sake  of  living  in  society. 
The  proper  statement  is  that  he  comes  to  self-consciousness,  to  individual¬ 
ity,  and,  therefore,  to  rights  and  perfection  only  in  society.  At  the  same 
time,  the  content  of  justice  is  determined  by  social  relations.  It  is  only  by 
experience  that  we  can  say  that  we  owe  just  so  much  to  each  person.  When 
we  have  determined  this  we  have  determined  everything.  There  is  nothing 
higher  than  this.  Love  can  do  no  more  than  recognize  the  rights  of  every 
being,  for  to  do  more  would  be  wrong.  Mercy  is  only  a  name  for  a  higher 
thought  of  justice,  it  is  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that,  under  the  circum¬ 
stances,  the  delinquent  deserves  something  different  from  that  which  rough 
justice,  or  what  passes  for  justice,  has  meted  out  to  him. 

Finally  a  great  motive  for  right  living  is  supplied  by  experience;  namely, 
the  hope  of  worldly  well  being  or  salvation.  Enlightened  observation  more 
and  more  shows  that  happiness  attends  virtue.  This  is  not  to  be  set  aside 
as  merely  refined  selfishness.  It  may  take  that  shape  in  its  cruder  forms 
in  what  is  called  the  “  Poor  Richard  ”  system  of  morality.  But  it  is  prop¬ 
erly  that  regard  for  self-development  which  all  the  highest  schemes  of  life 
recognize  as  a  fundamental  and  necessary  principle.  It  is  contained  in  the 


RELATION  BETWEEN  RELIGION  AND  CONDUCT.  487 


beatitudes  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  in  the  ethical  systems  of 
Plato,  Zeno,  and  Kant,  and  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  purest  unselfish¬ 
ness.  What  is  more,  from  it  the  mind  passes  naturally  to  the  broader  ideal 
of  the  well  being  of  the  world  as  the  aim  of  life  and  the  basis  of  happiness. 

Religion,  the  sense  of  relation  to  the  extra  human  power  of  the  universe, 
introduces  us  to  a  new  social  complex.  In  morality  the  parties  are  man 
and  man;  in  religion  man  and  God.  In  our  moral  relations  with  a  person 
or  government  there  are  two  classes  of  influence  to  be  considered — the 
moral  power  of  the  personality  and  a  restraining  or  impelling  power  of  a 
physical  control  over  us.  The  second  of  these  is  what  we  call  sanctions, 
with  rewards  and  punishments.  These,  again,  are  of  two  sorts,  internal  or 
organic  and  external  or  inorganic,  and  it  is  only  the  first  thought  that  can 
be  called  moral. 

Thus  let  us  suppose  that  it  is  better  for  a  college  student,  physically  and 
intellectually,  not  to  study  after  midnight,  and  that  he  does  stop  work  at 
that  hour.  Whether  this  is  a  moral  process  depends  on  the  consideration 
which  has  formed  his  habit.  If  he  has  himself,  through  observation  of 
his  life  and  that  of  others,  reached  the  conclusion  that  late  study  is 
injurious  and  has  therefore  avoided  it,  or  if  he  has  on  reflection  followed 
the  advice  of  others  as  probably  wise,  he  has  acted  as  a  moral  being;  but 
if  his  conduct  has  been  determined  solely  by  his  fear  of  incurring  penalties 
or  by  his  hope  of  securing  rewards  held  out  by  college  rules  it  is  non-moral. 

In  the  sphere  of  religion  the  two  sorts  of  sanction  are  what  we  call 
natural  and  supernatural.  The  laws  of  nature  may  be  considered  to  be 
laws  of  God  and  the  natural  penalties  and  rewards  of  life  to  be  divine 
sanctions.  Obedience  to  these  laws  is  a  moral  act,  because  it  involves  con¬ 
trol  of  self  in  the  interest  of  organic  development.  But  supernatural 
sanctions  are  inorganic  and  non-moral,  since  they  do  not  appeal  to  a  rational 
self-control.  He  who  is  honest  merely  to  escape  punishment  or  receive 
reward  fixed  by  external  law  is  not  honest  at  all.  But  he  who  observes  the 
laws  of  health  or  of  honesty,  because  he  perceives  that  they  are  necessary 
to  the  well-being  of  the  world,  is  also  religious  if  he  recognizes  these  laws 
as  the  ordination  of  God. 

When  religious  sanctions  are  spoken  of  it  is  commonly  the  supernatural 
sort  that  is  meant.  It  is  an  interesting  question  how  far  the  belief  in  these 
is  now  morally  effective.  That  it  has  at  various  times  been  influential  can 
not  be  doubted.  In  the  ancient  world  and  in  medieval  Europe  the  deity 
was  believed  to  intervene  supernaturally  in  this  life  for  the  protection  of 
innocence  and  the  punishment  of  wickedness;  but  this  belief  appears  to  be 
vanishing  and  can  not  be  called  an  effective  moral  force  at  the  present  day. 
Men  think  of  reward  and  punishment  as  belonging  to  the  future,  and  this 
connection  is  probably  of  some  weight.  Yet  its  practical  importance  is 
much  diminished  by  the  distance  and  the  dimness  of  the  day  of  reckoning. 
The  average  man  has  too  little  imagination  to  realize  the  remote  future. 
At  the  critical  moment  it  is  usually  passion  or  the  present  advantage  that 
controls  action. 

It  is  also  true  that  the  supernatural  side  of  the. belief  in  future  retri¬ 
bution  is  passing  away;  it  is  becoming  more  and  more  the  conviction  of 
the  religious  world  that  the  future  life  must  be  morally  the  continuation 
and  consequence  of  the  present.  This  must  be  esteemed  a  great  gain — it 
tends  to  banish  the  mechanical  and  emphasize  the  ethical  element  in  life 
and  to  raise  religion  to  the  plane  of  rationality.  Rational  religious  morality 
is  obedience  to  the  laws  of  nature  as  laws  of  God. 

We  are  thus  led  to  the  other  side  of  religion,  communion  with  God 
as  the  effective  source  of  religious  influence  on  conduct.  It  is  this,  in  the 
first  place,  that  gives  eternal  validity  to  the  laws  of  right.  Resting  on 
conscience  and  the  constitution  of  society,  these  laws  may  be  in  them¬ 
selves  obligatory  on  the  world  of  men,  but  they  acquire  a  universal  char- 


488 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


acter  only  when  we  remember  that  human  nature  itself  is  an  effluence 
of  the  divine  and  that  human  experience  is  the  divine  self-revelation. 

Further,  the  consciousness  of  the  divine  presence  should  be  the  most 
potent  factor  in  man’s  moral  life.  The  thought  of  the  ultimate  basis  of 
life,  incomprehensible  in  His  essence,  yet  known  through  His  self-out¬ 
putting  in  the  world  as  the  ideal  of  right,  as  a  comrade  of  man  in  moral 
life  shall  be,  if  received  into  the  soul  as  a  living  every-day  fact;  such  a 
purifying  and  uplifting  influence  as  no  merely  human  relationship  has  ever 
engendered. 

Religion,  then,  in  itself  furnishes  us  with  no  rules  of  conduct;  it  accepts 
the  rules  worked  out  by  human  experience.  There  is  no  moral  precept, 
high  or  low,  in  any  ethical  manual  or  sacred  book  which  has  not  been  expe¬ 
rienced,  discovered,  created,  tested,  approved  by  man  himself,  living  his 
life  in  sympathetic  relationship  with  his  fellow-creatures.  The  deepest,  the 
ultimate  source  of  our  ethical  codes,  as  actual  phenomena,  is  social  unity. 
It  is  this  that  cultivates  sympathy,  evokes  the  recognition  of  the  right  of 
the  individual  man  to  perfection,  deflnes  that  perfection,  and  creates  the 
moral  ideal.  The  building  up  of  this  unity  is  the  highest  moral  duty  of  us 
all,  and  offense  to  it  is  the  blackest  sin  of  which  man  is  capable.  He  who 
perpetuates  distinction  of  caste  and  class,  who  by  any  social  or  religious 
code  rears  artiflcial  barriers  between  man  and  man,  and  thus  hinders  the 
free  interplay  of  social  forces  and  the  free  communion  and  co-operation  of 
individual  men,  commits  a  crime  of  far  deeper  import  than  the  ordinary 
offenses  which  excite  our  indignation. 

Here  we  see  the  moral  function  of  love.  It  has  no  code,  but  it  is  an 
impulse  which  tends  to  foster  unity.  Nowhere  is  this  fact  more  clearly 
recognized  than  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  denounces  all  selfish 
antagonism,  and  involves,  though  it  does  not  explicitly  state,  the  conception 
of  social  unity  as  the  basis  of  moral  life.  Religion,  accepting  the  ethical 
code  established  by  man,  identifies  it  with  the  will  and  nature  of  Deity,  a 
procedure  to  which  no  exception  can  be  taken.  The  impetus  which  thus 
comes  to  the  moral  life  is  obvious.  There  is  the  enthusiasm  which  springs 
from  the  consciousness  of  being  a  part  of  a  vast  scheme,  buoyancy  given 
by  hopefulness  or  certainty  of  final  victory,  and  the  exultation  of  loyalty 
to  a  great  aim  and  a  transcendent  person. 

The  true  power  of  religion  lies  in  the  contact  between  the  divine  soul 
and  the  soul  of  man.  It  must  be  admitted  that  to  attain  this  is  no  easy 
thing.  To  feel  the  reality  of  a  divine  personality  in  the  universe,  to  value 
this  personality  as  the  ideal  of  justice  and  love,  to  keep  the  image  of  it 
fresh  and  living  in  the  mind  day  by  day  in  the  midst  of  the  throng  of  petty 
and  serious  cares  of  life,  demands  an  imaginative  power  and  a  force  of  will 
rarely  found  among  men.  It  is  in  this  power  that  the  great  creative 
religious  minds  have  excelled.  The  mass  of  religious  people  are  controlled 
by  lower  considerations  and  never  reach  the  plane  of  pure  religious  feel¬ 
ing.  Most  men  look  to  God  as  their  helper  in  physical  things  or  as  an  out¬ 
side  lawyer,  rather  than  as  their  comrade  in  moral  struggle. 

Thus,  religion  has  not  come  to  its  rights  in  the  world;  it  still  occupies, 
as  a  rule,  the  low  plane  of  early  non-moral  thought,  but  is  there  any  reason 
why  it  should  continue  in  this  massive  shape?  Is  there  anything  to 
prevent  our  living  in  moral  contact  with  the  soul  of  the  world,  and  thence 
deriving  the  inspiration  and  strength  we  need?  What  has  been  done  by 
some  may  be  done  in  a  measure  by  all.  Inadequate  conceptions  of  God  and 
of  the  moral  life  must  be  swept  away,  the  free  activity  of  the  human  soul 
must  be  recognized  and  relied  on,  the  habit  of  contemplation  of  the  ideal 
must  be  cultivated;  we  must  feel  ourselves  to  be  literally  and  truly 
co-workers  with  God. 

In  the  presence  of  such  a  communion  would  not  moral  evil  be  powerless 
over  man?  Finally,  we  here  have  a  conception  of  religion  in  which  almost 
all,  perhaps  all,  the  systems  of  the  world  may  agree.  It  is  our  hope  of  unity. 


CBRK^TIANITY  IN  JAPAN. 


489 


CHRISTIANITY  IN  JAPAN;  ITS  PRESENT  CONDITION 

AND  FUTURE  PROSPECTS. 

HARNICHI  KOZAKI,  PRESIDENT  OE  DOSHISHA  UNIVERSITY,  JAPAN. 

Progress  of  Christianity  in  Japan  is  quite  remarkable.  It  is  only  thirty- 
four  years  since  the  first  Protestant  missionary  put  his  foot  on  its  shore. 
And  it  is  scarcely  twenty  years  since  the  first  Protestant  Church  was  organ¬ 
ized  in  Japan.  Yet  now  there  are  more  Christians  here'  than  in  Turkey, 
where  missionaries  have  been  working  more  than  seventy  years,  and  there 
are  more  self-supporting  churches  there  than  in  China,  where  a  double  or 
thrice  number  of  missionaries  have  been  working  nearly  a  century.  In 
Japan,  Christian  papers  and  magazines  are  all  edited  by  the  natives,  not 
only  in  name  but  in  reality.  Christian  books,  which  have  been  most  influ¬ 
ential,  have  nearly  all  been  written  or  translated  by  them,  while  in  other 
countries  it  is  very  rare  to  find  the  native  Christians  writing  Christian  books 
or  editing  papers.  Only  recently  the  Christian,  the  most  influential  Chris¬ 
tian  paper  in  Japan,  had  a  symposium  to  name  fifteen  books  which  are 
most  useful  in  leading  men  to  Christianity,  instructing  Christians  and  giv¬ 
ing  good  counsel  to  young  people;  and  it_is  interesting  to  see  that  most  of 
the  books  named  are  those  written  or  translated  by  Japanese  Christians. 

Christianity  in  Japan  has  already  reached  a  stage  that  no  other  mis¬ 
sionary  fields  have  ever  attained.  Their  native  Christians  not  only  take  a 
part  in  all  discussions,  but  they  are  in  fact  leading  all  kinds  of  discussions, 
theological  as  well  as  practical.  They  are  leading,  not  only  in  all  kinds  of 
Christian  work,  literary  and  evangelistic,  educational  and  charitable,  but 
they  are  also  leading  Christian  thought  in  Japan.  Let  me  relate  one  or 
two  instances. 

Some  six  or  seven  years  ago,  when  we  were  contemplating  the  union  of 
the  Itochi  and  Kumiai  denominations,  th*-  two  most  powerful  Christian 
bodies  in  Japan,  among  twenty  members  of  a  joint  committee  appointed  by 
the  synod  of  one  and  general  council  of  the  other,  there  were  only  four 
missionaries.  When,  a  few  years  ago,  the  Kumiai  denomination  adopted  a 
new  confession  of  faith,  the  missionaries  took  almost  no  part.  This  con 
fession  was  drawn  up  by  a  committee,  consisting  entirely  of  Japanese,  and 
adopted  in  the  general  council,  in  which  missionaries  took  very  little  or  no 
part.  In  Japan  missionaries  are  really  “  helpers,”  and  I  should  say  to  their 
credit  they,  in  most  cases,  willingly  take  secondary  position  in  all  Christian 
works.  All  this,  I  say,  is  not  to  disparage  the  work  of  missionaries,  but 
only  to  show  the  progress  of  Christianity  among  the  natives  of  Japan. 

There  are  now  many  peculiar  features  in  J apanese  Christianity  which 
are  seldom  seen  in  other  countries. 

One  distinctive  feature  lies  in  the  peculiarity  of  the  constituency  of  its 
membership.  In  other  countries  female  members  always  predominate. 
For  instance  in  most  of  the  churches  in  this  country,  female  members  are 
almost  two  to  one  in  proportion  to  male  members.  The  membership  of  the 
Congregational  Church  in  1892  stands  as  follows: 


Male  members . 170,000 

Female  members . 350,000 


But  it  is  quite  otherwise  in  Japan.  Female  members  in  relation  to 
male  members  are  nearly  three  to  four.  It  is  almost  in  inverse  ratio  as  it 
is  in  the  United  States.  The  statistics  of  the  Kumiai  churches  in  the  last 


year  is  this: 

Male  members . 6,087 

Female  members . 5,087 


Another  fact  we  may  notice  is  the  predominance  of  young  people  in  our 
churches.  You  may  step  into  any  of  our  churches  in  any  city  or  village 
and  see  the  audience  and  you  will  be  struck  by  the  great  preponderance  of 


400 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


young  faces.  We  have  not  yet  taken  any  statistics  of  members  as  to  their 
age.  But  anyone  who  has  experience  in  Christian  work  there  notes  this 
peculiarity.  The  last  year  when  Dr.  F.  E.  Clark,  president  of  the  Y.  P.  S. 
C.  E.,  was  in  Japan,  in  advising  the  need  of  that  society,  he  said  that  young 
people  were  hard  to  reach  and  were  diffident  and  slow  to  take  any  part  in 
Christian  work.  But  the  case  is  different  there.  In  many  places  young 
people  are  the  only  people  who  are  accessible.  They  are  most  easily 
reached.  In  most  of  our  churches  young  people  are  most  active  in  all 
kinds  of  Christian  works,  while  in  some  churches  young  people  are  so  pre¬ 
dominant  and  take  everything  into  their  hands  that  elderly  people  feel 
often  quite  annoyed. 

One  more  point  is  the  predominance  of  the  Shizoku  or  military  class. 
They  have  been  and  still  are  the  very  brains  of  the  Japanese  people. 
Though  they  are  not  usually  well  off  in  material  wealth,  they  are  supe¬ 
rior  intellectually  and  morally.  Christians  in  other  missionary  fields  are 
usually  from  the  lower  classes.  In  India  the  Brahmans  rarely  become 
Christians,  neither  do  the  literary  class  in  China.  But  in  Japan  the 
Shizoku  class  take  a  lead.  « 

These  peculiarities  in  the  constituency  of  the  membership  of  Christian 
churches  in  Japan  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  simple  fact  that  the  males, 
the  young,  and  the  Shizoku  classes  are  most  accessible.  The  Shizoku  class 
as  a  body  has  had  hitherto  almost  no  religion,  and  they  have  been  mostly 
Confucianists.  By  the  last  revolution  they  lost  their  profession  as  well  as 
their  means  of  support,  and  thus  they  are  all  unsettled  in  life,  and  so 
accessible  to  every  kind  of  new  influence  and  truth.  Young  jjeople  have 
also  no  settled  opinions,  and  are  open  to  new  influences,  and  thus  accessible 
to  new  truth.  And  so  it  is  with  men  as  compared  with  women.  They  are 
generally  more  progressive  and  hence  more  accessible. 

These  peculiarities  are  of  its  strength  as  well  as  its  weakness.  As  the 
Japanese  Christian  population  is  composed  of  such  a  constituency,  the 
native  Christians  are  more  progressive,  more  active,  more  able  to  stand  on 
their  own  feet,  and  more  cai)able  of  establishing  self-supporting  churches. 
But  this  strength  is  also  their  weakness.  They  are  more  liable  to  be 
drifted,  more  apt  to  be  changed,  and  more  disposed  to  be  flippant. 

The  next  peculiar  feature  of  Japanese  Christianity  is  lack  of  sectarian  or 
denominational  spirit.  About  thirty  different  denominations  of  Protestant 
churches,  represented  by  about  an  equal  number  of  missionary  boards,  are 
on  the  field,  each  teaching  its  own  peculiar  tenets.  But  they  are  making 
very  little  impression  on  our  Christians.  In  fact,  denominations  which  have 
strong  denominational  spirit  are  getting  fewer  converts  than  those  which 
have  less.  The  broader  their  principle  or  spirit  the  greater  is  the  number 
of  their  converts.  Anyone  who  is  at  all  conversant  with  the  history  of 
denominations  knows  that  all  over  the  world,  other  things  being  equal, 
denominations  having  stronger  denominational  spirit  are  making  greater 
gains  in  their  membership  than  those  which  have  less.  But  in  Japan  it  is 
the  exception. 

We  have  been  having,  at  first  annually,  but  lately  once  in  three  years, 
what  was  called  “  Dai  Shin  Baku  Kwai,”  which  is  afterward  changed  into 
the  Evangelical  alliance,  the  meeting  of  all  Christians  in  Japan,  irrespective 
of  denominations  or  churches — the  most  popular  and  interesting  meeting 
we  have.  Japanese  Christians  did  not  know  any  distinction  in  denomina¬ 
tions  or  churches.  But  when  they  found  out  that  there  are  many  different 
folds,  and  that  one  belongs  to  his  denomination,  not  by  his  own  choice,  but 
simply  by  chance  or  circumstance  which  could  in  no  way  be  controlled, 
there  is  no  wonder  that  these  Christians  begin  to  ask  :  Why  should  not 
we,  all  Christians,  unite  in  one  church? 

The  union  movement  in  Japan  rose  at  first  in  some  such  way.  Though 
we  have  now  lost  much  of  this  simple  spirit,  still  Japanese  Christians  are 


CHRISTIANITY  IN  JAPAN. 


491 


essentially  undenominational.  You  may  see  that  the  church  which  adopts 
Presbyterian  forms  of  government  refuses  to  be  called  “  Presbyterian  ”  or 
“Reformed”  and  adopted  the  broad  name  “  Itschi,”  the  “United”;  but,  not 
content  even  with  this  broad  name,  it  has  recently  changed  it  to  a  still 
broader  name,  “Nippon  Kinisuto  Kio  Kwai,”  “The  Church  of  Christ  in 
Japan.” 

The  church  which  has  adopted  an  Episcopal  form  of  government  lately 
dropped  the  name  of  Episcopacy  and  adopted  instead  the  name  of  “  The 
Holy  Church  of  Japan.”  Kumiai  churches  for  a  long  time  had  no  name 
except  this:  “A  Church  of  Christ.”  When  it  was  found  out  that  it  is  nec¬ 
essary  to  adopt  some  name  to  distinguish  itself  from  other  churches,  its 
Christians  reluctantly  adopted  the  name  of  “Kumiai,”  which  means  “asso¬ 
ciated”;  for  at  that  time  they  happened  to  form  an  association  of  churches 
which  was  until  then  independent  of  each  other.  They  always  refused  to 
be  called  the  “Congregational  Churches,”  although  they  have  adopted 
mostly  Congregational  policy  of  church  government. 

The  church  union  which  failed  lately  may  not  be  revived  in  any  near 
future.  But  there  is  a  hope  that  some  day  our  different  denominations 
may  be  united  in  some  way. 

The  third  distinctive  feature  of  Japanese  Christianity  is  the  prevalence 
of  liberal  spirit  in  doctrinal  matters.  While  missionaries  are  both  preach¬ 
ing  and  teaching  the  orthodox  doctrines,  Japanese  Christians  are  eagerly 
studying  the  most  liberal  theology.  Not  only  are  they  studying,  but  they 
are  diffusing  these  liberal  thoughts  with  zeal  and  diligence,  and  so  I  believe 
that,  with  a  small  exception,  most  of  Japanese  pastors  and  evangelists  are 
more  or  less  liberal  in  their  theology. 

While  the  Presbyterians  in  the  United  States  are  persecuting  Drs.  Briggs 
and  Smith,  the  Presbyterians  of  J apan  are  almost  in  a  body  on  the  side  of 
these  two  professors.  .  While  the  A.  B.  C.F.  M.  is  strenuously  on  the  watch 
to  send  no  missionary  who  has  any  inclination  toward  the  Andover  theology, 
the  pastors  and  evangelists  of  the  Kumiai  churches,  which  are  in  close 
connection  with  the  same  board,  are  advocating  and  preaching  theology 
perhaps  more  liberal  than  the  Andover  theology.  Just  to  illustrate,  some 
years  ago,  in  one  of  our  councils,  when  we  were  going  to  install  a  pastor,  he 
expressed  the  orthodox  belief  on  future  life,  which  was  a  great  surprise  to 
all.  Then  members  of  the  council  pressed  hard  questions  to  him  so  as  to 
force  him  to  adopt  the  doctrine  of  future  probation,  as  though  it  is  the 
only  doctrine  which  is  tenable. 

Only  recently,  when  a  bishop  of  a  certain  church  was  visiting  Japan, 
he  was  surprised  to  learn  that  a  young  Japanese  professor  in  the  seminary 
connected  with  his  own  church  was  teaching  quite  a  liberal  theology,  and 
he  gave  him  a  strong  warning. 

As  to  the  creeds:  When  the  “  Church  of  Christ  in  Japan  ”  was  organ¬ 
ized  it  adopted  the  Presbyterian  and  the  Reformed  standards,  namely,  the 
Westminster  Shorter  Catechism,  the  Canon  of  Dort  and  the  Heidelberg 
Confession  of  Faith.  But  Christians  of  the  same  church  soon  found  them 
too  stiff,  one-sided,  and  conservative,  and  thus  they  have  lately  dropped 
these  standards  as  their  creeds  altogether.  They  have  now  the  “  Apostles’ 
Creed”  with  a  short  preface  attached  to  it. 

When  the  Kumiai  church  was  first  organized  it  adopted  the  Nine  Articles 
of  the  Basis  of  Evangelical  Alliance  as  its  creed.  But  Christians  of  the  same 
denomination  became  soon  dissatisfied  with  its  narrowness,  and  so  in  1890 
they  made  their  own  creed,  which  is  far  simpler  and  broader.  But  even 
this  creed  is  not  understood  as  binding  to  all,  but  only  as  a  common 
expression  of  religious  belief  and  prevailing  among  them  in  general. 

Though  Japanese  Christians  are  largely  on  the  side  of  liberal  theology 
they  are  not  in  any  way  in  favor  of  Unitarianism  or  even  Universalism. 
Some  years  ago  there  was  a  rumor  that  the  Japanese  were  in  general 


492 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONil. 


inclined  to  Unitarian  Christianity.  The  most  of  our  educated  classes  have 
no  religion.  Though  they  favor  some  kinds  of  Christian  ethical  teachings 
they  have  no  faith  in  any  religion  or  supernatural  truth,  and  thus  they  are 
seemingly  in  the  same  position  as  certain  Unitarians.  But  Christians  are  as  a 
whole  loyal  to  Christ,  and  are  all  to  be  characterized  as  evangelical.  Often 
Unitarians  and  those  who  call  themselves  “  Liberal  Christians”  are  as  nar¬ 
row  and  prejudiced  as  some  orthodox  Christians.  And,  moreover,  their 
beliefs  are  too  negative.  Where  there  are  bigoted,  hard,  orthodox  Chris¬ 
tians  they  may  have  soil  to  thrive  on,  but  in  such  a  place  like  J apan  they 
will  find  it  hard  work  to  keep  up  interest  enough  to  have  any  religion. 

There  was  a  time  when  Christianity  was  making  such  a  stride  in  its 
progress  that  in  one  year  it  gained  40  or  50  per  cent,  increase.  This  was 
between  1882  and  1888.  These  years  may  be  regarded  as  a  flowery  era  in 
the  annals  of  Japan.  It  was  in  1883  that,  when  we  were  having  the  “Dai 
Shin  Baku  Kwai  ”  in  Tokio,  perhaps  the  most  interesting  meeting  in  its 
history,  one  of  the  delegates  expressed  his  firm  belief  that  in  ten  years 
Japan  would  become  a  Christian  country.  This  excited  quite  an  applause, 
and  no  one  felt  it  as  in  any  way  too  extravagant  to  cherish  such  a  hope, 
such  was  the  firm  belief  of  most  Christians  at  that  time.  Since  then 
progress  in  our  churches  has  not  been  such  as  was  expected.  Not  only 
members  have  not  increased  in  such  a  proportion  as  years  before,  but  in 
some  cases  there  can  be  seen  a  decline  of  religious  zeal  and  the  self-sacri¬ 
ficing  spirit.  And  so  in  these  last  few  years  the  cry  heard  most  frequently 
among  our  churches  has  been,  “Awake,  awake,  as  in  the  days  past.” 

To  show  the  decline  of  that  religious  enthusiasm  I  may  take  an  illus¬ 
tration  from  the  statistics  of  the  Kumiai  churches  as  to  its  amount  of  con¬ 
tribution.  In  1882  this  amount  was  $6.72  per  Christian; in  1888  this  amount 
ran  down  to  $2.15,  and  in  the  last  year  there  has  been  still  more  decline, 
coming  down  to  $1.95.  In  amount  of  increase  of  membership  there  has 
been  a  proportional  decline.  Why  there  was  such  a  decline  is  not  hard  to 
see.  Among  various  causes  I  may  mention  three  principal  ones. 

1.  Public  sentiment  in  Japan  has  been  always  fluctuating  from  one 
side  to  another.  It  is  like  a  pendulum,  now  going  to  one  extreme  and  then 
to  another.  This  movement  of  public  sentiment,  within  the  last  fifteen  or 
twenty  years,  can  easily  be  pointed  out.  Prom  1877  to  1882  I  may  regard 
as  a  period  of  reaction  and  that  of  revival  of  antiforeign  spirit.  During 
this  period  the  cry,  “Repel  foreigners,”  which  was  on  the  lips  of  every  Jap¬ 
anese  at  the  time  of  the  revolution,  and  since  then  unheard  was  again 
heard.  It  was  at  this  time  that  Confucial  teaching  was  revived  in  ail  the 
imblic  schools,  and  the  emperor  issued  a  proclamation  that  the  Western 
ethical  principles  were  not  suitable  to  the  Japanese,  and  were  not  to  be 
taught  in  our  public  schools. 

Then  the  pendulum  went  to  the  other  side.  And  now  another  era  came 
in.  This  was  a  period  of  Western  ideas  which  covers  the  years  between 
1882  and  1888.  This  was  the  age  of  great  interest  in  everything  that  came 
from  abroad.  Not  only  was  English  eagerly  taught,  but  all  sort^s  of  foreign 
manners  and  custom  were  busily  introduced.  Foreign  costumes,  not  only 
of  gentlemen,  but  ladies,  foreign  diet  as  .well  as  foreign  liquors  became 
most  popular  among  all  classes.  Every  newspaper,  almost  without  excep¬ 
tion,  advocated  the  adoption  of  everything  foreign,  so  that  Japan  seemed  as 
if  it  would  be  no  longer  an  Oriental  nation,  but  would  become  Occidental- 
ized.  It  was  at  this  time  that  such  a  paper  as  Jiji  S/iimpo  advocated 
adoption  of  Christianity  as  the  national  religion  of  Japan.  It  was  no 
wonder  that  people  poured  into  Christian  churches  and  that  the  latter 
aiade  unprecedented  strides  in  progress. 

But  the  pendulum  swung  to  its  extreme  and  now  another  movement 
came  in.  The  sign  of  reactionary  and  anti-foreign  spirit  might  be  seen  in 
everything — in  customs,  in  sentiments,  as  well  as  in  opinions.  Then  the 


CHRISTIANITY  IN  JAPAN, 


493 


“Japan  for  the  Japanese”  became  heard  in  all  the  corners  of  the  empire. 
Everything  that  has  flavor  of  foreign  countries  has  been  stigmatized  as 
unworthy  of  adoption  by  the  J apanese,  and,  instead  of  it,  everything  native 
is  praised  as  superior  or  worthy  of  preservation.  Buddhism,  which  has  been 
regarded  for  years  as  a  religion  of  the  ignorant  and  inferior  classes,  is  now 
praised  as  a  superior  religion,  much  superior  to  Christianity,  and  many  who 
once  favored  adoption  of  Christianity  as  the  national  religion  are  seen 
publicly  in  Buddhistic  ceremonies.  Christianity  is  denounced  as  antago¬ 
nistic  to  the  growth  of  our  national  spirit,  in  conflict  with  our  best  morality, 
and  also  as  against  the  intent  of  the  imperial  edict  which  was  issued  two 
years  ago  as  the  code  of  morals  in  all  our  schools.  Conflict  between  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  national  education  has  become  the  most  popular  theme  among 
certain  classes  of  the  people.  Strong  sense  of  national  feeling  has  been 
aroused  among  all  classes  of  people,  and  now  it  is  not  strange  that  Chris¬ 
tians  also  feel  its  influence. 

And  thus  the  doors  to  Christianity  seem  to  have  been  closed,  and  we 
have  a  great  decline  in  its  growth.  But  now,  again,  the  pendulum  has 
reached  another  end,  and  there  are  signs  that  another  era  is  ushering  in. 
Every  movement  has  rhythm,  says  Herbert  Spencer,  and  this  is  true  in  the 
progress  of  Christianity  in  Japan. 

One  word  as  to  the  prospect  in  future.  That  Japan  will  not  become  a 
Christian  nation  in  a  few  years  is  a  plain  fact.  But  that  it  will  become  one 
in  the  course  of  time  is  almost  above  doubt,  and  it  is  only  a  question  of 
time.  Still  “  Rome  can  not  be  built  in  a  day,”  and  so  it  will  take  time  to 
Christianize  Japan.  That  there  are  strong  obstacles  and  great  hindrances 
can  easily  be  seen.  It  may  be  easy  to  show  the  reasonableness  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  but  to  instill  the  true  Christian  spirit  into  the  heart  of  the  people 
is  not  an  easy  task.  We  can  show  them  more  easily  the  folly  of  other 
religions,  but  to  build  up  a  true  Christian  church  requires  a  long  time.  As 
it  was  in  the  time  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  so  it  will  be  in  Japan  that, 
except  a  certain  grain  of  wheat  falls  into  the  earth  and  dies,  it  abideth  by 
itself  alone.  Unless  a  great  many  precious  lives  must  be  spent  in  this  diffi¬ 
cult  and  great  work,  we  can  not  hope  much  for  its  results. 

I  am  not  at  all  anxious  about  the  future  of  Christianity  in  Japan,  as  far 
as  its  final  victory  is  concerned.  But  there  are  many  difficult  problems 
pressing  us  hard  for  their  solution.  I  shall  here  simply  state  these  prob¬ 
lems  in  a  few  words. 

1.  The  first  problem  that  comes  under  our  notice  is  that  of  relation 
between  Christianity  and  our  nationality,  namely,  our  national  habit  and 
spirit.  Professor  Inonge  and  others  have  been  raising  their  voices  against 
Christianity,  claiming  it  is  in  conflict  with  our  national  spirit.  And  this 
cry  against  Christianity  has  become  so  popular  among  Buddhists,  Shinto- 
ists,  and  Reactionists,  that  they  make  it  the  only  weapon  of  their  attack 
against  Christianity.  But  in  my  belief,  this  problem  is  not  so  hard  as 
it  looks.  What  outsiders  think  to  be  the  real  conflict  seems  to  us  only 
shadow  and  vapor. 

2.  Relation  between  missionaries  and  native  Christians  is  another 
problem.  How  must  they  be  related?  In  other  countries,  such  as  India 
or  China,  such  a  question,  perhaps,  may  never  arise,  but  in  Japan  it  is 
entirely  different.  Japanese  Christians  will  never  be  satisfied  under  mis¬ 
sionary  auspices.  To  be  useful  to  our  country,  the  missionaries  must 
either  co-operate  or  join  native  churches  and  become  like  one  of  the  native 
workers. 

3.  Problem  of  denominations  and  church  government  is  another  diffi¬ 
culty.  Of  course  we  shall  not  entirely  dispense  with  denominations  and 
sects.  But  it  seems  rather  foolish  to  have  all  denominations,  which  are 
peculiar  to  some  countries,  and  which  have  certain  peculiar  ^  history 
attached  to  them,  introduced  into  Japan  where  no  such  history  exists,  and 


494 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


where  circumstances  are  entirely  different.  And  so  we  think  we  can  reduce 
the  number  of  denominations.  But  how  to  begin  is  a  hard  problem. 

So  also  with  the  form  of  church  government.  It  is  needless  to  say  that 
we  need  not  or  ought  not  to  copy  in  cmyway  the  exact  forms  of  church 
governments  which  are  in  vogue  in  the  United  States  or  any  other  coun¬ 
tries.  But  to  formulate  a  form  of  government  that  suits  our  country  the 
best,  and  at  the  same  time  works  well  elsewhere,  is  quite  a  difficult  task. 

4.  Whether  we  need  any  written  creed,  and,  if  so,  what  kind  of  creed  is 
best  to  have,  is  also  a  question.  In  all  teachings  of  missionaries  and  others 
there  is  always  more  or  less  of  husks  mixed  with  genuine  truth.  And 
at  the  same  time  every  form  of  Christianity  has  some  excellent  truth  in 
it.  And  it  is  hard  to  make  distinctions  between  essentials  and  non-essen¬ 
tials,  between  creed  and  husks.  This  is  a  hard  problem  for  Japanese 
theologians  to  solve. 

Japanese  Christians  must  solve  all  these  problems  by  themselves.  I 
believe  there  is  a  grand  mission  for  Japanese  Christians.  I  believe  that  it 
is  our  mission  to  solve  all  these  problems  which  have  been  and  are  still 
stumbling  blocks  in  all  lands;  and  it  is  also  our  mission  to  give  to  all  the 
Oriental  nations  and  the  rest  of  the  world  a  guide  to  true  progress  and  a 
realization  of  the  glorious  gospel  which  is  in  Jesus  Christ. 

And  now,  in  conclusion,  I  may  say  that  Christianity  is  from  God,  and 
so  it  will  be  in  all  times.  We  may  plan  many  things,  but  all  will  be  exe¬ 
cuted  by  the  divine  will.  As  the  saying  runs,  “Man  proposes  and  God 
disposes.”  Then  our  prayer  is  and  always  must  be:  “Thy  kingdom  come 
Thy  will  be  done,  as  in  heaven  so  on  earth.” 


RELIGION  IN  PEKIN. 

ISAAC  T.  HEADLAND,  A  PROFESSOR  IN  PEKIN  UNIVERSITY. 

The  Chinese  are  often  supposed  to  be  so  poor  that,  even  if  they  wished 
they  would  not  be  able  to  support  Christianity  were  it  established  in  their 
midst.  Such  a  supposition  is  a  great  mistake.  Not  to  mention  the  fact 
that  they  are  at  present  supporting  four  religions,  viz.,  Confucianism,  Bud¬ 
dhism,  Taoism,  and  Mohammedanism,  a  glance  at  the  condition  of  any 
city  or  village  is  enough  to  convince  one  of  the  fact  that  whatever  the 
Chinese  wish  to  do  and  undertake  to  do  they  are  abundantly  able  to  do. 

The  country  swarms  with  people — poor  people — people  who  are  so  very 
poor  that  there  are  no  doubt  thousands  who  starve  every  year.  It  is  said 
that  just  outside  of  the  Chien  Men  gate,  which  stands  immediately  in  front  of 
the  emperor’s  palace,  more  than  400  people  froze  to  death  during  a  single 
night  during  the  past  winter.  In  front  of  this  gate  is  a  bridge  called  Beg¬ 
gars’  Bridge,  where  half-naked  men  and  boys  may  be  seen  at  any  time, 
except  when  the  emperor  himself  passes,  eating  food  which  would  not  be 
eaten  by  a  respectable  American  dog.  But  while  this  is  all  true,  it  does 
not  alter  the  fact  that  there  are  more  temples  in  Pekin  than  there  are 
churches  in  Chicago.  There  are  temples  of  all  sorts  and  sizes,  from  the 
little  altar  built  outside  the  door  of  the  watchman’s  house  on  the  top  of 
the  city  wall,  to  the  great  Lama  Temple,  which  covers  many  acres  of 
ground,  having  an  idol  of  Buddha  100  feet  tall,  and  1,500  priests  to  conduct 
the  worship.  Similar  to  this  great  Buddhist  Temple  is  the  great  Confucian 
temple,  not  so  large,  and  without  priests,  but  equally  well  built  and  well 
kept.  The  large  Taoist  Temple,  immediately  outside  of  the  west  side  gate, 
is  expensive  and  well  supported,  and  contains  many  priests,  while  the  large 
grounds  of  the  Mohammedans,  with  their  twenty-one  mosques,  are  worthy 
to  be  ranked  with  those  above  mentioned. 


RELIGION  IN  PEKIN. 


495 


Professor  Headland  Had  a  series  of  pictures  of  scenes  and 
incidents  among  the  district  of  temples  in  and  about  Pekin. 
His  address  was  largely  explanatory  of  these  pictures.  Con¬ 
tinuing,  speaking  of  the  temples,  he  said: 

Besides  these,  the  Temple  of  the  Sun,  the  Temple  of  the  Moon,  the  Tem¬ 
ple  of  the  Earth,  the  Temple  of  Heaven,  and  the  Temple  of  Agriculture  are 
all  immense  structures  of  the  most  costly  type.  These  are  all  state  temples, 
where  the  emperor  performs  worship  for  all  the  people,  and  the  annual 
sacrifices  of  cattle  and  theep  are  by  no  means  inexpensive.  There  are  few 
churches  ii:  the  United  States  which  cost  more  than  $500,000,  but  some  of 
those  I  have  just  meidionea  would  far  exeeed,  if  not  more  than  double,  that 
amount.  The  Roman  Catholics  have  shown  their  wisdom  in  erecting 
cathedrals,  which,  though  not  so .  xpensive,far  surpass  the  others  in  beauty, 
design,  and  workmanship.  They  have  three  very  fine  cathedrals,  the  East, 
the  South,  and  the  1  lorth,  the  last  of  which  would  be  an  ornament  to  any 
city  in  the  United  States. 

The  following  translation  of  the  inscription  on  two  tablets  at  the  mouth 
of  a^  cave  called  Hermit's  Cave  will  show  how  temples  are  sometimes 
repaired.  The  cave  is  8  feet  square  and  43^  feet  high,  and  is  cut  out  of  the 
solid  rock: 

On  this  stone  is  recorded  the  restoration  of  the  idols  and  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple  Dung  Ching  An  on  this  mountain,  Tsui  Wei  Shan.  By  whom  this  temple 
was  originally  built  many  years  ago  is  unknown.  A  number  of  eunuchs  of  the 
emperor’s  palace  have  contributed  to  its  entire  restoration,  and  that  llie  work  is 
completed,  the  buildings,  idols,  and  Lo  Han  fully  restored,  1  make  this  record 
that  the  merit  of  these  generous  men  may  be  known  to  future  generations.  I, 
Chas  Yu,  Chamberlain  of  the  Emperor’s  Palace,  make  this  record,  inscribing  first 
the  names  of  the  forty  largest  donors.  Ming  Dynasty,  Wau  Li,  Empeior. 

The  number  of  temples  in  the  city  that  are  entirely  out  of  repair  is  not 
small.  In  the  purchase  of  our  mission  premises  we  become  the  possessors 
of  no  less  than  three  temples,  while  one  stands  at  our  southwest  and  another 
at  our  northwest  corner,  another  at  the  southwest *of  our  W.  F.  M.  S.  prop¬ 
erty,  another  in  front  of  our  hospital  gate,  and  still  another  near  a  large 
well  back  of  our  houses. 

The  first  one  purchased  has  been  turned  into  a  dining-room  for  the  pre¬ 
paratory  school  of  the  Pekin  University.  When  the  workmen  came  to  take 
the  gods  out  of  this  temple  they  first  invited  them  to  go  out,  and  then  car¬ 
ried  them  out.  When  we  made  our  second  purchase  one  of  the  priests 
walled  himself  up  in  one  corner,  tied  a  rope  to  a  large  bell,  and  declared 
that  he  would  never  leave  the  place.  He  kept  ringing  the  bell  at  intervals 
for  some  time,  but  this  after  awhile  became  so  monotonous  that  he  took 
opium  for  the  purpose  of  committing  suicide.  Our  physician  was  called, 
and,  by  administering  the  proper  remedies,  he  was  saved,  and  eventually 
left.  Our  third  temple  was  turned  into  a  charity  school  last  winter,  in 
which  seventeen  small  boys  are  studying  the  catechism  and  other  Chris¬ 
tian  books,  and  Durbin  Hall  takes  the  place  of  the  temples. 

All  sorts  of  stratagems  are  resorted  to  by  the  priests  to  secure  patron¬ 
age.  I  have  heard  of  an  old  priest  whose  temple  was  rapidly  falling  into 
decay,  who,  after  thinking  of  many  ways,  settled  upon  the  following 
scheme: 

Having  made  arrangements  with  an  old  woman,  he  sent  her  away  from  the 
temple  some  distance  and  persuaded  her  to  buy  a  donkey  and  ride  to  the  temple. 
She  did  so.  Dismounting  she  left  the  donkey  ai  d  driver  out.'-ide  while  she  entered 
the  temple.  Not  returning  for  a  long  time,  the  driver  became  impatient  and  made 
a  disturbance  about  his  pay.  Hereupon  the  priest  entered  in  the  midst  of  the 
crowd  that  had  gathered  and  asked  what  was  the  matter.  When  told  he  said 
that  it  was  impossible,  that  no  old  woman  had  come  into  the  terxple.  and  invited 
the  driver  to  go  and  examine.  He  led  him  in  among  the  genii  which  were 
arranged  around  the  building  and  the  driver  soon  picked  out  the  right  one. 


496 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Butr  said  the  priest,  “  this  is  not  an  old  woman,  this  is  one  of  the  gods; 
fall  down  and  worship  her  and  she  will  give  you  your  money.” 

He  did  so  and  to  his  surprise  found  a  piece  of  silver  on  the  ground  where 
he  knelt.  When  he  returned  to  the  donkey  he  found  a  string  of  cash  on  its 
back.  He  began  at  once  to  spread  the  news.  The  people  went  to  worship  and 
many  of  them  found  silver.  The  news  spread,  the  money  poured  into  the  temple 
treasury  and  the  crowd  so  increased  about  the  temple  that  the  government  was 
forced  to  interfere. 

Whether  or  not  it  may  be  considered  a  misfortune  that  the  Buddhist 
priests  are  a  company  of  beggars  is  perhaps  largely  a  matter  of  opinion. 
Buddhism  was  established  by  a  prince  who  became  a  beggar  that  he  might 
teach  his  people  the  way  to  enlightenment,  and  they  are  but  following  his 
illustrious  example.  But  while  they  follow  in  the  matter  of  begging — at 
least  a  large  part  of  them — there  is  no  room  for  much  doubt  as  to  whether 
most  of  them  make  a  very  strenuous  effort  to  enlighten  the  people.  Indeed, 
if  all  the  facts  brought  to  light  in  our  foreign  hospitals,  especially  those 
situated  near  the  Lama  temples,  and  visited  by  the  priests,  were  set  forth 
they  would  reveal  a  condition  of  things  among  the  class  of  priests  not  very 
different,  perhaps,  from  that  which  called  forth  Paul’s  epistle  to  the  Cor¬ 
inthians.  But  these  facts  are  of  such  a  character  as  to  be  fit  only  for  a 
medical  report. 

It  need  not  be  considered  a  matter  of  wonder,  then,  that  the  morals  of 
the  people  are  not  better  than  they  are.  “  Like  priest,  like  people.”  Says 
Chaucer: 

For  if  a  priest  be  foul,  on  whom  we  truste. 

No  wonder  it  is  a  lewid  man  to  ruste. 

And  it  is  by  no  means  a  matter  of  doubt  that  large  number  of  Bud¬ 
dhist  priests  are  “foul.”  They  are  not  all  so.  We  have  seen  among  them 
faces  which  carry  their  own  tale;  we  have  heard  voices  which  carry  their 
own  recommendations,  and  we  have  seen  conduct  which  could  only  proceed 
from  a  devoted  heart.  But  of  those  with  whom  we  have  come  in  contact 
this  class  has  been  the  exception,  not  the  rule.  At  Miao  Feng  Shan,  a  large 
temple,  situated  above  the  clouds,  the  priests  themselves,  I  have  been  told 
by  a  Chinese  teacher,  support  a  company  of  prostitutes.  Certain  it  is,  that 
at  the  most  prosperous  of  the  temples  are  found  some  of  the  worst  priests, 
as  though  when  the  getting  of  money  for  their  support  was  off  their  minds, 
having  little  left  to  occupy  them,  they  entertain  themselves  by  the  gratifi¬ 
cation  of  their  passions.  They  may,  however,  like  many  other  priests,  be 
misrepresented  by  their  own  people. 

By  “  the  most  prosperous  temples  ”  we  mean  those  to  which  the  most 
pilgrimages  are  made.  Miao  Feng  Shan  is  forty  miles  west  of  Pekin;  and 
another,  fifty  miles  east,  is  almost  equally  popular.  To  these,  in  the  spring¬ 
time,  many  thousands  of  people  from  all  the  surrounding  country  make 
pilgrimages,  some  of  which  are  of  the  most  expensive  and  self-denying 
character,  while  others  exhibit  almost  every  form  of  humiliation  and  self- 
torment,  such  as  wearing  chains  as  prisoners,  tying  their  feet  together,  so 
as  to  be  able  to  take  only  short  steps,  being  chained  to  another  man,  wear¬ 
ing  red  clothing  in  exhibition  of  their  sin,  or  prostrating  themselves  at 
every  one,  three,  or  five  steps. 

The  temple  worship  of  the  J ews  at  its  most  prosperous  period  was  not 
more  largely  attended  than  is  this  worship  at  these  temples.  While  the 
temples  are  enriched  by  the  gifts  or  subscriptions  of  these  worshipers  they 
are,  at  the  same  time,  robbed  by  those  “  pious  frauds  ”  who  are  ready  at 
all  times  to  sell  their  souls  for  the  sake  of  their  bodies.  At  Mioa  Feng 
Shan  they  give  candles  at  the  foot  of  the  hill  to  those  pilgrims  who  arrive 
at  night  to  enable  them  to  ascend  the  hill.  Here  these  pious  frauds  (sham 
pilgrims)  get  their  candles,  ascend  the  hill  at  a  little  distance,  then  by  a 
pircuitops  route  joiu  another  company  and  get  another  candle  and  eo  on 


RELIGION  IN  PEKIN, 


497 


as  long  as,  by  a  change  of  clothes,  they  can  escape  detection  of  those  dis¬ 
tributing  candles.  Thus,  instead  of  worshiping,  they  become  thieves. 

One  thing  is  noticeable  as  we  pass  through  the  country  villages.  The 
houses  are  all  built  of  mud — mud  walls,  mud  roofs,  paper  windows,  and  a 
dirt  floor.  But  no  matter  how  poor  the  people  may  be  or  what  the  char¬ 
acter  of  their  houses,  the  temple  of  the  village  is  always  made  of  good 
brick. 

I  have  never  seen  a  house  in  a  country  village  better  than  the  the  tem¬ 
ple  in  the  same  village.  I  think  that  what  I  said  in  the  beginning  of  this 
article  is  literally  true — what  the  Chinese  wish  to  do  and  undertake  to  do 
they  are  abundantly  able  to  do.  Dr.  C.  W.  Mateer  says  : 

It  has  been  estimated  that  each  family  in  China  spends,  on  an  average,  about 
81.50  each  year  in  the  worship  of  ancestors,  of  which  at  least  two-thirds  is  for 
paper  money.  China  is  estimated  to  contain  about  80. 000,000  families,  which  would 
give  880,000,000.  A  fair  estimate  for  the  three  annual  burnings  to  the  vagrant  dead 
would  be  about  86,000  to  each  hsien,  or  county,  which  would  aggregate  about 
810,000.000  for  the  whole  country.  The  ave  age  amount  burned  by  each  family  in 
the  direct  worship  of  the  gods  in  the  temples  may  be  taken  as  about  half  that 
expended  in  the  worship  of  ancestors,  or  840,000,000  for  all  China.  Thus  we  have 
the  aggregate  amount  of  8130,000,000  spent  annually  in  China  for  paper  money  for 
use  in  their  worship. 

While  it  is  impossible  to  make  a  correct  estimate  of  the  amount  of 
incense  burned  by  the  Chinese  in  their  worship,  we  can  nevertheless  get 
some  idea.  It  is  the  custom  to  burn  incense  three  times  per  day — morning, 
noon,  and  evening.  The  amount  burned  thus  by  each  family  in  the  house 
and  at  the  temple  amounts  to  about  $4,000,000  per  year.  The  rich,  of 
course,  burn  many  times  this  amount,  and  some  of  the  poor  families  per¬ 
haps  not  quite  so  much.  But  $4  per  year  as  an  average  is  an  under  rather 
than  an  over  estimate  of  the  amount  of  incense  burned  by  each  family. 
This  being  true,  the  amount  of  incense  burned  by  80,000,000  families  would 
amount  in  one  year  to  the  enormous  sum  of  $320,000,000. 

As  an  incident  of  the  afternoon  meeting  the  chairman  intro¬ 
duced  Rev.  A.  Marderos  Ignados  of  Smyrna,  who  addressed 
the  meeting,  through  Mr.  Kiretchjian  as  interpreter,  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 

When  I  lived  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  I  used  to  hear  of  America 
as  the  lower  earth,  and  it  seemed  to  me  to  be  just  as  far  away  as  the  moon 
seems  to  the  Americans  to-day  ;  but  the  Lord  God  sent  his  children  from 
this  land  to  come  to  our  land  and  preach  the  glorious  gospel  of  Christ. 
There  were  Christian  people  there  already,  but  by  the  coming  of  the  mission¬ 
aries  about  150  evangelical  churches  were  organized.  There  is,  then,  a  com¬ 
munity  of  about  50,000  Protestants  in  Turkey  now.  Our  circumstances  do 
not  allow  us  to  have  a  representative  to  come  here  and  speak  directly  on 
behalf  of  that  community,  but  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  hearts  of  all  that 
people  are  with  me  to-day,  and  on  their  behalf  I  come  to  greet  you,  and  I 
expect  that  an  opportunity  will  be  giyen  me  to  read  a  paper  to  you  to  show 
what  influence  Protestantism  has  had  in  Turkey. 

Herant  M.  Kiretchjian  of  Constantinople  was  introduced  by 
the  chairman,  and  said  : 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  I  should  consider  myself  happy, 
under  any  circumstances,  to  come  to  this  most  wonderful  Parliament  of 
the  World’s  Religions,  in  the  most  wonderful  country  of  the  world,  and 
especially  to  stand  here  and  represent  that  wonderful  race  known  as  the 
young  men  of  the  Orient,  who  are  the  result  of  most  wonderful  conflicting 
influences  for  centuries,  for  it  certainly  is  the  greatest  honor  that  could 


498 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


come  to  any  man.  Again,  it  is  a  great  honor  to  stand  before  any  religious 
body  in  the  world  and  represent  the  greatest  religious  city  of  the  world— 
Constantinople.  We  have  had  there  a  religious  parliament  for  400  years, 
and  we  have  survived  it.  You  are  certainly  like  Constantinople  to-day, 
when  you  have  a  minaret  in  the  Midway  Plaisance  and  actually  the  gospel 
of  Mohammed  has  begun  to  be  preached  to  you.  I  wish  to  assure  you 
that  it  is  not  going  to  stop,  and  I  believe  you  will  be  specially  interested 
in  the  young  men  of  the  Orient  because  you  may  look  upon  them  as  the 
outcome  after  400  years,  such  as  you,  very  likely,  will  become  in  the  future. 

I  shall  have  the  great  honor  to  speak  to  you,  at  some  place  here,  about 
the  young  men  of  the  Orient,  and  I  think  you  will  regard  them  as  some¬ 
thing  of  importance,  because  young  men,  unless  hindered  by  some  great 
accident,  are  generally  in  the  habit  of  becoming  older  men  some  day,  and 
if  we  are  to  have  the  same  influence  in  the  Orient  that  our  forefathers 
have  had,  supplying  the  world  with  almost  all  they  have,  I  am  sure  it  will 
be  a  matter  of  interest  to  know  what  they  think  of  religion — past  and 
future.  In  the  meantime,  you  can  be  sure  the  young  men  of  the  Orient, 
whose  domain  is  from  the  waters  of  Japan  to  the  ^gean,  have  the  keenest 
interest  in  the  outcome  of  this  religious  parliament  as  a  basis  for  the 
brotherhood  of  man. 


THE  REDEMPTION  OF  SINFUL  MAN  THROUGH 

JESUS  CHRIST. 

REV.  D.  J.  KENNEDY  OF  SOMERSET,  OHIO. 

In  the  consideration  of  different  plans  on  the  restoration  of  fallen  or 
faulty  man  no  thinking  mind  can  fail  to  attach  the  greatest  importance  to 
the  life,  works,  and  death  of  Christ,  the  Savior  revered,  loved,  and  adored 
by  Christians.  Men  have  disputed,  and  will  probably  continue  to  dispute, 
about  the  true  significance  and  value  of  Christ’s  life  and  mission.  This 
will  not  surprise  us  if  we  remember  the  prophecy  of  holy  old  Simeon: 
“  This  Child  is  set  for  the  fall  and  for  the  resurrection  of  many  in  Israel, 
and  for  a  sign  which  shall  be  contradicted”  (Luke  ii.,34),  and  that  passage 
of  St.  Paul’s  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians:  “We  preach  Christ  crucified; 
unto  the  Jews  indeed  a  stumbling-block  and  unto  the  Gentiles  foolishness, 
but  unto  them  that  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of 
God  and  the  wisdom  of  God”  (I.  Cor.  i.,  23).  In  the  midst  of  the  confusion 
and  obscurity  of  these  doubts  and  disputes  one  bright  truth  shines  out 
clearly,  namely:  that  the  work  of  Christ  is  one  of  the  most  important  facts 
recorded  in  the  history  of  the  human  race.  We  Christians  believe  that  it 
is  not  simply  one  of  the  most  important,  but  the  most  important  fact  of  all; 
we  believe  of  Christ  all  that  St.  Peter  expressed  when  he  said  of  the  Cru¬ 
cified:  “Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other;  for  there  is  no  other  name 
under  heaven  given  to  men  whereby  v/e  must  be  saved”  (Acts  iv.,  12).  We 
believe  that  Christ  is  the  “Son  of  Justice”  mentioned  by  the  prophet 
Malachi  ( iv.,  2);  that  there  is  “  health  in  His  wings  and  light  in  His  path,” 
for  He  is  “the  true  light  which  enlighteneth  every  man  that  cometh  into 
this  world”  (John  i.,  9). 

“The  law  was  given  by  Moses,  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ” 
(Mid.  V.,  17).  We  think  that  all  men  should  heed  the  exhortation  of  St. 
Paul,  who  wrote  to  the  Colossians  that  they  should  continually  give  thanks 
“  to  God  the  Father,  who  hath  made  us  worthy  to  be  partakers  of  the  lot 
of  the  saints  in  light;  who  hath  delivered  us  from  the  power  of  darkness 
and  hath  translated  us  into  the  kingdom  of  the  Son  of  His  love;  in  whom 
we  have  redemption  through  His  blood,  the  remission  of  sins”  (Col.  i.,  12, 
13,  and  14).  And  we  feel  that  all  men  should  desire  to  fall  down  in  adoration 


REDEMPTION  OF  SINFUL  MAN  TH ROUGH  CHRIST.  499 


before  the  Lamb  and  sing  unceasingly  the  new  canticle:  “The  Lamb 
that  was  slain  is  worthy  to  receive  power  and  divinity  and  wisdom  and 
strength  and  honor  and  glory  and  benediction  ”  (Apol.  v.,  12).  We  are  well 
aware  that  all  men  do  not  share  in  these  opinions,  that  all  men  do  not 
entertain  the  same  sentiments  with  regard  to  the  Redeemer  whose  name 
has  made  Nazareth  illustrious  and  dear  to  the  millions  who  are  His  follow¬ 
ers.  We  are  well  aware  that  only  “  to  those  th^.t  are  called  ”  is.Christ  “  the 
power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God  ”  (I.  Cor.  i.,  23). 

The  life,  sufferings,  and  death  of  Christ  for  the  redemption  and  salvation 
of  sinful  man  are  a  mystery  of  God’s  tender  mercy  tempered  with  justice; 
we  shall  never  fully  understand  the  sacrifice  of  Calvary  until  that  happy 
day  when  in  the  heavenly  kingdom  we  shall  see  God  face  to  face;  because 
never  until  then  shall  we  fully  understand  the  greatness  and  sanctity  of 
God,  the  enormity  of  sin  and  the  value  of  immortal  souls  that  Christ  died 
to  save.  But  in  the  meantime  we  and  all  who  look  upon  Christ  with  the 
eyes  of  faith,  shall  see  enough  to  convince  us  that  He  is  the  powder  and 
wisdom  of  God,  the  surpassing  miracle  of  His  omnipotent  love. 

Since  we  are  here  for  a  comparison  of  doctrines  and  not  for  controversy, 
it  is  not  our  intention  to  set  forth  in  this  paper  proofs  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ  and  of  His  mission;  it  is  intended  to  give  a  plain  and  necessarily 
brief  and  imperfect  exposition  of  the  divine  economy  for  the  redemption 
and  salvation  of  man  through  Christ  according  to  the  teachings  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  The  subject  is  vast,  the  theme  is  grand.  To  many  our 
words  will  be  but  a  new  expression  of  truths  that  they  have  believed  from 
their  earliest  years;  to  others  they  will,  perhaps,  be  less  familiar;  to  all  they 
will  be  an  invitation  to  examine  more  closely  the  character  and  w'ork  of 
Him  whom  they  call  the  Redeemer  of  the  world,  because  He  died  for  all 
men,  and  He  is  the  propitiation  not  for  our  sins  only  but  also  for  those  of 
the  whole  world  (I.  St.  John,  ii.,2) 

What  will  be  said  of  the  life  and  death  of  this  Redeemer  and  of  the 
benefits  which  He  conferred  upon  mankind  must  not  be  regarded  as  the 
teachings  of  any  one  man  or  of  any  special  school;  they  are  the  tenets  of 
a  church  which  can  claim  200,000,000  adherents,  and  are  drawn  principally 
from  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  most  notable,  perhaps,  and 
the  best  known  of  all  the  councils  of  the  Catholic  Church.  In  the  sixth 
session  of  that  council,  held  on  January  13, 1547,  the  justification  of  a  sinner 
is  called  a  “  translation  from  the  state  in  which  the  sons  of  the  first  Adam  are 
born  to  the  state  of  grace  and  adoption  of  sons  of  God  by  the  second  Adam, 
Jesus  Christ,  our  Savior  ”  (Chap.  iv.).  We  are  born  “  children  of  wrath,” 
says  St.  Paul  (Efjh.  ii.,  3,  and  following),  “  but  God  (who  is  rich  in  mercy)  for 
His  exceeding  charity  wherev/ith.  He  loved  us,  even  when  w^e  w^ere  dead  in 
sins,  hath  quickened  us  together  in  Christ  (by  whose  grace  you  are  saved), 
and  hath  raised  us  up  together  and  hath  made  us  sit  together  in  the 
heavenly  places  through  ChHst  Jesus.”  For,  “as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in 
Christ  all  shall  be  made  alive  ”  (I.  Cor.  xv.,  22). 

From  these  texts  it  is  evident  that  in  order  to  understand  the  doctrine 
of  redemption  and  salvation  through  Christ  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider, 
first,  the  condition  of  man  before  the  fall  of  Adam;  secondly,  the  condition 
of  man  after  the  fall  and  before  the  death  of  Christ;  thirdly,  the  condition 
of  man  after  the  price  of  redemption  had  been  paid  by  Christ. 

The  universal  tradition,  attested  by  various  legends  concerning  the 
“golden  age”  of  man,  assumes  in  the  Catholic  Church  the  form  of  a  pre¬ 
cise  dogma  which  says  that  our  first  parents  were  constituted  by  Almighty 
God  in  the  state  of  original  justice  (Cone.  Trid.,  sess.  v.,  de  Pecc.,  originali 
can.  1).  The  late  lamented  Cardinal  Manning,  in  his  book  on  the  “  Internal 
Mission  of  the  Holy  Ghost”  (ch.  i),  describes  this  happy  state  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  words:  “  The  general  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  sanctification  of 
the  soul  in  man,  began  before  the  fall  in  the  creation  of  man,  for  Adam, 


500 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


when  created,  was  constituted  in  the  state  of  grace.  He  was  not  created 
in  but  constituted  in  the  state  of  original  justice.  The  distinction  between 
created  and  constituted  is  this:  Original  justice  was  no  part  of  the  nature 
of  man ;  it  was  a  superadded  gift,  a  supernatural  perfection  over  and  above 
the  perfection  or  integrity  of  human  nature.  It  was  not  due  to  man 
that  he  should  have  the  gift  of  original  justice;  his  perfection  consisted  in 
the  body  a,nd  the  soul,  the  faculties  and  the  powers — intellectual  and 
moral — which  constitute  human  nature.  But  original  justice  is  more  than 
this;  namely,  the  gift  of  a  supernatural  grace  and  state  by  the  indwelling 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  soul,  illuminating  it  by  the  infusion  of  his  light 
in  the  form  of  truth,  and  sanctifying  it  by  the  infusion  of  His  grace  in  the 
form  of  sanctity.  This  was  original  justice;  and  therefore  Adam  was  in 
two  ways  the  son  of  God — he  was  the  son  of  God  by  nature,  because  he 
was  created  by  God;  and  a  son  of  God  by  grace,  because  the  Holy  Ghost 
dwelt  in  him.  Because  he  had  this  original  justice  he  had  also  two  other 
gifts.  He  had  immortality  in  the  body,  because  he  was  without  sin,  and 
he  had  perfect  harmony  and  integrity  or  order  in  the  soul,  because  the 
soul  was  under  the  direction  and  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  There¬ 
fore  in  Adam  there  were  three  perfections.  There  w'as  the  perfection  of 
nature,  the  body,  and  the  soul;  there  was  the  supernatural  perfection,  or 
the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  sanctifying  grace;  there  was  the 
preternatural  perfection  of  immortality  in  the  body  and  of  harmony  in  the 
soul  in  and  with  itself.”  In  order  to  make  the  exposition  complete  it  must 
be  added  that,  according  to  Catholic  doctrine,  these  perfections  were  not 
personal  gifts  granted  to  Adam  as  an  individual;  they  were  given  to  him, 
by  the  bounty  of  God,  as  to  the  father  and  representative  of  the  human 
race.  He  was  to  be  their  custodian,  not  only  for  himself,  but  also  for  his 
posterity.  If  he  remained  faithful  all  these  gifts,  natural,  preternatural, 
and  supernatural,  were  to  have  been  transmitted  to  his  descendants.  Had 
Adam  not  sinned  his  children  would  have  been  born  perfect  in  nature, 
adorned  with  grace  and  supernatural  virtues  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  they  would  not  have  been  subject  to  death,  and  there  would  have 
been  perfect  harmony  between  all  the  parts  of  their  nature;  the  lower 
nature  would  have  been  obedient  to  the  higher,  because  the  higher  and 
nobler  faculties  of  man  w’ould  have  been  subject  to  the  commands  of  God 
by  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Alas,  this  happy  state  was  not  to 
endure  forever! 

God  had  distributed  with  a  plentiful  hand  the  wonderful  treasures  of 
His  bounty.  He  had  enriched  and  adorned  Adam  with  His  choicest  gifts; 
He  gave  him  control  over  the  earth  and  all  that  it  contained,  placing  him 
just  a  little  lower  than  the  angels  (Ps.  viii.,  6),  and  raising  him  in  dignity 
above  all  the  creatures  of  the  earth  by  the  gift  of  intelligence  and  of  free 
will.  By  an  act  of  this  free  will  all  was  lost.  Adam  chose  to  listen  to  the 
suggestions  of  the  tempter  rather  than  to  obey  the  command  of  God;  he 
ate  the  forbidden  fruit,  and  he  had  to  die  the  death  (Gen.  ii.,  17).  “By  an 
act  of  disobedience,”  writes  Cardinal  Manning,  “  that  first  creation  was 
shattered,  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  forfeited,  and  the  soul  and 
body  of  man  were  left  in  the  substantial  integrity  which  belongs  to  our 
nature,  but  it  was  wounded  with  the  three  wounds  of  ignorance,  of  wicked¬ 
ness,  and  of  passion.”  The  Council  of  Trent  (Sess.  V.  de  Pecc.  Grig.  Can.  1) 
implicitly  declares  and  defines  that  by  the  transgression  of  God’s  command 
the  first  man  lost  the  justice  and  sanctity  in  which  he  had  been  constituted, 
incurred  the  anger  of  God,  together  with  the  penalty  of  death,  because  a 
captive  under  the  powder  of  Satan;  and  the  whole  man,  both  in  body  and 
soul,  was  injured  and  changed  for  the  worse. 

What  an  unfortunate  change!  He  who  had  been  the  beloved  child  of 
God,  and  an  object  of  complacency  to  the  three  persons  of  the  most  Holy 
Trinity,  is  now  the  enemy  of  God  because  he  freely  and  ungratefully 


REDEMPTION  OF  SINFUL  MAN  THROUGH  CHRIST.  501 


ignored  his  Creator.  Supernatural  grace  and  the  infused  virtues  and  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  have  departed;  Adam  is  doomed  to  die.  “  God  made  man 
incorruptible,”  we  read  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  (ii.,  23),  “but  by  the  envy  of 
the  devil  death  came  into  the  world.”  The  harmony  between  the  inferior 
and  superior  parts  of  man  was  dissolved,  the  sting  of  inordinate  concupis¬ 
cence  was  felt,  and  then  began  that  conflmt  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  (Rom. 

vii. ,  23)  between  the  law  of  the  members  and  the  law  of  the  mind,  which 
makes  the  life  of  man  on  earth  what  holy  Job  calls  a  continual  warfore 
(vii.,  1).  Man’s  intellect  was  darkened,  his  will  for  good  was  weakened;  pas¬ 
sion  and  an  inclination  to  evil  was  the  rule,  not  the  exception;  the  imagina¬ 
tion  and  thought  of  man’s  heart  were  prone  to  evil  from  their  youth  (Gen. 

viii. ,  21),  and  he  became  the  slave  of  Satan,  for,  writes  St.  Peter  (2  Ep.  ii.,  9), 
“  by  whom  a  man  is  overcome  of  the  same  also  is  he  the  slave.” 

Adam  of  his  own  free  will  'upset  the  first  order  of  God’s  providence  and 
he  now  came  under  another  order;  he  had  been  innocent  and  ju.  t,  he  was 
now  a  guilty  and  fallen  man;  he  could  not  enter  into  heaven,  and  he  was 
doomed  to  suffer  the  other  miseries  brought  on  by  his  own  sin  until  God 
saw  fit  to  send  him  a  Redeemer.  He,  no  doubt,  soon  repented  of  his  sin; 
and  if  he  returned  to  God  with  a  sincerely  contrite  heart  the  guilt  would  be 
remitted  and  he  would  not  be  punished  eternally  for  it.  But  he  was  power¬ 
less  to  repair  the  injury  done,  because  the  gifts  and  graces  he  had  lost  were 
gratuitous  favors,  not  due  to  his  nature,  but  granted  through  pure  love 
and  goodness  by  God;  hence  their  restoration  was  subject  to  his  good 
pleasure. 

Unfortunately  for  us  this  fall  of  the  father  of  the  human  race  affected 
his  posterity.  The  perfections  of  original  justice  would  have  passed  to  his 
descendants  had  he  remained  faithful,  but  he  failed  to  comply  with  the 
conditions  on  which  they  had  been  granted,  and,  havingdost  them  himself, 
he  could  not  transmit  them  to  his  children.  In  consequence  of  his  sin  we 
too  were  deprived  of  the  supernatural  perfections  that  he  possessed.  Though 
not  guilty’of  any  actual,  personal  sins  the  children  of  Adam  are,  as  St.  Paul 
says  (Eph.  ii.  3),  “  by  nature  children  of  wrath”;  they  are  displeasing  in' the 
sight  of  God,  because  He  does  not  see  in  their  souls  the  graces,  virtues,  and 
perfections  He  had  intended  for  all,  and  of  which  they  were  deprived 
through  the  fault  of  Adam  by  an  act  in  which  he  was' morally  the  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  human  race.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  original  sin ;  at 
least  this  is  the  explanation  of  its  essence  given  by  the  majority  of  theolo¬ 
gians;  and  if  anyone  tries  to  see  in  original  sin,  as  taught  by  the  church,  a 
personal  act  by  which  men  offend  God,  he  will  not  succeed,  because  it  is  not 
a  personal  sin;  it  is  the  habitual  state  displeasing  to  God  in  which  the  souls 
of  men  are  left  since  the  father  of  the  human  race  offended  God  by  an  act 
of  proud  disobedience. 

With  the  supernatural  grace  the  preternatural  gifts  were  also  lost. 
We  became  subject  to  death,  not  only  as  to  a  law  of  nature,  but  also  as  a 
penalty,  for  “  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  this  world,  and  by  sin  death,  and 
so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  in  whom  all  have  sinned.”  (Rom.  v.,  12), 
We  also  experience  the  stings  of  conscience,  the  war  of  the  fiesh  against 
the  spirit,  which  would,  in  the  benevolent  designs  of  providence,  have  been 
prevented  by  the  subjection  of  the ’mind  to  grace.  Our  nature,  also,  was 
wounded,  like  the  nature  of  Adam,  with  the  three  wounds  of  ignorance, 
weakness,  and  passion.  Then  began  the  rule  of  him  who  had  the  empire 
of  death — that  is  to  say,  the  devil  (Heb.  ii.,  14),  which/ was  to  last  until 
Christ  came  to  destroy  that  empire  by  his  death.  St.  Augustine,  in  one 
of  his  sermons,  calls  this  unhappy  condition  a  sickness  of  human  nature 
that  had  spread  over  the  face  of  the  earth  (“Magnus  per  orbem  jacebat 
aegrotus”).  And  in  another  place  he  says  that  in  consequence  of  sin  the 
nature  of  man,  which  should  have  been  a  beautiful  olive  tree  planted  and 
watered  and  nurtured  by  the  hand  of  God,  and  bearing  fruits  for  eternity, 


502 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


became  a  miserable  oleaster,  contemptible  and  disagreeable  by  the  ugliness 
of  its  appearance 'and  the  bitterness  of  its 'false  fruits.  (Serm.  342,  No.  4.) 
The  work  of  the  gardener  had  been  interfered  with  and  man  was  con¬ 
demned  to  taste  the  bitter  fruits  of  his  own  planting.  He  was  displeasing 
to  God  and  he  needed  some  one  who  could  reconcile  him  with  the  Heavenly 
Father  by  atoning  for  his  sins;  he  had  lost  the  graces  of  God,  and  of  him¬ 
self  could  not  recover  it;  he  was  a  slave  under  the  power  of  Satan  and 
stood  in  need  of  a  Redeemer. 

Immediately  after  the  fall  God  promised  this  Redeemer — the  seed  of 
woman  that  was  to  crush  the  sepent’s  head  '(Gen.  iii.,  15),  but  he  did  not 
send  him  immediately;  for  4,000  years  man  was  left  to  experience  the  sad 
consequences  of  the  fall.  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  (De  Incarn.  Qu.  I.,  art.  5 
and  6)  and  other  theologians  remark  that  the  Redeemer  did  not  come 
immediately  after  the  fall,  because  man.  who  had  sinned  by  pride,  should 
be  humbled  so  that  he  might  acknowledge  his  own  poverty  and  the  need 
of  a  savior.  Neither  was  the  coming  of  the  Redeemer  to  be  deferred  until 
the  end  of  the  world,  because  then  man  might  have  fallen  into  despair,  for¬ 
getting  God  and  His  promises  and  the  rules  of  morals.  Moreover,  had  He 
come  at  the  end  of  the  world  men  would  never  have  enjoyed  the  advantages 
of  the  sublime  example  given  to  all  ages  by  the  Savior.  Almighty  God,  then, 
who  ordered  all  things  in  the  manner  that  would  best  promote  His  glory  and 
man’s  welfare,  chose  the  most  suitable  time,  and  “  when  the  fullness  of  time 
was  come,  God  sent  His  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  that  He 
might  redeem  them  who  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the 
adoption  of  sons.”  (Gal.  iv.,  4,  5.)  This  Redeemer  was  the  Babe  of  Beth¬ 
lehem,  the  son  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  His  name  was  called  Jesus,  because 
He  came  to  save  His  people  from  their  sins.  (Matt,  i.,  21.) 

And  now  that  we  come  to  consider  the  work  of  that  Savior,  where  shall 
we  find  the  tongue  of  a  Chrysostom  to  describe  what  St.  Paul  calls  “  the 
abundant  riches  of  God’s  grace  in  his  bounty  toward  us  in  Christ  Jesus”? 
(Ej)hes.  ii.,  7.)  The  Apostle  rejoices  in  having  received  the  grace  “  to  preach 
among  the  Gentiles  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ — that  the  manifold 
wisdom  of  God  may  be  made  known  —  according  to  the  eternal  purpose 
which  he  made  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  (Ephes.  iii.,  8.)  Men  of  all  ages 
have  admired  Christ;  even  those  who  do  not  believe  in  Him  must  admit,  in 
the  light  of  history,  that  his  preaching  and  his  religion  have  changed  the 
face  of  the  earth.  The  greatest  intellects  the  world  ever  knew  have  felt 
proud  of  the  lines  or  pages  which  gave  even  a  faint  representation  of  his 
greatness  and  loveliness;  bright  minds,  loving  hearts,  eloquent  tongues  and 
powerful  pens  have  been  employed  in  His  service,  and  yet  we  have  no 
adequate  description  of  the  character  and  work  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
They  could  not  paint  him  as  man;  much  less  could  they  tell  us  of  the 
infinite  wisdom  and  dignity  of  the  divinity  that  was  in  Him;  for  Christ 
was,  as  all  Christians  believe,  both  God  and  man.  The  second  person  of 
the  Trinity  assumed  to  itself  the  human  nature  which  was  formed  in  the 
pure  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  “  God  so 
loved  the  world  as  to  give  His  only  begotten  Son — ^that  the  world  might  be 
saved  by  Him.”  (John  iii.,  16, 17.)  These  are  words  which  Christ  spoke  to 
Nicodemus;  they  are  the  key  to  a  mystery  which  no  man  can  fully  explain; 
all  we  can  do  is  to  join  with  our  feeble  voices  in  the  chorus  of  praises  sung 
in  honor  of  the  Savior,  begging  pardon  of  Him  for  the  imperfections  of  our 
ideas  and  expressions. 

In  the  first  place  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  God  could,  if  He  willed, 
have  chosen  another  method  of  redemption.  Being  Lord  of  all  things  He 
might  have  condoned  Adam’s  offense  and  restored  to  man  his  lost  prerog¬ 
atives  without  demanding  any  atonement.  He  might,  if  He  willed,  have 
accepted  in  satisfaction  for  sin  the  salutary  penances  of  Adam  or  of  some  of 
his  descendants  (see  S.  Thom,  de  Incarn.  Qu.  1,  Article  2  ad  2).  But,  says 


REDEMPTION  OF  SINFUL  MAN  THROUGH  CHRIST. 


503 


St.  Athanasius  (Serm  iii  Contra  Anianos),  in  this  we  must  consider  not 
what  God  could  have  done,  but  what  was  best  for  man,  for  that  was  chosen. 
Away,  then,  with  all  thoughts  of  excessive  rigor  on  the  part  of  God.  He 
willed  to  redeem  and  save  us  through  the  sufferings  and  merits  of  Christ, 
because  it  was  better  for  us;  and  at  the  same  time  He  gave  to  the  world  the 
greatest  manifestation  ever  known  of  His  own  goodness,  power,  wisdom,  and 
justice,  as  we  are  told  by  St.  John  Damascene  and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas — 
two  princes  of  theology. 

This  plan  of  redemption  was  freely  and  lovingly  accepted  by  the  second 
person  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  Son  came  into  the  world  in  the  form  of  a 
man  that  He  might  be  our  Savior;  and  as  a  Saviour  He  manifested  Himself 
from  the  first  moment  of  His  incarnation  until  the  day  of  His  ascension;  a 
Savior  He  is  still,  for  as  .  Paul  tells  us  (Rom.  viii.  34),  sitting  now  at  the 
right  hand  of  God  He  continually  intercedes  for  us,  offering  to  the  Father  in 
our  behalf  His  superabundant  merits.  He  was  a  Savior  by  His  teaching,  by 
His  example,  and  by  His  death.  The  prophet  Isaiah  had  foretold,  800 
years  before  His  birth:  “  Behold,  I  have  given  Him  for  a  witness  before 
the  people,  for  a  leader  and  for  a  master  to  the  Gentiles  ”  (Iv.,  4);  and  when 
he  came,  after  He  had  been  baptized  by  St.  John,  the  Father’s  voice  from 
the  clouds  announced  that  He  was  the  divinely  appointed  teacher  of  man¬ 
kind:  “  This  is  My  Beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased;  hear  ye  Him,” 
(Matt,  xvii.,  5),  and  St.  Peter  afterward  proposed  that  his  Master’s  doctrine 
was  heavenly  and  salutary:  “Thou,  O  Lord,  hath  the  words  of  eternal  life” 
(John  vi.,  69). 

Our  Lord  certaiply  fulfilled  the  mission  of  saving  men  by  preaching ;  in 
private  and  in  public,  during  the  three  years  of  His  public  life,  on  the 
mountain-tops  and  in  the  valleys,  in  the  temple  and  in  the  houses  of  those 
whom  He  visited,  at  the  sea-shore  and  on  the  waters — everywhere  He  was 
preaching,  teaching  men  the  truths  of  salvation ;  and  the  worst  enemy  the 
Christian  religion  ever  had  must  admit  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  was 
sublime,  pure,  holy,  and  salutary.  But  it  is  not  sufficient  to  teach.  Who¬ 
ever  wishes  to  change  men  and  convert  them  from  their  evil  ways  can  not 
be  contented  with  mere  words.  To  His  words  must  be  added  the  influence 
of  His  example,  especially  if  His  doctrine  be  disagreeable  to  those  whom 
He  wishes  to  convert.  Thus  it  was  with  our  Savior.  His  teachings  con¬ 
sisted  principally  in  inculcating  the  two  great  precepts  of  love  and  of 
suffering,  of  charity  and  of  the  cross,  of  loving  God  above  all  things,  and 
of  denying  ourselves  in  order  that  we  might  be  free  to  follow  Him.  But 
He  required  of  men  nothing  that  He  did  not  practice.  He  went  about,  writes 
St.  Luke,  “  doing  and  teaching  ”  (Acts  i.,  1).  His  life  was  so  sublime  and  holy 
that  He  could  stand  before  the  world  and  dare  His  enemies  :  “  Which  of 
you  shall  convince  Me  of  sin?”  (John  viii.,  46.)  None  could  say  of  Him 
what  He  with  so' much  truth  said  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  :  “They 
bind  heavy  and  insupportable  burdens  and  lay  them  on  men’s  shoulders, 
but  with  a  finger  of  their  own  they  wiJl  not  move  them”  (Matt,  xxiii.,  4). 

He  taught  that  we  should  love  God,  and  of  Himself  He  could  say  that 
His  daily  food  was  to  do  the  will  of  His  Father  I^John  iv.,  34).  He  taught 
that  we  should  not  be  over-attached  to  the  goods  of  this  world,  since  men 
can  not  serve  God  and  mammon  (Luke  xvi.,  13);  and  of  Himself  he  could 
truly  say:  “The  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  His  head”  (Matthew 
vii.,  20).  He  taught  obedience  and  submission  to  the  will  of  God,  and  He 
was  obedient  unto  death,  even  unto  the  death  of  the  cross  (Philip,  ii.,  8). 
He  taught  that  we  should  be  humble,  becoming  as  little  children  (Matthew 
xviii.,  3);  and  He  could  say  without  fear  of  contradiction  or  reproach: 
“  Learn  of  Me,  because  I  am  meek  and  humble  of  heart”  (Matt,  xi.,  29). 
He  taught  that  we  should  be  loving  and  kind  toward  our  neighbor;  and  He 
was  so  kind  and  tender-hearted  that  the  sight  of  a  hungry  multitude  would 
cause  Him  to  almost  melt  into  tears,  and  on  several  occasions  He  performed 


504 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


miracles  to  supply  their  wants  (Matt,  xiv.,  17  and  fol.,  xv.,  36  and  foL).  And 
so  it  is  with  every  part  of  his  doctrine;  in  all  things  he  gave  the  example, 
that,  as  he  had  done  so  also  we  should  act.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  St. 
Paul  so  often  exhorts  us  to  put  on  the  new  man  (Eph.  iv.,  24),  to  put  on 
Christ  (Gal.  iii.,  27;  Rom.  xiii.,  14).,  to  be  in  all  things  conformed  to  his 
example  (I.  Cor.  iv.,  16),  for  in  the  example  he  gave  he  was  also  our  Savior. 

But  the  saving  influence  of  Christ  is  to  be  found  principally  Hin  is 
death  ;  because  by  his  death  He  reconciled  us  with  God  (Col.  i  ,  19;  Eph. 
ii.,  14, 16),  freed  us  from  sin  and  satisfled  God’s  justice  (Heb.  ix.,  13  and  fol¬ 
lowing;  I.  John  i.,  7;  Apoc.  i.,  5),  restored  us  to  grace  and  justiflcation(Rom. 
ii.,  25;  Col.  i.,  21,  22)  freed  us  from  the  power  of  Satan  (Col.  ii.,  15),  and  made 
us  once  more  the 'children  of  God  (Col.  i.,  12, 13, 14).  Christ  came  into  this 
world,  lived  among  men,  and  died  upon  the  cross  in  execution,  of  a  sublime 
plan  for  man’s  redemption ;  of  a  plan  which  nothing  less  than  the  inflnite 
wisdom  of  God  could  conceive,  and  nothing  less  than  the  omnipotence  of 
God  could  execute.  “We  have  thought  Him  as  a  leper  and  as  one  struck 
byjGod  and  afflicted,”  wrote  the  prophet  Isais,  “but  He  was  wounded  for 
our  iniquities,  He  was  bruised  for  our  sins.”  “  He  was  offered  up  because 
it  was  His  own  will,  and  by  His  bruises  we  are  healed.”  God  had  been 
offended,  grieviously  offended  by  the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  so  much  so 
that  from  that  time  the  gates  of  heaven  were  closed  against  men.  Even 
the  souls  of  the  just  who  died  under  the  old  law  could  not  enjoy  the  hap¬ 
piness  of  heaven;  they;  were  compelled  to  remain  in  a  place  called  Limbo 
until  atonement  had  been  made  for  the  sin  of  Adam.  And  besides  this  sin 
of  the  human  race,  there  were  other  sins,  black  and  shameful  and  hideous, 
some  of  them,  and  as  numerous,  alas,  as  the  sands  on  the  seashore.  There 
were  the  personal  actual  sins  committed  from  the  time  of  Adam  up  to  the 
last  breath  of  the  last  man  that  will  live  in  the  world.  All  these  had  to 
be  atoned  for,  and  how  could  man  hope  to  offer  any  satisfaction  that  would 
bear  the  least  proportion  to  the  inflnite  sanctity  of  the  God  who  had  been 
offended  and  insulted? 

Then  it  was  that  our  Savior  consented  to  be  a  voluntary  victim  offered 
up  in  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  “  The  Word  was  make  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  us  ”  (John  i.,  14);  Christ  came  into  the  world,  true  God  and 
true  man.  Being  man  He  could  suffer;  being  God,  any  one  of  His  actions 
would  have  infinite  value  both  for  merit  and  for  atonement.  “  God  laid  on 
him  the  iniquity  of  us  all,”  says  Isaiah  (liii.,  6);  by  his  death  God’s  justice 
was  satisfied  and  man  was  redeemed;  for,  says  St.  Peter  (I.  Ep.  i,  18)  we 
were  “  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things  as  gold  and  silver,  but  with 
the  precious  blood  of  Christ  as  of  a  lamb  unspotted  and  undefiled.”  Thus 
was  blotted  out  the  handwriting  of  the  decree  that  was  against 'us  (Col.  ii. 
14).  By  his  deal  h  Christ  not  only  freed  us  from  evil.  He  also  merited  for  us 
the  graces  we  ne  ed  in  order  that  we  may  do  good,  performing  actions  meri- 
torious  of  eternal  life.  Without  Christ  we  can  do  nothing  (John  xv.,  5). 
All  those  who  were  saved  under  the  old  law  were  saved  through  faith  in 
the  Redeemer  to  come;  grace  was  granted  to  them  owing  to  His  foreseen 
merits.  In  the  new  law  all  our  sufficiency  is  from  Him  (II.  Cor.  ii.,  3);  all 
graces  are  granted,  as  we  ask  them,  “  through  the  merits  of  our  Lord  and  Sav¬ 
ior  Jesus  Christ.”  He  merited  these  graces  for  us  by  all  the  acts  of  His  life, 
but  principally  by  dying  for  us;  the  precious  blood  shed  on  Calvary  flows 
through  the  church;  it  vivifies  the  sacraments,  the  channels  of  grace,  by 
partaking  of  which  we  drink  from  that  “  fountain  of  water  springing  into 
life  everlasting.”  (John  iv.,  14.) 

After  His  ascension  into  heaven  He  sent  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  spirit  of 
truth  and  love,  to  abide  forever  with  His  church,  which  is  to  continue  on 
earth  the  work  of  saving  souls.  Under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  she 
is  to  teach  men  the  way  of  truth;  she  is  the  depository  and  dispensation 
of  the  graces  merited  for  all  men  by  Christ;  she  is  the  guardian  of  the 


SWAMI  VIVEKANANDA, 
Hindu  Monk. 


THE  llSa^RV 
Of  THE 


STONES  WHEN  THEY  NEED  BREAD. 


505 


sacraments,  the  ordinary  channels  through  which  grace  is  conveyed  to  the 
souls  of  men,  whether  they  be  infants  or  adults.  Not  that  grace  is  con¬ 
ferred  only  by  the  sacraments;  “  The  Spirit  breatheth  where  He  wills  ” 
(John  iii.,  8),  and  if  we  ask  anything  in  Christ’s  name  the  Father  will  give 
it  (John  xvi.,  23).  Nay  more,  the  Spirit  of  Grace  is  represented  as  con¬ 
tinually  standing  at  the  gate  and  knocking,  that  the  door  of  the  sinner’s 
heart  may  be  opened  to  admit  the  grace  of  God  (Apoc.  iii.,  20),  which  will 
excite  within  him  horror  for  sin  and  a  desire  to  return  to  God  (Cone.  Trid. 
Sess.  vi.  de  Justif,  cap.  v.). 

This  grace  is  so  powerful  that  after  conversion  the  sinner  must  not 
boast  as  if  he  had  not  received  the  gift  from  heaven  (1  Cor.  iv.,  7),  and  yet 
he  must  not  remain  inactive.  He  must  consent  to  grace  and  co-operate 
with  the  movements  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Cone.  Trid.,  loc.  cit.).  He  must 
prepare  himself  for  justification  by  believing  in  God  and  His  power;  he 
must  hope  in  Him  and  begin  to  love  Him,  desiring  to  do  penance  and 
receive  the  sacraments  and  lead  a  new  life  (ibid,  cap.  vi),  thus  disposing 
himself  to  receive  through  the  merits  of  Christ  the  abundance  of  grace 
which  will  complete  the  work  of  sanctification.  When  the  sanctification  is 
complete  his  sins  are  blotted  out,  he  is  the  friend  and  lover  of  God  by 
charity,  and  an  heir  according  to  hope  of  life  everlasting  (ibid,  cap.  vii.  and 
Tit.  iii.,  7).  Then  the  Holy  Ghost  dwells  in  his  soul  with  the  fullness  of 
His  gifts;  and  if  he  persevere  in  the  grace  and  love  of  God  and  the  observ¬ 
ance  of  the  commandments,  he  will  be  one  of  those  of  whom  St.  Paul 
writes:  “  Being  now  justified  by  His  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath 
through  Him  ”  (Roman  v.,  9). 

Even  after  receiving  these  benefits,  men  must  work  out  their  salvation 
in  fear  and  trembling  (Phil,  ii.,  12,  and  Cone.  Trid.,  ibid.,  cap.  13),  because 
man  is  weak  and  can  fall  again.  Our  Lord’s  passion  and  death  repair  the 
injury  done  to  the  human  race  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  but  not  all  the  prerog¬ 
atives  of  our  primitive  happy  state  are  restored  in  this  life.  Grace  and  the 
friendship  of  God  and  the  right  to  heaven  are  restored;  but  our  nature  is 
still  a  wounded  nature;  the  soul  is  not  in  perfect  harmony;  the  unhappy 
inclination  to  evil  remains  in  us  even  after  baptism  and  justification,  for  a 
trial  and  as  an  occasion  to  practice  virtue,  say  the  fathers  of  the  Council  of 
Trent.  These  trials  have  been  left  by  a  merciful  Providence  to  remind  us 
of  the  fall  and  of  the  redemption;  they  are  merely  inclinations  or  tempta¬ 
tions  in  which  there  is  no  sin  if  the  will  does  not  consent  to  them;  they 
form  the  battle  for  good  against  evil,  and  those  who  strive  lawfully  will 
receive  a  crown,  says  St.  Paul.  (II.  Tim.  ii.,  5.)  This  struggle  will  last  as 
long  as  we  are  in  this  world,  and  those  who  persevere  unto  the  end  shall  be 
saved.  (Matt,  x.,  22.)  Only  those  who  have  been  saved  and  are  now  with 
God  can  see  the  full  intent  of  the  benefits  conferred  upon  mankind  by  the 
life,  teaching,  and  death  of  the  Redeemer;  they  alone  see  clearly  how  the 
redemption  of  sinful  man  through  Christ  is  a  manifestation  of  the  power 
and  wisdom  of  God;  but  even  in  the  dim  light  of  faith  we  understand 
enough  to  make  us  feel  eternally  grateful  to  Christ  and  to  the  Father  with 
whom  He  reconciled  us  by  His  death.  We  see  enough  to  make  us  believe 
and  feel  that  all  men  should  repeat  with  appreciation  and  gratitude  the 
words  of  the  new  canticle,  “sung  by  many  angels  round  about  the  throne:” 
“  The  Lamb  that  was  slain  is  worthy  to  receive  power  and  divinity  and 
wisdom  and  strength  and  honor  and  glory  and  benediction.”  Amen! 


STONES  WHEN  THEY  NEED  BREAD. 

During  the  evening  session  Suani  Vive  Kananda  spoke 
extemporaneously  for  a  few  moments. 


506 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Christians  must  always  be  ready  for  good  criticisms,  and  I  hardly  think 
that  you  will  care  if  I  make  a  little  criticism.  You  Christians  are  fond  of 
sending  out  missionaries  to  save  the  souls  of  the  heathens,  but  why  do  you 
not  try  to  save  the  bodies  of  these  poor  heathens  from  starvation?  In  India, 
during  a  famine,  hundreds  and  thousands  of  Hindus  die  from  starvation. 
Thousands  of  churches  have  been  erected  in  India  by  the  Christians,  but 
they  do  not  alleviate  the  pangs  of  h  unger.  The  crying  evil  in  the  East  is 
not  religion;  they  have  religion  enough  and  more  than  they  need;  it  is 
bread  that  these  suffering  millions  in  the  East  want.  They  ask  us  for 
bread  and  we  give  them  stones.  It  is  an  insult  to  a  starving  man  to  preach 
him  the  doctrines  of  the  metaphysics. 

The  speaker  referred  to  statements  characterizing  the  monks 
of  his  order  as  beggars,  replying  that  for  the  last  twelve  years 
he  had  not  known  where  the  next  meal  was  coming  from.  In 
India  a  priest  that  preached  for  money  or  pay  would  lose  caste 
and  be  spat  upon  by  the  people.  “  I  come  here,”  he  said,“  to  seek 
aid  for  my  impoverished  people,  but  I  fully  realized  how  diffi¬ 
cult  it  was  to  do  it.”  Mr.  Vive  Kananda  concluded  his  speech 
with  reference  to  Hindu  re-incarnation. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


^ELEVENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  21st, 


CONNECTION  OF  RELIGION  WITH  SOCIAL 

PROBLEMS. 

A  turning  point  was  reached  in  the  parliament  on  the 
eleventh  day,  metaphysical  speculation  and  theological  presen¬ 
tation  gave  way  to  the  consideration  of  practical  problems  and 
actual  facts  of  life.  There  were  three  sessions  of  the  great 
congress  on  this  date.  The  exercises  were  opened  with  prayer, 
in  the  recital  of  which  Rev.  George  F.  Pentecost  of  London 
was  the  leader.  Before  the  first  speaker  on  the  programme  was 
called,  the  chairman  read  two  papers,  and  appointed  three  com¬ 
mittees  to  report  a  list  of  fifty  or  more  of  the  best  books  on 
religion. 


THANKS  FROM  ARMENIANS. 

Dr.  Barrows  read  a  letter  from  the  Philharmonic  Association 
of  America,  thanking  the  parliament  for  according  a  cordial 
reception  to  Professor  Minas  Teheraz  as  a  representative  of  the 
oppressed  church  of  Armenia. 

New  York,  Sept.  15,  1893. 

Rev.  John  Henry  Barroivs,  D.D.,  Chairman  Parliament  of  Religions, 
Chicago,  III.  Reverend  Sir :  In  the  lamentable  state  of  political  and 
religious  persecution  of  our  fellow-countrymen  in  Armenia,  while  the  unani¬ 
mously  chosen  successor  of  St.  Gregory,  the  Illuminator,  still  languished  in 
exile  in  Jerusalem,  while  bishops  and  other  clergymen  were  banished  and 
imprisoned  for  their  zeal  and  fidelity  to  their  church,  and  no  prominent 
clergyman  was  permitted  to  leave  the  country  to  come  to  this  land,  you 
could  not  invite  a  worthier  representative  to  speak  in  behalf  of  the  oppressed 
Church  of  Armenia  than  Professor  Minas  Teheraz,  a  thorough  student  of 
the  church  and  history  of  Armenia,  an  intrepid  champion  of  her  national 
and  religious  rights,  the  ex-secretary  of  Patriarchs  Varjabedian  and  Khri- 
mian,  and  the  faithful  interpreter  of  their  faith,  hope,  and  feeling.  It  is  no 
lees  consolation  to  us,  in  our  jjresent  troubles,  to  have  such  a  delegation  in 

607 


508 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  Parliament  of  Religions  to  speak  for  our  beloved  church,  one  of  the 
most  ancient  and  most  liberal  churches  of  Christianity ;  one  always  sur¬ 
rounded  by  non-Christian  tribes,  persecuted  for  centuries,  and  bearing 
always  high  the  banner  of  the  cross,  and  testifying  even  to-day  to  the  sin¬ 
cerity  of  her  faith  and  devotion  by  the  blood  of  thousands  of  martyrs. 

The  Philharmonic  Association  of  America  begs  you  to  accept  the  heart¬ 
felt  thanks  of  the  Armenian  colony  in  the  United  States  for  the  courtesy 
with  which  you  have  honored  the  representative  of  the  Church  of  Armenia, 
and  hopes  that  his  present  mission,  with  your  kindly  assistance,  will  bring 
into  light  the  true  spirit  and  the  liberality  of  the  institutions  of  the  Church 
of  Armenia,  and  assist  the  number  of  sympathizers  with  Christian  Armen¬ 
ians  in  their  present  persecution  and  suffering. 

I  am,  reverend  sir,  your  faithful  and  obedient  servant, 

P.  Matthews  Ayvad,  Secretary. 


RESTORATION  OF  HOLY  PLACES. 

Dr.  Barrows  also  read  a  letter  from  S.  Horiuchi,  secretary  of 
the  Indo  Busseki  Kofuku  Society  of  Tokio: 

The  object  of  this  society  is  to  restore  and  re-establish  the  holy  places 
of  Buddhism  in  India,  and  to  send  out  a  certain  number  of  Japanese 
priests  to  perform  devotional  exercises  in  each  of  them,  and  promote  the 
convenience  of  pilgrims  from  Japan.  These  holy  places  are  Buddha 
Gaya,  where  Buddha  attained  to  the  perfect  enlightenment;  Kapil avastu, 
where  Buddha  was  born;.the  Deer  Park,  where  Buddha  first  preached,  and 
Kusinagara,  where  Buddha  entered  Nirvana. 

Two  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twenty  years  ago — that  is,  one  thousand 
and  twenty-six  years  before  Christ — the  world-honored  Prince  Siddartha 
was  born  in  the  palace  of  his  father.  King  Suddhodana,  in  Kapilavastu,the 
capital  of  the  kingdom  Magadha.  When  he  was  nineteen  years  old  he 
began  to  lament  man’s  inevitable  subjection  to  the  various  sufferings  of 
sickness,  old  age,  and  death;  and  discarding  all  his  precious  possessions 
and  the  heirship  to  the  kingdom,  he  went  into  a  mountain  jungle  to  seek, 
by  meditation  and  asceticism,  the  way  to  escape  from  these  sufferings. 
After  spending  six  years  there  and  finding  that  the  way  he  seeks  after  was 
not  in  asceticism,  he  went  out  from  there  and  retired  under  the  Bodhi  tree 
of  Buddhism  Gaya,  where  at  last,  by  profound  meditation,  he  attained  the 
supreme  wisdom  and  became  Buddha. 

The  light  of  truth  and  mercy  began  to  shine  from  him  over  the  whole 
world  and  the  way  of  perfect  emancipation  was  open  for  all  human  beings, 
so  that  everyone  can  bathe  in  his  blessings  and  walk  in  the  way  of 
enlightenment. 

When  the  ancient  King  Asoka  of  Magadha  was  converted  into  Budd¬ 
hism  he  erected  a  large  and  magnificent  temple  over  the  spot,  to  show  his 
gratitude  to  the  founder  of  his  new  religion.  But,  sad  to  say,  since  the 
fierce  Mohammedans  invaded  and  laid  waste  the  country,  there  being  no 
Buddhist  to  guard  the  temple,  it  fell  into  the  hands  of  a  Brahmanist 
priest,  who  chanced  to  come  here  and  seize  it. 

It  was  early  in  the  spring  of  1891  that  the  Japanese  priest.  Rev.  Shaku 
Kionen,  in  company  with  H.  Dharmapala,  of  Ceylon,  visited  this  holy 
ground.  The  great  Buddha  Gaya  Temple  was  carefully  repaired  and 
restored  to  its  former  state  by  the  British  government;  but  they  could  not 
help  being  very  much  grieved  to  see  it  subjected  to  such  desecration  in  the 
hands  of  the  Brahmanist  Mahant,  and  communicated  to  us  their  earnest 
desire  to  rescue  it. 

With  warm  sympathy  for  them  and  thinking,  as  Sir  Edwin  Arnold  said, 
that  it  is  not  right  for  Buddhists  to  leave  the  guardianship  of  the  holy 


BROTHERHOOD  OF  CHRISTIAN  UNITY. 


509 


center  of  Buddhist  religion  of  grace  to  the  hand  of  a  Brahmanist  priest,  we 
organized  this  Indo  Busseki  Kofuku  Society  in  Japan  to  accomplish  the 
object  before  mentioned;  in  co-operation  with  the  Maha  Bodhi  Society, 
organized  by  H.  Dharmapala  and  other  brothers  in  India.  These  are  the 
outlines  of  the  origin  and  object  of  our  Indo  Busseki  Kofuku  Society,  and 
I  believe  our  Buddha  Gaya  movement  will  bring  people  of  all  Buddhist 
countries  into  closer  connection  and  be  instrumental  in  promoting  the 
brotherhood  among  the  people  of  the  whole  world. 


BROTHERHOOD  OF  CHRISTIAN  UNITY. 

Theodore  F.  Seward  was  then  introduced  to  explain  the 
objects  of  the  brotherhood  of  Christian  unity.  Mr.  Seward 
said  that  two  and  one-half  years  ago  a  layman  in  a  union 
meeting  made  a  simple  suggestion  in  the  line  of  Christian 
unity.  He  said: 

We  can  not  break  up  the  denominations;  we  should  not  wish  to  do  so  if 
we  could;  we  can  not  lead  the  people  to  accept  one  creed  at  the  present 
time;  we  can  not  secure  organic  unity.  But  is  there  not  something  we  can  do? 
Suppose  a  larger  circle  be  created,  leaving  all  things  as  they  are,  churches 
and  individuals,  in  the  freedom  of  their  belief;  but  form  a  larger  fraternal 
circle  on  the  basis  of  love  to  God  and  man  under  the  leadership  of  Christ. 
It  might  be  called  the  Brotherhood  of  Christian  Unity.  The  suggestion 
made  in  a  small  town  was  responded  to  from  all  pfirts  of  the  country  by  all 
classes  of  religious  people.  The  poet  Whittier  wrote  immediately  to  express 
his  satisfaction  that  the  suggestion  had  been  made,  and  joined  the  brother¬ 
hood  before  his  death.  The  following  is  a  brief  presentation  of  the  objects 
of  the  fraternity.  It  has  received  the  indorsement  of  many  more  than 
those  whose  names  appear.  It  will  be  noticed  that  we  simply  unite  our¬ 
selves  to  this  brotherhood  under  the  declaration  of  love  to  God  and  man 
under  the  leadership  of  Christ. 

Chicago,  September,  1893.— We.  the  undersigned,  feeling  it  desirable  to  crys¬ 
tallize,  and  as  far  as  possible  to  perpetuate  the  remarkable  spirit  of  unity  which 
has  characterized  the  World’s  Parliament  of  Keligions,and  being  deterred  by  the 
widely  varied  beliefs  therein  represented  from  offering  a  formulated  expression 
of  views,  herewith  give,  as  individuals,  our  approval  of  the  formula  of  the  Brother¬ 
hood  of  Christian  Unity,  as  a  suitable  bond  with  which  to  begin  the  federation  of 
the  new  world  upon  a  Christian  basis.  The  formula  is  as  follows: 

For  the  purpose  of  uniting  with  all  who  desire  to  serve  Cod  and  their  fellow- 
men  under  the  inspiration  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ,  I  hereby 
enroll  myself  as  a  member  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Christian  Unity. 

Db.  John  Henby  Babbows,  Presbyterian. 

Db.  Geobge  Dana  Boaedman,  Baptist. 

Db.  Lyman  A.bbott,  Congregationalist. 

Db.  Alfeed  W.  Momeeie,  London,  Church  of  England. 

Db.  Edwabd  Eveeett  Hale,  Unitarian. 

Chables  C.  Bonney,  New  Church. 

J.  W.  Plummee,  Friend. 

Bishop  J.  H.  Vincent,  Methodist. 

Miss  Feances  E.  Willabd,  President  W.  C.  T.  U. 

Db.  Hibam  W.  Thomas,  Independent. 

Miss  Jeanne  Soeabji,  Bombay,  Church  of  England. 

Minas  Tcheeaz,  King’s  College,  London,  Armenian, 

Bishop  J.  S.  Mills,  United  Brethren. 

Db.  W.  F.  Black,  Christian. 

Mbs.  Lauba  Oemiston  Chant,  London,  Independent. 

Db.  Chables  H.  Eaton,  Universalist. 

Db.  Paulus  Mooet,  Monrovia,  Liberia,  Episcopal. 

Captain  Allen  Allenswobth,  Fort  Bayard,  New  Mexico,  U.  S.  Chaplain. 

Pbince  Momolu  Massaquoi,  Vey  Territory,  Liberia,  Episcopal. 

Db.  Cael  Yon  Bebgen,  Stockholm,  Sv/edcn.  Independent  Lutheran. 

Bishop  B.  W.  Aenett,  African  Methodist  Episcopal. 


510 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


TEST  OF  WORKS  APPLIED. 

COLONEL  THOMAS  WENTWOETH  HIGGINSON. 

He  was  introduced  by  Dr.  Barrows  as  a  man  ‘‘whose  life  has 
been  devoted  to  social  reform  and  who  believed  that  the  spread 
of  the  Christian  religion  would  have  led  to  the  abolition  of 
slavery.” 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: — I  should  not  dare  to  come 
before  you  again,  after  the  kindness  with  which  you  listened  to  me  the 
other  day,  but  for  the  fact  that  my  immediate  departure  from  Chicago  will 
save  me  from  the  effects  of  your  natural  indignation  and  turn  it  fully  upon 
your  chairman,  whose  shoulders  have  already  to  take  care  of  so  much. 

I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  is  a  turning  point  in 
the  history  of  this  Parliament  of  Religions.  Up  to  this  time  we  have 
devoted  ourselves  almost  wholly  to  speculation  and  abstract  ideas.  To-day, 
as  you  see  by  your  programme,  we  turn  to  the  actual  facts  of  life  and  the 
social  questions  which  press  upon  us  so  tremendously.  Those  of  you  who  have 
gone  up  in  the  Ferris  wheel  may  remember  very  well  that  when  you  got 
about  one  hundred  feet  from  the  earth  you  began  to  have  an  uncomfort¬ 
able  sensation  of  having  got  up  higher  than  your  natural  position  and  you 
almost  wished  for  a  moment  that  you  had  given  your  place  to  the  other 
man  who  was  anxious  to  step  in  before  you.  But  as  you  rose  higher  and 
higher  this  feeling  passed  away,  and  when  you  got  to  the  very  top  there 
came  a  blissful  moment  when — though  you  were  as  high  as  you  could  get 
in  the  air — you  saw  that  you  were  not  alone  in  the  air.  For  the  first  time 
•you  saw  that  you  had  comrades,  and  the  top  of  the  next  car  on  the  right  and 
the  top  of  the  next  car  on  the  left  gave  you  a  sense  of  safety  almost  as  if 
you  were  back  on  mother  earth. 

It  was  no  matter  w^ho  was  in  those  cars.  There  might  have  been  Rev. 
Joseph  Cook  in  the  car  on  the  right  and  Mohammed  and  his  seventeen 
wives  in  the  car  on  the  left.  You  could  not  see  any  of  them,  so  you  did  not 
suffer  from  their  presence.  At  any  rate  you  were  as  far  as  you  could  con¬ 
veniently  get.  You  had  human  beings  on  either  side  in  as  much  danger  as 
you  were  and  presently,  with  the  blessing  of  Providence,  you  got  back  to 
mother  earth  again.  Oh,  that  descent  to  mother  earth!  Do  you  remem¬ 
ber  how  mother  earth  seemed  to  rise  to  meet  you?  How  every  steeple 
seemed  sticking  up  in  the  air,  how  every  high  building  came  presently 
within  your  vision,  and  how  you  blessed  the  muezzin  as  he  called  the  noon¬ 
time  prayer  in  the  mosque,  if  he  happened  to  do  it  at  that  time!  Gradu¬ 
ally,  step  by  step,  you  settled  down  into  actual  life  again  and  you  were  glad, 
even  if  you  had  the  somewhat  shady  society  of  the  Midway  Plaisance. 

That  is  the  way  we  are  coming  back  to  earth  to-day.  We  are  entering 
on  the  study  of  social  reform.  You'  remember,  perhaps,  that  story  of  the 
Scotch  candidate  for  the  ministry  who  was  being  examined  by  one  of  the 
sternest  of  the  presbyters,  or  whatever  they  call  them.  Every  one  of  his 
examiners  stood  firm  in  favor  of  justification  by  faith  and  each  one  had  fif¬ 
teen  minutes  of  questions,  all  bearing  upon  faith,  to  put  to  him.  By  and  ' 
by,  when  the  candidate  was  in  an  exhausted  condition,  one  indiscreet 
examiner  said:  “Well,  what  do  you  think  of  good  works?”  “Oh,”  said 
the  exhausted  candidate,  looking  around  at  his  persecutors,  “  I’ll  not  say 
that  it  might  not  be  well  enough  to  have  a  few  of  them.” 

Here  to-day  we  are  aiming  to  have  a  few  of  them.  We  have  tried  to  con¬ 
trast  ourselves  as  our  natural  humility  would  permit  with  these  visitors 
from  foreign  lands.  We  have  tried  to  apply  the  test  of  our  convictions  to 


TEST  OF  WORKS  APPLIED. 


511 


fcheirs,  with  the  universal  feeling  that  each  one  of  them  might  have  been  a 
very  respectable  man  if  he  had  been  brought  up  in  our  Sunday  school. 
Suppose  we  try  them  by  this  test  of  works,  at  last,  and  try  ourselves  by 
the  same  test?  it  is  not  enough  for  our  admirable  chairman  to  marshal 
us  together  and  address  us  like  St.  Anthony,  who  preached  to  the  fishes  in 
the  old  German  poem.  That  poem  records  how  eloquently  the  good  saint 
addressed  them  and  how  well  they  all  listened  to  him.  He  explained  to  the 
pickerel  that  they  ought  not  to  eat  each  other;  he  told  the  trout  they 
ought  not  to  steal  each  other’s  food;  and  he  said  the  eel  ought  not  go  eel- 
ing  around  miscellaneously,  getting  into  all  manner  of  mischief.  It  is 
recorded  that  the  fishes  heard  him  in  rapture,  but  at  the  end  the  poem 
says,  at  the  end,  after  all: 

The  trout  went  on  stealing. 

The  eels  went  on  eeling; 

Much  delighted  were  they. 

But  preferred  the  old  way. 

Let  us  guard  against  that  danger;  and  how  can  we  guard  against  it  so 
*  well  as  by  a  little  mutual  humility  when  we  ask  ourselves  how  well  any  of 
us  have  dealt  with  the  actual  problems  of  human  life?  When  it  comes  to 
that,  after  all,  have  any  of  us  so  very  much  to  boast  of? 

With  the  seething  problems  of  social  reform  penetrating  all  our  com¬ 
munity  and  raising  the  question  whether  one  day  the  whole  system  of 
competition  under  which  we  live  may  not  be  swept  away  as  absolutely  as 
the  feudal  system  disappeared  before  it;  with  the  questions  of  drunken¬ 
ness  and  prostitution  in  our  cities;  with  the  mortgaged  farms  in  our 
country  towns ;  with  all  these  things  pressing  mpon  us,  is  it  quite  time 
for  us  to  assume  the  attitude  of  infallibility  before  the  descendants  of 
Plato  and  the  disciples  of  Gautama  Buddha? 

The  test  of  works  is  the  one  that  must  come  before  us.  Every  Oriental 
that  comes  to  us — and,  curiously  enough,  I  have  heard  half  a  dozen  say 
the  same  thing  in  different  places — concedes  to  us  the  power  of  organiza¬ 
tion,  the  power  of  labor,  the  method  in  actual  life,  which  they  lack.  I  do 
not  say  that  they  deny  us  any  virtue,  except  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
God.  They  don’t  seem  to  think  we  have  very  much  of  that,  and  that 
knowledge,  as  they  claim,  is  brought  to  bear  in  virtues  of  heart  as  well  as 
in  the  virtues  of  thrift,  of  industry,  or  organization,  and  in  the  virtue  of 
prayer,  in  the  virtue  of  trust,  in  the  virtue  of  absolute  confidence  in  God. 
A  friend  of  mine  in  Chicago  told  me  the  other  day  that  when  he  was  talking 
with  one  of  our  Oriental  visitors  about  some  other  place  he  was  going  to, 
the  question  arose  as  to  whether  he  could  afford  to  go.  The  calm  face  of 
the  Oriental  was  utterly  undisturbed  during  the  discussion.  “  Oh,”  he  said, 
“  I  think  I  can  go;  I  think  there  will  be  no  trouble;  I  have  $15  in  my 
pocket.” 

Put  any  of  us,  put  the  greatest  Christian  saint  among  us,  13,000  miles 
away  from  home  with  only  $15  in  his  pocket,  and  do  you  think  that  he  would 
be  absolutely  sure  that  unassisted  Divine  Providence  would  bring  him  back 
without  a  call  at  his  banker’s?  You  find  this  curious  combination  of  trials 
running  through  the  spiritual  life,  or  what  passes  for  such.  We  have  come 
here  to  teach  and  to  learn.  The  learning  is  not  so  familiar  to  most  of  us, 
perhaps,  as  the  teaching,  but  when  it  comes  to  actual  life  we  might  try  a 
little  of  both. 

And  in  thanking  once  more  our  chairman,  as  we  ought  to  thank  him 
every  moment  of  the  day,  not  alone  for  the  way  he  has  organized  this  great 
parliament,  but  for  the  sonorous  decisions  with  which  he  even  shuts  the 
door  in  our  faces  when  we  particularly  want  to  get  in — thanking  him  f or 
everything  I  can  only  give  him  this  parting  wish — that  he  may  not  be 
like  that  once  famous  sportsman  who  prided  himself  on  his  good  shooting, 
and  boasted  that  in  one  instance  the  deer  which  he  brought  in  had  been 


512 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


shot  by  himself  with  a  single  bullet  through  the  ear  and  through  the  left  off 
foot.  His  friend  became  a  little  solicitous  about  the  statement,  and  he 
turned  to  his  black  servant  and  said,  “  Sambo,  isn’t  it  so?  ”  “  Yes,  massa,” 
said  Sambo.  “  But  how  did  you  do  it?  '  asked  the  incredulous.  “Why,” 
said  Sambo,  “  it  was  simple  enough.  De  deer  he  just  scratch  ho  ear  wiv 
his  off  hoof  and  massa  shot  him.”  There  was  complete  triumph  on  the 
huntsman’s  part,  and  when  his  friend  had  gone  he  said:  “  Sambo,  you  did 
that  handsomely;  thank  you  for  getting  me  out  of  that.”  “  Yes,  massa,” 
said  Sambo,  “  I  did  it  once;  I  brought  de  ear  and  de  off  hind  hoof  togeder 
once,  but  I  speck  I  never  can  do  it  again.” 

“  I  am  sorry,”  remarked  Dr.  Barrows,  “  that  Colonel  Hig- 
ginson  has  ended  his  beautiful  address  with  a  word  of  skepti¬ 
cism.  I  believe  what  has  been  done  once  can  be  done  again.” 


RELIGION  AND  THE  ERRING  AND  CRIMINAL 

GLASSES. 

KEV.  ANNA  G.  SPENCER 

The  words  “erring”  and  “ criminal,”  while  they  have  a  constant  mean¬ 
ing,  have  also  a  variable  application.  That  is  to  say,  sin  and  crime  are 
always  understood  to  be  departures,  of  lesser  or  greater  degree,  by  an  indi¬ 
vidual  from  the  accepted  moral  standard  of  his  time  and  people.  Since, 
however,  moral  standards  change  with  changing  social  conditions  and  intel¬ 
lectual  conceptions,  the  act  thought  sinful  or  judged  criminal  in  one  period 
by  one  nation  may  be  deemed  innocent  or  even  noble  in  another  era  and 
place.  The  contrast,  for  example,  between  the  ancient  Greek  and  Jewish 
customs  and  legal  codes  in  respect  to  child-life  and  a  striking  proof  that 
the  differing  moral  standard  of  two  races  lead  to  this  widely  different  con¬ 
ception  of  sin  and  crime.  To  the  Jew,  who  defined  the  state  in  terms  of 
morals,  one  of  the  chief  duties  of  mankind  was  to  replenish  and  multiply 
the  people  of  the  earth,  and  hence  every  act  which  tended  toward  the  less¬ 
ening  of  population,  whether  committed  before  or  after  the  birth  of  a  child, 
was  deemed  by  them  a  crime  and  punished  severely.  To  the  Greeks,  on 
the  other  hand,  who  defined  the  state  in  terms  of  the  intellect,  the  quality 
not  the  quantity  of  its  citizens  was  the  chief  concern  and  therefore  they 
commended,  not  blamed,  a  parent  who  destroyed  a  feeble,  ill-formed,  or 
otherwise  defective  infant;  and  some  of  their  noblest  moralists  approved 
the  common  practice  of  destruction  of  life  before  birth,  Aristotle  even 
recommending  that  it  may  be  made  compulsory  whenever  the  population  of 
a  city  threatened  to  exceed  the  limits  which  would  secure  pecuniary  ease 
and  comfort  to  all  the  free  people  of  that  community. 

The  element  of  time  in  its  influence  upon  moral  standards,  and  thus 
upon  the  definition  of  vice  and  crime,  is  as  conspicuously  shown  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  human  slavery  as  that  of  racial  peculiarity  just  noted.  Slavery, 
which  was  rightly  characterized  in  both  England  and  America  during  the 
abolition  movements  as  “  the  sum  of  all  villainies,”  was  at  first  a  great  step 
upward  in  human  progress  toward  justice— a  great  step  upward  from 
the  stage  of  development  which  preceded  it,  in  which  all  enemies  capt¬ 
ured  in  battle  were  tortured  and  slain,  and  in  which  thousands  upon 
thousands  of  the  poor  and  helpless  were  butchered  in  times  of  peace  to 
make  a  tyrant’s  holiday.  The  unexampled  heinousness  of  American  slavery 
consisted  in  the  fact  that  it  was  the  most  monstrous  anachronism  of  moral 
history. 


RELIGION  AND  THE  ERRING. 


513 


Vice,  sin,  and  crime  are  then  always  and  everywhere  acts  done  by  the 
one  against  the  common  moral  sense  of  the  many  as  that  sense  is  expressed 
in  social  custom  or  code  of  law.  This  moral  consensus  itself,  however,  is  but 
a  part  of  the  changing  thought  of  growing  humanity  and  must,  therefore, 
manifest  all  the  varieties  of  era  and  race  and  condition  which  mark  all 
other  forms  of  human  development. 

The  essence  of  moral  obligation  is  eternally  and  universally  the  same — • 
“  Do  that  which  thou  seest  to  be  right.”  The  definitions  of  what  consti¬ 
tutes  right  action  are  as  numerous  as  the  distinct  types  of  social  relation. 
This  sense  of  moral  obligation,  which  is  the  root  of  all  personal  and  social 
ethics,  is  a  part  of  religion’s  own  being — that  is,  if  religion  be  defined,  as 
in  this  parliament  it  has  supreme  right  to  be,  in  its  largest  terms.  So 
defined  religion  is  the  conscious  response  of  the  human  being  to  those  uni¬ 
versal  powers  which  make  for  cosmos  out  of  chaos,  for  moral  order  out  of 
personal  willfulness,  for  good  out  of  evil,  for  beauty  out  of  ugliness.  This 
response  of  the  human  being  to  “whatsoever  forces  draw  the  ages  on”  has 
been  intellectually  the  philosopher’s  attempt  to  explain  the  universe  and 
man’s  relation  to  it ;  it  has  been  morally  the  struggle  to  make  the  life  obe¬ 
dient  to  the  highest  law  of  right  perceived ;  it  has  been  emotionally  the 
yearning  of  the  human  heart  to  feel  at  one  with  a  central  heart  of  all  life 
and  to  picture  that  idea  in  worship  and  in  art. 

Accepting  this  definition  of  religion  we  find  that  the  sense  of  obligation 
to  do  the  seen  right,  whatever  that  may  chance  at  any  given  time  and  place 
to  be,  that  sense  of  moral  obligation  which  is  the  essential  root  of  all  eth¬ 
ical  development,  and  which  gives  us  the  words  sin  and  crime  themselves, 
is  religion’s  contribution  to  moral  science. 

Not  only  does  religion  give  ethics  its  root  but  it  has  also  played  an 
enormous  part  in  the  variations  of  the  moral  standards  of  the  world.  The 
student  finds  it  hard  to  accept  even  so  excellent  a  guide  as  Mr.  Lecky,when  he 
separates  primitive  religion  so  entirely  from  morals  as  in  his  analysis  of 
pgana  religion  and  civilization.  For  Coulange  has  shown  us  how  the  ances¬ 
tor-worship  of  Greece  and  Rome  built  up  the  great  city  life  of  those  nations, 
and  was  the  root  from  which  grew  the  social  customs  of  their  dual  civili¬ 
zation.  It  was  only  when  the  ethnic  religions  of  the  pagan  world  were 
dying  that  they  ceased  to  have  infiuence  over  the  moral  life  of  the  people. 

Religion  has  often  indeed  been  called  upon  to  give  a  divine  sanction  to 
actions  already  done  from  pressure  of  social  exigencies  or  mistakes;  but, 
looked  at  critically,  these  exigencies  will  often  prove  but  the  reflex  or 
resulting  tendency  of  the  religious  ideas  of  the  people.  As,  for  instance, 
the  suttee  of  India  was  not  suggested  in  the  early  Vedas,  whose  spirit 
would  indeed  condemn  it.  On  the  contrary,  the  Hindu  scriptures  recom¬ 
mending  the  burning  of  widows  on  their  husbands’  funeral  pyre  were  writ¬ 
ten  after  this,  and,  assisted  and  encouraged,  suicide  of  widows  had  become  a 
common  fact.  But  the  child  marriages  and  the  ill-treatment  and  suffering 
of  widows  which  resulted  in  the  suttee  were  the  outgrowth  of  some  tenets 
of  the  early  Brahmanical  faith.  It  is  therefore  strictly  true  to  say  that 
while  the  first  relation  of  religion  to  the  erring  and  criminal  classes  is 
that  of  supplying  the  sense  by  which  we  distinguish  between  right  and 
wrong,  its  second  relation  is  that  of  a  subtle  and  interior  element,  in  vary¬ 
ing  moral  definitions.  Ancestor  worship  is  the  moral  side  of  the  religion  of 
people  who  are  in  the  early  patriarchal  order  of  society;  and  hence  the  prim¬ 
itive  penology  of  most  people  is  the  science  and  art  of  punishment  within 
the  family  and  for  sins  against  the  family.  When  the  father  was  priest 
and  king  the  prison  and  the  penal  code  of  custom  were  only  the  family  pro¬ 
vision  for  dealing  with  its  refractory  members.  In  this  form  of  human 
association  there  was  no  written  code  of  law,  no  trial,  no  assignment  of  one 
specific  penalty  to  one  source  of  wrong-doing.  The  offender  against  the 
reigning  family  powers  met  with  instant  judgment  and  personal  penalty. 


514 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Prisons  were  private  in  those  days,  places  in  which  the  offender  languished 
or  died  in  secret  excepting  some  important  member  of  an  enemy’s  family 
who  was  held  for  hostage. 

As  the  patriarchal  order  of  society  began  to  enlarge  and  differentiate 
into  the  two  departments  of  church  and  state  there  began  to  be  a  division  of 
evil-doing  into  two  sorts,  namely,  ecclesiastical  offenses  or  sins  against  the 
religious  ideal,  and  civil  crimes,  or  sins  against  the  public  well-being  as 
defined  by  a  legal  code  or  a  well-knov/n  custom.  In  this  progress  religion 
played  a  great  accompanying  part,  for  it  was  only  as  the  family  gods  began 
to  enlarge  into  those  of  the  city  and  even  the  common  god  of  many  allied 
cities,  thus  weakening  the  bond  of  ancestor-worship,  that  the  state  was 
born.  And  it  was  only  as  the  religious  ideal  separated  from  a  distinct 
locality  and  assumed  a  more  spiritual  significance  that  the  church  was  born. 
As  the  ideal  of  religion  began  to  include  a  sense  of  relation  to  universal 
powers,  with  which  not  only  one  family  alone  but  all  humanity  was  con¬ 
nected,  the  indidvidual  sense  of  moral  obligation  was  directed  toward  the 
state  instead  of  as  formerly  solely  toward  the  kindred  of  blood  relation¬ 
ship. 

The  sharpest  contest  between  the  ancient  and  the  modern  treatment  of 
the  criminal  and  vicious  lies  in  this,  that  in  the  old  civilization  the  offender 
was  at  the  mercy  of  the  hasty  and  individual  judgment  of  his  superior  and 
ruler,  while  in  modern  civilization  the  meanest  and  worst  of  evil-doers  has 
the  protection  of  a  recognized  code  of  law  which  is  based  upon  the  agree¬ 
ment  of  many  minds  and  wills.  And,  as  we  have  seen,  this  change  is  chiefly 
due  to  the  twin  enlargement  of  the  social  and  religious  ideas  by  which  the 
state  fook  the  place  of  the  narrow  family  rule  and  the  church  took  the 
place  of  the  local  family-altar. 

The  history  of  modern  penology  is  so  much  a  part  of  the  social  and  moral 
history  of  the  leading  Christian  nations  that  it  must  be  traced  almost  exclu¬ 
sively  in  Christendom.  And  this  is  not,  as  some  think,  because  Christian 
ethics  are  alone  sufficiently  advanced  to  apply  the  doctrine  of  human  broth¬ 
erhood  to  the  sinner  and  the  criminal.  Other  than  Christian  teachers — the 
noble  Stoics,  the  gentle  Buddhists,  the  duty-loving  Confucians,  and  other 
strivers  after  truth  and  right — have  taught  that  the  mightiest  and  the 
best  of  humankind  owe  duty  most  sacred  toward  the  feeblest  and  the  worst. 
But  our  Western  civilization  has  attained  most  completely  of  any  the  new 
order  of  society,  in  which  the  individual,  not  the  family,  is  the  social  unit. 
And,  therefore,  it  is  our  civilization  which  must  first  work  out  the  problem 
of  the  just  and  wise  relation  of  the  state  toward  the  individual  who  is 
criminal  and  vicious. 

Rome,  because  of  her  governmental  genius  which  has  led  the  world  in 
all  forms  of  political  development,  shows  the  beginnings  of  modern  pen¬ 
ology  better  than  any  other  nation.  We  must,  therefore,  trace  a  further 
relation  of  religion  to  the  criminal  and  erring  classes  through  the  changes 
which  supplanted  the  Graeco-Roman  civilization  by  medieval  Christianity. 
In  Rome’s  cosmopolitan  life  many  different  religions  were  allowed  to  thrive, 
and  the  priest  and  the  rulers  of  those  religions  had  freedom  to  punish  all 
offenders  against  their  own  authority— that  is  to  say,  all  religious  sins — 
according  to  their  own  discretion.  But  the  Roman  imperial  government 
arrived  at  a  certain  moral  concensus  of  many  nations  in  what  is  called  the 
“Law  of  Nature.”  This  was  obtained  by  selecting  the  rules  of  conduct 
and  social  usages  common  to  all  the  important  nations  represented  in  the 
empire  and  setting  them  down  in  a  written  code.  This  soon  established 
the  fact  that  certain  violent  crimes  of  murder  and  robbery  were  condemned 
by  a  general  moral  sense.  Then  came  the  distinction  between  offenses 
against  the  state  or  individual  persons.  An  offense  against  the  state  was 
punished  by  a  single  act  of  the  state,  a  sentence  against  the  offender, 
usually  of  death  or  expatriation. 


RELIGION  AND  THE  ERRING. 


5i.j 

This  offense  against  the  individual  person  was  earlier  subject  for  juris¬ 
prudence  proper;  in  other  words,  for  the  assignment  of  a  recognized 
punishment  to  each  sort  of  offense.  We  find  that  in  Anglo-Saxon  law 
a  sum  was  placed  on  the  life  of  every  free  man  according  to  his  rank,  and 
a  corresponding  sum  on  every  wound  that  could  be  inflicted  on  his  person 
and  for  nearly  every  injury  that  could  be  done  to  his  civil  rights,  honor,  or 
peace.  The  Roman  “  Twelve  Tables  ”  allotted  with  equal  care  the  money 
price  of  smaller  thefts  and  other  offenses  against  private  person  and 
estate.  Thus  was  introduced  the  idea  of  money  in  connection  with  punish¬ 
ment,  which  in  earlier  times  had  been  almost  solely  corporeal. 

^  The  first  great  step  in  the  legal  restriction  of  the  personal  will  of  the 
reigning  powers  in  respect  to  sin  and  crime  was  taken  when  Rome  sepa¬ 
rated  the  “  free-born  ”  from  the  slaves  of  a  family  and  declared  the  former 
released  from  the  father’s  control  and  subject,  only  to  the  state  for  punish¬ 
ment  of  graver  offenses.  This  established  the  public  prison  in  addition  to, 
and  often  in  place  of  the  private  dungeons  of  the  family. 

The  prison,  however,  made  a  comparatively  small  showing  in  the  old 
world’s  paraphernalia  of  punishment.  The  death  penalty  was  so  freely  used 
and  physical  torture  of  all  sorts  was  so  marked  a  feature  of  punishment 
that  the  prison  in  the  olden  times  was  most  often  only  a  place  of  temporary 
detention  for  those  on  the  way  to  cruel  and  fatal  suffering.  The  idea  of 
imprisonment  as  itself  a  punishment  aside  from  any  hardship  of  torture 
to  be  suffered  by  the  prisoner,  is  essentially  a  new  one.  There  seems  to 
have  been  but  one  public  prison  in  Rome  at  the  time  of  Juvenal.  Her 
methods  of  punishment  by  transportation,  by  enforced  exile,  by  penal  labor 
on  public  works  and  in  mines  «nd  granaries  at  a  distance  from  the  great 
cities  (methods,  be  it  said  in  passing,  copied  by  most  modern  states), 
relieving  her  population  from  the  support  of  the  criminal  class. 

When  the  Christian  church  ascended  the  throne  of  the  Cmsars  there 
was  no  immediate  change  in  the  methods  of  punishment,  although  grad¬ 
ually  a  very  different  scale  of  virtues  was  evolved  leading  to  a  very  different 
definition  of  the  criminal  and  erring  classes.  The  feudal  system  which 
represented  the  state  during  the  medieval  system  of  Christianity  marked, 
indeed,  a  retrogression  and  not  an  advance  from  the  ancient  Roman  code 
of  offenses  and  offenders.  For  again  the  prison  became  a  secret  part  of  the 
family  stronghold,  and  again  the  criminal  and  erring,  at  least  of  the  lower 
classes,  were  defined  in  a  political  sense  almost  exclusively  by  the  individual 
judgment  of  the  reigning  family  head,  who  could  punish  almost  unrestrain¬ 
edly  according  to  his  will.  The  Christian  church,  in  the  meantime, 
defined  the  criminal  and  erring  in  an  ecclesiastical  sense  by  its  own  stand¬ 
ards,  and  punished  them  in  its  own  secret  places  of  torture,  and  by  a 
will  as  unrestrained.  The  to  us  almost  incredible  rights  of  the  feudal  lord 
over  his  vassal’s  and  his  villein’s  person  and  estate  prove  that  the  power  of 
the  chieftain  class  over  offenders  leads  always  to  abuse  and  tyranny.  And 
the  to  us  almost  unimaginable  tortures  of  the  inquisition  prove  that  the 
l)ersonal  power  of  the  priestly  class  over  offenders  results  in  a  confusion  of 
the  moral  sense. 

The  only  chance  for  a  just  and  wise  science  of  penology  lies  along  the 
path  which  pagan  Rome  opened  in  her  “Law  of  Nature;”  that  is,  in  the 
development  of  a  “common  law”  of  righteousness  based  upon  the  more 
universal  elements  in  human  thought  and  action,  on  which  to  found  a 
common  code  of  punishment.  Whe^i  trie  Roman  law  was  re-established  in 
Christian  courts,  just  as  the  dark  ages  lightened  toward  the  dawn  of  our 
modern  day,  a  fresh  start  was  taken  toward  this  universal  moral  standard, 
and  the  consequent  rational  definition  of  crime  and  sin,  and  the  resulting 
human  treatment  of  the  criminal  and  erring  classes.  Modern  progress  in 
penology  is  marked  by  seven  distinct  steps,  namely: 

1.  The  establishment  of  the  rights  of  all  free-born  men  to  a  trial  by  law. 

2.  The  abolition  of  slavery  which  brought  all  men  under  aegis  of  one  legal 
sod©. 


516 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


3.  The  substitution  of  the  penalty  of  imprisonment  for  varied  forms  of 
physical  torture  and  the  limitation  of  the  death  penalty  to  a  smaller  number  of 
crimes  and  those  more  universally  oondemned  by  all  men. 

4.  The  recognition  of  national  responsibility  toward  offenders,  by  which  each 
State  accepts  the  task  of  controlling  and  caring  for  its  own  criminals  instead 
of  transporting  them  outside  its  bounds. 

5.  The  acceptance  of  the  principle  that  even  a  convicted  criminal  has  rights 
•'-rights  to  decent  and  humane  treatment,  which  social  custom  must  regard. 

6.  The  inauguration  of  a  system  of  classification  not  only  of  offenses  as 
more  or  less  heinous,  but  of  offenders  as  more  or  less  guilty  according  to  cir¬ 
cumstances. 

7.  The  beginning  of  experimental  efforts  in  industrial  and  educational 
directions  toward  the  reformation  of  the  criminal  and  erring— that  is,  iheir  mak¬ 
ing  over  into  an  accepted  model  of  citizenship. 

A  few  dates  will  help  us  to  fix  in  our  minds  some  points  in  this  prog¬ 
ress  of  penology.  In  1215  the  twenty-ninth  section  of  England’s  magna 
charta  declared  that  “no  free  man  shall  be  taken  or  imprisoned  unless  by 
lawful  judgment  of  his  peers  or  the  law  of  the  land.”  This  freed  the 
vassals  of  England  from  the  irresponsible  tyranny  of  the  nobles.  The 
agitation  against  domestic  slavery  in  England,  which  began  in  the  council 
of  London  of  1102,  was  triumphant  in  the  Abolition  Act  of  1806.  The 
emancipation  of  slaves  in  ail  the  British  colonies  succeeded  in  1838-39.  In 
France  the  noble  but  ineffectual  signal  for  the  liberation  of  slaves  given  by 
the  constituent  assembly  was  followed  long  after  by  the  emancipation  acts 
of  1848.  The  church  finally  condemned  slavery  in  1839  by  the  bull  of  Pope 
Gregory  VI.  These  and  other  kindred  acts  placed  all  men  under  the  law 
and  thus  made  possible  the  universal  application  of  a  civil  code  in  Europe. 

The  policy  of  England  in  respect  to  the  criminal  and  vicious  was  for 
many  years  that  of  expatriation  for  many  grave  offenses.  She  found  it 
convenient  to  push  off  the  edge  of  her  little  island  onto  the  domains  of  her 
colonies  many  of  her  undesirable  children.  James  I.,  you  remember, 
shipped  one  hundred  prisoners  to  our  own  Virginia  in  1619,  and  in  1789 
England  sent  her  first  cargo  of  convicts  to  Australia.  In  1857  this  trans¬ 
portation  of  criminals  was  abolished  by  the  English  Parliament,  thus 
setting  England  right  in  the  fourth  step  of  penal  reform. 

Prance,  meanwhile,  had  been  enlightening  the  penal  code  of  Europe  in 
another  direction.  In  1624  John  Grevius,  a  preacher  who  had  beem  impris¬ 
oned  for  his  religious  belief,  published  a  book  against  torture,  and  in  1780 
the  attempt  to  extract  confession  from  accused  persons  was  abolished  in 
France.  In  1791  the  national  convention  recognized  in  its  new  penal  code 
simple  imprisonment  as  punishment  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of 
Prance,  and  for  the  first  time  in  such  distinct  form  in  Europe. 

The  lessening  of  capital  crimes  and  the  limitation  of  the  death  penalty  to 
the  crimes  most  universally  abhorred  by  humanity  was  a  step  slowly  taken. 
When  our  Pilgrim  Fathers  landed  on  Plymouth  ^ck,  England,  in  a  retro¬ 
gressive  mood,  the  number  of  capital  crimes  had  increased  from  thirty-one 
at  the  accession  of  James  to  223,  while  what  would  now  be  called  minor 
offenses  were  punished  by  death  in  every  state  in  Europe.  The  Pilgrims 
established  in  Plymouth  Colony  the  most  humane  code  in  this  and  other 
respects  which  the  Christian  world  had  yet  seen,  only  five  classes  of  crime 
and  those  the  most  repugnant  to  ail  humane  sentiment,  carrying  with  them 
the  death  penalty.  And  of  these  five  but  two  were  ever  actually  enforced 
in  the  case  of  an  offender. 

This  was  very  different  from  the  penal  code  of  the  Puritans  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts  Bay  Colony,  which  made  thirteen  crimes  capital,  and  also  from  that 
of  Virginia,  which  made  seventeen  crimes  subject  to  the  death  penalty, 
among  these,  be  it  remembered  in  passing,  the  crimes  of  refusing  to  attend 
public  worship  after  the  third  off ense,  and  of  being  a  Unitarian!  Gradually, 
however,  all  the  Christian  States  have  lessened  the  number  of  capital 
crimes  until  murder  is  now  generally  held  to  be  the  only  offense  against 
society  heinous  enough  to  justify  the  legal  taking  of  life,  while  there  are 
many  opposed  to  capital  punishment  for  any  form  of  offense. 


RELIGION  AND  THE  ERRING. 


517 


The  first  comprehensive,  humane,  and  rationally  consistent  law  in  respect 
to  the  establishment  and  management  of  penal  institutions  which  was  ever 
enacted  was  that  which  the  combined  wisdom  of  John  Howard,  the  great¬ 
est  of  prison  reformers,  and  of  Blackstone  and  Eldon,  the  great  lawyers, 
presented  to  the  English  Parliament,  and  which  was  passed  in  1778. 
Although  for  a  long  time  it  was  rendered  inoperative  by  the  determination 
of  the  English  government  to  transport  its  criminals  to  British  colonies, 
it  marks  the  actual  advent  of  modern  ideas  of  penology  into  codes  of  law. 
This  law  suggested  by  Howard  recognized  the  right  of  the  criminal  to  good 
sanitary  conditions  in  jail  and  prison,  to  protection  from  extortion  and 
cruelty,  to  helpful  employment  where  it  could  be  given,  and  urged  the  need 
of  his  education  and  moral  training.  When  we  consider  what  were  the 
conditions  of  European  prisons  when  John  Howard  began  his  work  of  reform, 
we  can  faintly  estimate  the  power  and  use  of  his  labors.  Torture  was  still 
known;  cruelties  of  many  sorts  were  practiced;  miasma,  filth  of  all  sorts, 
extreme  cold,  poor  and  insufficient  food,  almost  utter  nakedness  prevailing, 
and  inevitably  loathsome  diseases;  neglect  of  every  sanitary  and  moral 
regulation  made  terrible  the  common  experience  of  the  prisoner.  This 
experience  might  be  mitigated  for  the  richer  and  more  influential  offender 
through  the  corrupt  and  corrupting  system  of  jailers’  fees,  by  which  the 
person  who  had  the  money  to  bribe  the  jailer  and  his  associates  might 
secure  the  best  rooms,  good  food,  and  plenty  of  intoxicating  drink  as  well, 
and  medicine  and  care  when  ill. 

These  jailers’  positions,  you  remember,  were  so  remunerative  that  no  sal¬ 
aries  were  attached  to  them,  some  men  even  paying  for  the  chance  to  thus 
fatten  off  the  distresses  of  their  outcast  fellowmen.  x4nd  when  in  this  con¬ 
nection  we  remember  that  only  those  guilty  of  the  gravest  crimes  were 
transported,  leaving  all  minor  misdemeanors  to  be  punished  at  home,  and 
when  we  remember  also  that  imprisonment  for  debt  was  very  common,  we 
can  faintly  estimate  the  injustice  to  which  the  sentence  of  the  courts  con¬ 
signed  many  whose  worst  fault  was  their  poverty. 

The  Protestant  Reformation  resulted  alike  in  Protestant  and  Catholic 
countries  in  limiting  the  church  power  to  the  infliction  of  spiritual  penalties 
for  ecclesiastic  sins.  The  state  then  took  into  its  own  hands  all  other  forms 
of  punishment  along  with  many  another  social  function  once  held  within 
the  grasp  of  the  Roman  Church.  Hence  all  the  more  modern  progress  in 
penology  has  been  carried  along  political  lines.  Yet  Protestantism  in  Amer¬ 
ica  as  well  as  in  the  Old  World  made  its  civil  law  conform  to  its  religious 
conceptions  and  used  the  strong  arm  of  the  court  to  enforce  the  moral 
standards  of  the  church. 

In  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony,  where  no  one  could  vote  who  was  not  a 
free  householder  and  a  member  of  the  church,  all  ecclesiastical  offenses 
were  punished  by  the  magistrates  as  regularly  and  often  more  severely  than 
those  crimes  which  were  specially  committed  against  the  state.  The  relig¬ 
ious  life  of  Protestant  New  England  was  therefore  for  many  generations 
organically  bound  up  v/ith  the  definitions  and  administration  of  its  penal 
and  correctional  codes.  And  it  is  instructive  to  note  the  fact  that  the 
difference  between  the  harshness  of  the  Puritan  and  Southern  laws  and 
the  more  humane  statutes  of  the  Plymouth  Pilgrims  was  exactly  matched 
by  the  difference  between  the  religious  bigotry  of  the  former  and  the 
remarkable  toleration  and  breadth  of  the  latter  in  church,  creed,  and  idea. 

The  radical  changes  in  the  treatment  of  the  criminal  and  the  erring 
classes  which  mark  so  conspicuously  the  last  forty  years — changes  which 
have  revolutionized  this  "branch  of  social  relation — all  proceed,  whether 
consciously  or  not,  from  one  fundamental  principle — namely,  that  every 
man  and  every  woman,  however  criminal  and  erring,  is  still  a  man  and 
woman,  a  legitimate  member  of  the  human  family,  with  inalienable  rights 
to  protection  and  justice.  One  must,  indeed,  be  isolated  from  the  rest  of 


518 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  world,  for  society’s  sake  and  perhaps  for  his  own;  one  must  be  taught 
the  majesty  of  the  law  and  subjected  to  moral  discipline,  but  who  is  entitled 
to  the  best  possible  chance  for  moral  improvement. 

The  principle  fibers  itself  upon  three  distinct  contributions  of  the 
Christian  religion  to  our  Western  civilization.  These  three  contributions 
are:  First,  the  Democratic  social  idea;  second,  a  conviction  of  the  sacred¬ 
ness  of  all  human  life;  third,  the  elevation  of  tenderness  to  a  high  place  in 
the  scale  of  virtues.  When  the  Christian  religion  declared  that  each  soul 
was  its  own,  whether  of  bond  or  free,  Jew  or  Gentile,  man  or  woman,  its 
own  to  give  to  the  Divine  in  loving  service,  it  proclaimed  a  declaration  of 
independence  which  must,  perforce,  eventuate  in  the  recognized  self-own¬ 
ership  and  control  of  each  human  being’s  person  and  estate.  No  matter 
how  long  that  result  might  be,  as  it  was  delayed  by  Roman  imperialism  in 
the  church  itself,  the  freedom  of  the  soul’s  choice  of  a  heavenly  kingdom 
carried  with  it  the  Magna  Charta  of  equality  in  social  rights. 

Again  the  idea  of  the  worth  and  use  of  the  single  soul  which  was  at 
the  heart  of  Jesus’  doctrine  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood 
of  man  gave  to  our  civilization  a  conviction  that  the  body  of  man,  in  which 
the  soul  was  enshrined,  should  not  be  lightly  hurt  or  slain.  This  not  only 
did  away  with  the  pagan  cruelties  of  the  gladiatorial  shows  and  the  expos¬ 
ure  and  destruction  of  infant  life,  but  helped  in  the  abolition  of  slavery  and 
mightily  in  the  humanizing  of  penology.  And  last,  the  ideal  character 
which  the  Christian  church  worshiped  in  Christ,  placing  as  it  did  tender¬ 
ness,  sacrifice,  and  service  at  the  regal  height  of  human  virtue,  gave  an 
irresistible  impulse  to  those  sentiments,  and  inspired  a  passion  of  human 
love.  The  contribution  of  the  Christian  religion  to  our  civilization  has 
borne  direct  fruit  in  the  great  change  from  tyranny  and  brutality  to  justice 
and  humanity  in  the  administration  of  the  accepted  moral  law. 

There  is  a  new  form  of  religion  dawning  upon  the  Western  world  and  I 
believe  also  upon  the  Eastern.  Christianity  was  and  is  a  composite  faith, 
compounded  of  Jewish  religious  ideals,  of  Greek  thought,  Roman  organiza¬ 
tion,  and  of  Germanic  racial  influences  of  domestic  and  social  habit.  The 
new  religious  ideal  which  is  shaping  the  reform  movements  of  Christi¬ 
anity,  and  of  other  great  historic  faiths  as  well,  is  the  outgrowth  on  its 
thought-side  of  that  new  conception  of  the  universe  and  man’s  relation 
to  it,  that  new  conception  which  is  cosmical  and  universal  rather  than 
racial  or  special.  The  new  religious  philosophy  finds  the  synthesis  of  all 
religions  in  the  universal  and  eternal  elements  of  human  aspiration 
toward  the  everlasting  truth,  the  absolute  right,  the  boundless  love,  and 
the  perfect  beauty.  This  conception  in  brief  puts  at  the  center  of  all 
things  perceived  or  experienced  “one  law,  one  light,  one  element,  and  one 
far-off  divine  event  toward  which  the  whole  creation  moves.”  This  new 
and  scientific  thought  conception  makes  of  morals,  not  a  series  of  obliga¬ 
tory  commands  given  by  one  God  or  many  gods  to  one  race  or  many 
races,  but  a  turning  of  the  will  of  man  by  the  force  of  moral  gravita¬ 
tion  toward  that  central  law  which  reveals  itself  in  the  human  con¬ 
science  and  is  developed  through  social  influences,  and  in  obedience  to 
which  alone  mankind  finds  his  true  orbit  of  action.  This  view  of  morals, 
which  is  fast  becoming  common  to  all  enlightened  men  of  all  historic 
dates,  has  already  started  the  newest  tendencies  in  the  treatment  of  vice 
and  crime.  Those  newest  tendencies  we  set  down  as  reformatory,  those 
which  aim  to  make  over  the  criminal  and  erring  into  law-abiding  and 
respectable  members  of  society. 

There  are  two  sides  of  this  new  reformatory  movement  in  penology — 
one  which  touches  medical  and  one  educational  science.  The  first  is  busied 
with  the  pathology  of  crime  and  vice,  and  is  concerned  with  the  influence 
of  heredity  and  original  endowment;  the  other  has  to  do  with  the  culture 
of  the  morally  defective,  and  makes  much  of  the  effect  of  environment  and 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  POOR  AND  DESTITUTE.  519 


training  upon  that  original  endowment.  The  first  teaches  an  intelligent 
pity  which  traces  evil  to  producing  causes,  and  thus  forbids  all  spiritual 
arrogance  to  the  well-born  and  bred.  The  other  bids  us  to  make  haste  to 
give  a  new  chance  for  growth  to  every  ill-born  and  ill-bred  man  or  woman; 
and,  moreover,  is  showing  us  how  we  may  act  in  determined  and  wise  alli¬ 
ance  with  all  those  forces  which  make  for  general  growth  in  the  case  of 
each  undeveloped  man  or  woman. 

The  new  scientific  element  in  religion  has  given  us  social  science  of  which 
enlightened  penology  is  a  part.  The  old  word  of  religion  said  to  the  soul: 
“  Be  ye  perfect  here  and  now,  no  matter  how  ye  were  born  or  trained,  or  in 
what  depths  of  social  degradation  ye  find  yourself.”  The  new  religion  says 
that  also — such  forever  must  be  the  clarion  call  to  the  will  to  work  out  a 
personal  salvation  or  i^j  will  coase  to  be  religion.  The  religion  of  the  future, 
however,  which  is  already  born,  has  taken  counsel  of  facts  as  well  as  of 
faith,  and  it  has  added  the  socic^i  ideal  to  the  personal.  It  has  learned  that 
evil  heredity,  and  poor  physique,  and  degraded  home  influences,  and  bad 
social  surroundings,  and  toosevere  toil,  and  too  little  happiness  and  educa¬ 
tion  make  for  millions  of  mankind  walled  barriers  of  circumstance,  behind 
which  the  dull  and  torpid  soul  catches  but  faint  echoes  of  the  divine 
summons. 

The  relation  of  this  new  religion  to  the  criminal  and  erring  classes  is 
not  only  the  tenderness  of  human  sympathy  which  would  not  that  any 
should  perish;  it  is  the  consecration  of  human  wisdom  to  social  betterment 
which  shall  yet  forbid  that  any  shall  perish.  In  this  new  ideal  of  religion 
the  call  is  not  only  to  justice  for  the  criminal  and  erring  after  they  come 
within  the  scope  of  social  control,  but  it  is  the  call  also  to  a  study  of  those 
conditions  in  the  individual  and  in  society  which  make  for  crime  and  vice; 
and  above  all  it  is  the  call  for  the  social  lifting  of  all  the  v/eaker  souls  of  our 
common  humanity  upon  the  winged  strength  of  its  wisest  and  best.  The 
new  social  ideal  in  religion  calls  upon  us  to  make  this  world  so  helpful  a 
place  to  live  in  “for  the  least  of  these  our  brethren”  that  it  shall  yet  be 
as  easy  for  the  will  to  follow  goodness  “  and  the  heart  to  be  true,  as  for 
grass  to  be  green,  or  skies  to  be  blue,”  in  the  “  natural  way  of  living.” 


THE  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC 
CHURCH  TO  THE  POOR  AND  DESTITUTE: 

CHARLES  F.  DONNELLY. 

The  paper  was  read  by  Bishop  Keane. 

The  Christian  Church  was  from  the  beginning  always  solicitous  of  the 
poor,  even  in  her  early  struggles  and  in  the  persecution  she  was  then  under¬ 
going.  This  solicitude  is  shown  in  the  first  papal  prescript,  transmitted  by 
St.  Clement,  the  fourth  of  the  popes,  to  the  Church  of  Corinth,  wherein 
he  said:  “Let  the  rich  give  liberally  to  the  poor,  and  let  the  poor  man  give 
praise  and  thanks  to  God  for  having  inspired  the  rich  man  with  the  good 
will  to  relieve  him.”  A  little  later  St.  Cyprian,  bishop  and  martyr,  wrote 
his  book,  “On  Good  Works  and  Alms-Deeds,”  an  admirable  treatise  on 
Christian  charity,  for  which  he  was  distinguished. 

Under  the  auspices  of  the  church  the  primitive  Christians  established 
means  for  the  relief  of  the  poor,  the  sick,  and  travelers  in  distress  or  needing 
shelter,  hospitals  for  lepers,  societies  for  the  redemption  of  captive  slaves, 
congregations  of  females  for  the  relief  of  indigent  women,  asssociations  of 
religious  women  for  redeeming  those  of  their  sex  who  were  leading  dis¬ 
solute  lives,  and  hospitals  for  the  sick,  the  orphaned,  the  aged  and  afflicted 


520 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  all  kinds,  like  the  Hotel-Dieu,  founded  in  Paris  in  the  17th  century 
and  still  perpetuated.  Of  it  Helyot  wrote  many  years  ago: 

There  is  no  one  who  sees  the  nuns  of  the  Hotel-Dieu  not  only  dress  the 
wounds  of  the  patients,  keep  them  clean  and  make  their  beds,  but  also,  in  the 
most  intense  cold  winter,  break  the  ice  in  the  stream  which  runs  through  the 
hospital  and  go  into  it  up  to  their  waists  to  wash  the  linen  impregnated  with 
fllth  of  the  most  nauseous  description,  but  must  consider  them  as  holy  victims, 
who,  from  excess  of  love  and  charity,  in  order  to  serve  their  fellow-creatures, 
voluntarily  run  into  the  jaws  of  death,  which  they  defy,  in  a  manner,  amid  so 
much  infection,  occasioned  by  the  great  number  of  patients. 

Another  notable  instance  still  to  be  seen  of  the  church  charities  of 
primitive  times  is  to  be  witnessed  to  day  in  the  Commune  of  Gheel,  near 
Antwerp,  Belgium,  where  there  exists  and  has  existed,  tradition  says,  for 
nearly  twelve  hundred  years,  a  colony  of  the  insane  poor,  now  numbering 
2,000,  leading  a  home  life,  living,  working,  and  associating  with  the  people 
of  the  village  instead  of  being  in  confinement  in  such  buildings  as  are  usually 
provided  for  the  insane  elsewhere.  The  cost  to  the  state  of  maintaining 
the  Gheel  colony  is  but  small,  comparatively,  and  the  patients  selected  to 
be  sent  there  are  thus  happily  and  humanely  provided  for. 

The  story  of  the  origin  of  resorting  to  the  place  for  the  cure  of  the 
insane  is  that  an  Irish  princess.  Saint  Dymphna,  was  slain  there  May  15, 
A.  D.  600,  by  the  hand  of  her  own  father,  a  pagan,  who,  having  become 
enraged  at  her  conversion  to  Christianity,  caused  her  to  flee,  and,  pursuing 
her  there,  beheaded  her.  An  insane  person  witnessing  the  act  was  cured, 
and  thus  a  belief  became  current  that  miraculous  cures  of  the  insane  were 
effected  by  visiting  the  spot  where  she  was  beheaded.  A  shrine  was 
erected  there  and  in  A.  D.  1340  a  memorial  church  was  added. 

It  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  charitable  religions  of  the  neighborhood 
saw  early  that  the  ancient  methods  of  imprisoning  the  insane  were  irra¬ 
tional,  and  so  gradually  surrounded  them  with  conditions  akin  to  their 
home  lives,  and  gently  led  them  to  improve,  if  not  to  wholly  recover  their 
reason,  under  a  method  of  treatment  centuries  in  advance  of  the  most 
intelligent  methods  pursued  with  the  insane  until  our  time,  when  we  find 
no  better  system  can  be  followed. 

The  church  was,  it  may  be  said  almost  unreservedly,  the  only  almoner 
to  the  poor  in  primitive  times — up  to  the  period  when  modern  history 
begins  ;  for  charity  was  not  a  pagan  virtue,  and  man  had  not  been  taught 
it  until  the  Redeemer’s  coming  ;  so  the  religious  houses,  the  monasteries, 
convents,  asylums,  and  hospitals  were  the  great  houses  of  refuge  and  char¬ 
ity  the  poor  and  needy  had  to  resort  to  in  their  distress  in  later  times. 

With  the  Lutheran  movement  began  the  suppression  of  the  convents 
and  monasteries,  which  had  been  the  fortresses  of  the  poor  in  the  past,  and 
the  land  and  houses  so  devoted  to  charity  and  religion  passed  from  the  hands 
of  their  pious  owners,  by  confiscation,  into  the  control  of  the  governments, 
thus  leaving  the  poor  without  any  organized  means  of  aid  or  provision  for 
their  assistance.  Thus  the  governments  which  had  confiscated  the  religious 
houses,  were  compelled  to  organize  a  method  of  relief  of  the  poor  themselves 
and  support  them  out  of  their  treasuries.  In  the  year  1536,  the  twenty-seventh 
year  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  a  law  was  enacted  by  the  Parliament  of 
England  for  the  purpose  of  providing  in  some  permanent  way  for  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  poor,  and  that  statute  marks  the  period  of  the  beginning  of 
all  legislation  by  English-speaking  communities  for  the  public  relief  of  the 
poor. 

The  church,  keenly  alive  to  the  conditions  arising,  soon  found  her  sons 
and  daughters  equal  to  the  emergencies  attending  the  disturbances  of  the 
methods  of  poor  relief  followed  by  her  for  centuries.  Then  came  a  grand 
procession  of  noble  men  and  v/omen,  devoting  their  lives  to  the  cause  of 
charity  and  the  salvation  of  their  fellow  creatures,  and  foremost  in  the 
ranks  were  Ignatius  Loyola  and  Francis  Xavier  and  their  followers,  to 
teach  the  ignorant  and  assist  the  poor,  not  only  in  European  countries  but 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  POOR  AND  DESTITUTE,  521 


in  the  remoter  regions  of  Asia  and  among  the  Indians  and  negroes  of 
America,  while  the  followers  of  St.  Francis  and  St.  Dominic  labored  in 
their  pious  ways  at  the  work  to  which  their  saintly  founders  had  conse¬ 
crated  their  lives  centuries  before  the  government  aid  to  the  poor  was 
dreamed  of. 

But  there  appeared  in  the  17th  century  a  man  surpassing  all  who  pre¬ 
ceded  him  in  directing  the  attention  of  mankind  to  the  wants  and  necessi¬ 
ties  of  the  poor  and  to  the  work  of  relieving  them  —  the  great  and  good 
St.  Vincent  de  Paul,  whose  name  and  memory  will  ever  be  revered  while 
the  church  of  Christ  endures,  born  April  24,  1576,  in  the  little  village  of 
Pouy,  near  Dax,  south  of  Bordeaux,  bordering  on  the  Pyrenees,  ordained 
priest  in  1600,  and  later  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Turks  and  was  sold  as  a 
slave  at  Tunis.  He  escaped  and  found  his  way  to  Rome.  After  a  time  he 
resolved  to  devote  his  life  to  the  poor.  He  established  rapidly  hospitals 
for  foundlings,  houses  for  the  aged  poor,  a  hospital  for  the  galley  slaves  at 
Marseilles,  the  Congregation  of  Priests  of  the  Mission,  parochial  confra¬ 
ternities  for  charitable  work,  companies  of  ladies  for  the  service  of  the 
Hotel-Dieu,  and  the  Daughters  of  Charity,  who  are  better  known  in  our 
country  as  the  Sisters  of  Charity,  and  whose  charitable  and  self-sacrificing 
lives  serve  as  a  constant  reminder  to  us  of  our  own  duty  to  the  sick  and 
destitute.  St.  Vincent  de  Paul’s  life  closed  the  27th  of  September,  1660. 
The  rule  of  his  Congregation  of  Priests  of  the  Mission  is  a  summary  of  the 
gospel  maxims  designed  for  daily  life.  He  spent  nearly  thirty  years 
in  arranging  it,  and  one  of  the  later  popes  said  that  its  perfect  practice 
would  be  a  sufficient  title  to  canonization.  His  Holiness  Pope  Leo  XIII. 
has  formally  declared  St.  Vincent  patron  of  the  Charities  of  the  Universal 
Church.  The  church  is  indebted  to  him  for  showing  the  way  that  holy 
women  may,  though  religious,  be  in  the  world  and  yet  preserve  the  sanctity 
of  the  religious  state,  and  accomplish  more  by  their  works  and  example 
with  believers  and  unbelievers  than  they  could  by  the  life  of  the  cloister,  or 
than  could  be  accomplished  by  the  most  eloquent  sermon  preached  in  the 
grandest  of  cathedrals. 

In  the  great  work  of  St.  Vincent  de  Paul  nothing  commends  itself  more 
to  this  practical  age  than  his  plan  of  enlisting  large  bodies  of  laymen  to 
co-operate  with  the  clergy  by  establishing  confraternities  in  each  parish  of 
men  who  devote  themselves  to  seeking  out,  visiting,  and  relieving  the  sick, 
the  orphaned,  and  the  destitute.  Such  associations  achieve  in  a  quiet  and 
unostentatious  way  wonderful  results  by  the  modest  contributions  of  their 
own  members  chiefly  and  by  the  zeal  and  effectiveness  of  the  work  they  do. 
France  leads  in  such  organizations  naturally  enough,  but  the  United  States 
is  emulating  her  successfully,  and  will,  in  view  of  what  has  been  accom¬ 
plished  here  of  late  years,  soon  surpass  that  nation. 

The  work  of  founding  ecclesiastical  charitable  organizations  did  not 
cease  with  the  labors  of  St.  Vincent  de  Paul,  nor  has  it  ceased  at  the 
present  day.  It  will  be  well  to  recall  at  this  point  a  few  of  the  many  active 
rather  than  the  contemplative  orders  and  congregations  that  we  may  be 
reminded  of  the  constant  care  exercised  by  the  church  over  those  in  need, 
and  here  it  should  also  be  mentioned  that  while  such  deserving  praise  is 
given  St.  Vincent  de  Paul  for  laying  the  foundations  for  the  most  active 
religious  communities  ever  established  under  the  auspices  of  the  church 
there  were  others  who  preceded  him  early  in  the  same  direction,  but  with¬ 
out  achieving  the  same  success,  and  conspicuously  the  Alexian,  or  Cellite 
Brothers,  founded  in  1325  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  devoted  to  nursing  the  sick, 
especially  in  times  of  pestilence,  the  care  of  lunatics  'and  persons  suffering 
from  epilepsy.  In  1572  the  congregation  of  the  Brothers  Hospitallers  of 
St.  John  of  God  was  also  founded  for  the  care  of  the  sick,  infirm,  and 
poor. 

Twenty  years  after  St.  Vincent  de  Paul  ended  his  life  of  charity  there 


52‘2 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


was  founded  at  Rheims,  in  1680,  the  congregation  of  the  Brothers  of  the 
Christian  Schools  for  the  instruction  of  poor  children ;  in  1804  the 
Christian  Brothers  were  founded  in  Ireland,  mainly  for  the  educa¬ 
tion  of  poor  youths  ;  at  Ghent  the  congregation  of  Brothers  of  Charity  in 
1809,  who  devote  their  lives  to  aged,  sick,  insane,  and  incurable  men  and  to 
orphans,  abandoned  children,  and  the  deaf,  dumb,  and  blind  ;  at  Paris  in 
1824  the  Sisterhood  of  Bon  Secours  was  established  for  the  care  of  the 
sick  ;  in  1828  the  Fathers  of  the  Institute  of  Charity ;  in  Ireland  in  1831 
the  Community  of  the  Sisters  of  Mercy  was  founded  for  visiting  the  sick, 
educating  the  poor,  and  protecting  destitute  children,  and  this  religious 
body  of  women  has  now  several  hundred  houses  established  in  different  parts 
of  the  world.  For  the  reclamation  and  instruction  of  women  and  girls 
who  had  fallen  from  virtue,  the  Nuns  of  the  Good  Shepherd  were  estab¬ 
lished,  in  1835.  At  St.  Servan,  in  Brittany,  some  peasant  women,  chiefly 
young  working  women  and  domestic  servants,  instituted  the  Little  Sisters 
of  the  Poor  in  1840,  having  for  their  object  the  care  of  the  aged  poor,  irre¬ 
spective  of  sex  or  creed,  and  they,  too,  have  hundreds  of  houses  now  in 
nearly  all  the  large  cities  of  the  world. 

Nearly  all  the  orders,  congregations,  and  societies  here  mentioned  are 
to-day  represented  by  many  hundreds  of  their  members  and  houses  through¬ 
out,  not  only  the  United  States,  but  all  the  countries  in  North  and  South 
America.  And  some  of  them  existed  on  this  continent  when  the  only  path¬ 
ways  across  it  were  made  by  the  Indian  and  the  wild  beast  of  the  primeval 
forests;  for  Catholicity  had  its  home  here  before  the  other  denominations 
professing  Christian  religion  to-day  had  existence,  and  when  the  ancestors 
of  all  the  people  of  the  United  States  were  professing  the  same  faith  as  the 
great  founders  of  many  of  the  charities  mentioned  and  were  co-workers 
with  them  in  their  pious  labors. 

Perhaps  the  greatest  service  the  church  rendered  the  poor  was  in  the 
work  of  social  regeneration,  especially  in  Europe,  where  the  individual  man, 
at  the  advent  of  Christianity,  lived  amid  slavery,  the  degradation  of  women, 
indifference  to  human  life,  and  the  neglect  of  the  aged  and  infirm,  while  the 
whole  social  edifice  rested  on  an  odious  tyranny  sustained  by  military  force. 
To  reform  morals,  to  impose  a  check  on  power,  to  abolish  slavery,  and  to  seek 
the  reconstruction  of  society,  where  paganism  and  barbarity  mainly  pre¬ 
vailed,  was  the  task  of  the  church  from  the  beginning.  Society  was'strong, 
the  individual  was  weak;  there  was  no  encouragement  to  cultivate  the  feel¬ 
ing  of  personal  independence;  there  was  no  comprehension  of  the  dignity  of 
man,  and  none  of  that  respect  for  every  individual  with  which  God  intended 
he  should  be  surrounded.  The  church  alone  battled  for  the  dignity  of  man, 
for  the  progress  of  individuality,  and  educated  man  to  comprehend  and 
believe  he  was  not  made  for  the  earth,  or  the  kings  of  the  earth,  but  for 
God,  his  Father  and  Creator,  and  after  His  own  image  and  likeness,  and 
for  Him  alone. 

And  so  man’s  mind  was  gradually  raised  from  the  dust,  from  pagan  igno¬ 
rance  and  superstitions  to  the  dignity  and  grandeur  which  the  Christian 
soul  attains  in  fully  contemplating  its  destiny.  To  regenerating  the  social 
state  the  church  devoted  her  efforts  until  she  gradually  saw  the  dawn 
of  that  civilization  for  which  she  had  been  contending,  lighting  the  world 
to  a  future  when  the  individual  would  be  respected,  his  family  held 
sacred,  and  governments  would  exist  to  protect  men  and  not  to  tyrannize 
over  them.  She  has  been  the  exemplar  of  democracy  herself;  of  the  equal¬ 
ity  of  all  men  before  her  laws  at  all  time ;  of  the  equal  right  of  king  and 
peasant  before  her  altars;  of  the  right  of  the  humblest  of  her  members  to 
be  elevated  to  the  priesthood,  the  episcopacy,  or  the  papacy,  as  well  as 
the  most  rich  and  influential;  to-day  a  shepherd  boy  becomes  her  pope, 
to-morrow  a  swineherd. 

The  consideration  of  the  relations  of  the  church  to  the  poor  necessarily 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  POOR  AND  DESTITUTE.  523 


involves  observing  the  relations  of  the  State  to  the  poor  as  well,  that  is, 
the  reasoning  on  which  is  based  the  claim  of  the  right  of  support  by  the 
citizen  from  the  State  in  time  of  need,  rather  than  from  the  church.  One 
may  take  the  dictum  of  Sir  William  Blackstone  as  stating  the  matter, 
when  he  says: 

The  law  not  only  regards  life  and  member,  and  protects  every  man  in  the 
enjoyment  of  them,  but  also  furnishes  him  with  everything  necessary  for  their 
support.  For  there  is  no  man  so  indigent  or  wretched  but  he  may  demand  a  sup¬ 
ply  sufficient  for  all  the  necessities  of  life  from  the  more  opulent  part  of  the  com¬ 
munity,  by  means  of  the  several  statutes  enacted  for  the  relief  of  the  poor,  a 
humane  provision;  yet,  though  dictated  by  the  principles  of  society,  discounte¬ 
nanced  by  the  Roman  laws. 

But  is  the  state  the  best  almoner?  In  ancient  times  in  England  it  was 
considered  wiser  to  leave  the  whole  duty  of  providing  for  the  poor  to  those 
who  would  be  required  by  humanity  and  religion  to  care  for  them,  namely, 
the  clergy,  regular  and  secular,  and  that  duty  devolved  on  them  for  centu¬ 
ries,  as  we  have  seen.  Out  of  the  tithes,  the  products  of  the  labor  of  the 
monasteries,  and  the  charitable  contributions  given  by  the  laity  to  dispense, 
came  the  sole  means  of  maintaining  the  poor  in  Catholic  England,  there  being 
no  compulsory  methods  by  common  law,  or  statute,  looking  to  their  sup¬ 
port,  and  Blackstone  himself  credits  the  monasteries  with  the  principal 
support  of  the  poor  in  Catholic  times. 

Under  the  modern  system  of  poor  laws  it  is  evident  that  all  the  work  of 
charity  is  not  accomplished  by  the  governments,  either  in  England  or  in 
our  own  country,  to  which  we  transplanted  the  poor  laws  enacted  by  Par¬ 
liament  in  their  entirety.  The  thousands  of  private  charitable  and  philan¬ 
thropic  organizations  which  exist  in  England  and  the  States  of  America 
to-day,  to  supplement  the  work  of  the  overseers  of  the  poor  and  other 
functionaries  engaged  in  the  administration  of  the  public  charities,  is  an 
overwhelming  refutation  of  the  claim  that  laws  for  the  relief  of  the  poor 
make  all  the  provision  for  them  which  is  necessary. 

The  charity  which  is  dispensed  officially  is  sometimes  dispensed  with 
kindness,  often  formally,  coldly,  and  indifferently,  and  sometimes  heartlessly. 
With  the  experience  of  the  ages  behind  it  the  church  goes  forward  in  the 
work  of  assisting  the  poor  rather  than  abandon  the  greatest  of  Christian 
duties  to  the  state  to  perform.  Other  denominations  of  Christians  are 
generally  rivaling  her  in  the  work,  and  there  they  can  meet  on  common 
ground  with  her, 

For  all  mankind’s  concern  is  charity. 

The  affecting  death  of  Father  Damian  among  the  lepers  of  Molokaoi  ^ 
was  better  than  all  polemical  discourses  to  allay  religious  rancor  where  it 
may  exist,  and  to  awaken  in  the  mind  of  all  reflecting  Christians  the  impor¬ 
tance  not  only  of  extending  charity  to  the  heathen  in  remote  places,  but  to 
each  other  at  home  in  our  differences  relating  to  creed  and  opinion . 

It  is  probable  that  within  a  few  years  great  changes  will  be  made 
by  the  Catholic  Church  itself  in  the  administration  of  many  of  its  char¬ 
ities  throughout  the  world.  Some  of  its  organizations  are  greatly 
impressed  with  the  importance  of  studying  new  systems  and  methods  of 
relief  growing  out  of  the  social  conditions  of  the  19th  century.  The 
slender  equipment  of  the  poor  child  in  the  past  for  the  part  ho  had  to 
Xffay  in  life;  the  continuous  or  casual  administration  of  alms  to  the  desti¬ 
tute,  instead  of  leading  them  kindly  and  firmly  forward  from  dependence 
on  others  to  self-help  and  self-reliance,  are  not  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the 
present  or  to  anticipate  the  requirements  of  the  future. 

Ubi  Petrus  Ibi  Ecclesia:  “  Where  Peter  is,  there  is  the  church,”  and 
Rome  was  made  by  the  poor  fishermen  of  Galilee  the  seat  of  the  church 
nearly  nineteen  hundred  years  ago,  and  the  seat  of  the  church  it  remains, 
and  shall  to  the  end  of  time.  In  considering  our  subject  it  would  seem  the 
work  would  be  incomplete  if  we  did  not  inquire  what  the  relations  of  the 


524 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


church  to  the  poor  and  destitute  have  been,  at  its  seat  and  center.  Far 
back  in  the  history  of  Christian  Rome  all  the  nations  of  Europe  assisted  in 
contributing  to  the  opening  of  asylums  for  strangers  there  in  distress. 
Prior  to  the  advent  of  secular  rule  there,  under  the  existing  government, 
the  income  for  her  charities  was  $800,000  per  annum,  with  a  population  less 
than  175,000.  The  Santo  Spirito  Hospital  was  established  in  1198,  by  Inno¬ 
cent  III.,  for  the  care  of  foundlings;  in  1548  the  Via  Lungara  Hospital,  for 
the  insane,  originated;  in  1531  the  Hospital  for  Convalescents,  in  the  Trin- 
ita  di  Pellegrine,  was  founded  by  St.  Philip  Neri;  in  1540,  the  orphanage  of 
Sta.  Maria  in  Aquiro;  in  1560,  the  Hospital  of  St.  Galla,  a  temporary  refuge 
for  the  homeless  poor,  where  they  received  a  supper  and  bed;  in  1686,  the 
Hospital  of  St.  Michael,  for  the  aged  of  both  sexes;  in  1693,  the  Apostolical 
Almonry,  established  by  Innocent  XIII.,  its  officers  being  ecclesiastics  who 
divided  the  city  into  eleven  districts  for  dispensing  medical  aid,  nourish¬ 
ment  at  the  houses  of  the  poor  of  each  district  where  needed,  and  trans¬ 
porting  the  sick  to  a  suitable  hospital  when  required.  Three  hospitals 
existed  for  diseases  requiring  surgical  operations  and  special  treatment: 
St.  Giacomo,  with  366  beds,  founded  in  1.338;  St.  Gallicano,  with  180  beds, 
commenced  in  1724,  and  Sta.  Maria  della  Consolazione,  with  156  beds.  The 
Lying-in  Hospital  of  St.  Roch  was  opened  in  1770,  and  the  Hospital  of  Ben- 
fratelli  in  1581. 

There  were  also  the  Asylum  of  St.  Catarina  di  Funari,  for  female 
orphans,  established  by  St.  Philip  Neri,  two  hospitals  especially  dedicated 
to  medical  cases,  St.  Savior’s,  for  females,  with  room  for  570  patients,  and 
Santa  Spirito  Hospital  for  men.  To  those  may  be  added  many  others,  like 
the  Conservatory  of  the  Mother  of  Sorrows,  and  the  Borromeo,  the  asylum 
of  the  Trinitarians  and  of  St.  Euphemia,  the  Asylum  of  Divine  Providence 
in  the  Ripetti  near  St.  Pietro  in  Mentorio,  and  St.  Mary’s  Refuge — all  the 
latter  named  institutions  being  for  orphans.  There  was  a  number  of  small 
asylums  for  poor  and  aged  widows,  confraternities  for  the  sick  and  dying, 
and  the  Society  of  the  Divine  Piety,  for  the  relief  of  families  in  reduced 
circumstances,  founded  as  far  back  as  1679. 

It  is  impossible  in  a  summary  of  this  nature  to  give  more  than  an  out¬ 
line  of  the  ecclesiastical  charities  of  Rome,  as  they  existed  up  to  the 
assumption  of  the  government  by  the  reigning  family  in  Italy;  but  in  the 
recital  of  those  charities  it  is  well  to  mention  the  schools  of  gratuitous 
instruction,  which  were  founded  by  Clement  XIII.,  in  1592,  by  the  Peres 
Doctrinaires,  in  1727,  and  by  St.  Angela  de  Merecia,  in  1655,  the  latter 
mainly  for  poor  females,  and  all  instructing  in  the  ordinary  branches  of  a 
^  common-school  education.  Then  there  were  fifty-live  region  ary  schools;  a 
number  of  parochial  schools,  and  besides  374  general,  or  public  free  schools 
for  the  young,  with  484  teachers,  and  14,000  pupils  in  attendance.  So  it 
appears  the  church  has  not  failed  in  her  duty  to  the  poor  at  her  center. 

In  the  United  States  there  are  over  seven  hundred  Catholic  charitable 
institutions,  the  inmates  of  which  are  maintained  almost  entirely  by  the 
contributions  of  their  co-religionists,  who,  with  their  fellow-citizens  of  other 
denominations,  share  in  the  burden  of  general  taxation,  proportionately  to 
their  means,  in  maintaining  the  poor  at  the  public  charitable  institutions 
besides.  A  truly  anomalous  condition,  but  arising  from  the  strong  adher¬ 
ence  of  Catholics  to  the  idea  that  charity  is  best  administered,  where  not 
attended  to  individually,  by  those  in  the  religious  life  who  give  to  the  poor 
of  their  means,  not  through  public  officers  and  bureaus,  but  through  those 
who  serve  the  poor  in  the  old  apostolic  spirit,  with  love  of  God  and  their 
less  fortunate  neighbor  and  brother  actuating  them.  In  the  scheme  of  the 
dispensation  of  public  charity  relief  is  extended  on  the  narrow  ground  that 
there  is  some  implied  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  state  to  maintain  the 
citizen  in  his  necessities  in  return  for  service  rendered  or  expected;  but  the 
church  imposes  the  burden  on  the  conscience  of  every  man  of  helping  his 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  POOR  AND  DESTITUTE,  525 


neighbor  in  distress,  apart  from  any  service  done  or  ejected,  and  teaches 
that  all  in  suffering  are  entitled  to  aid,  whether  they  live  within  or  without 
the  territory;  neither  territory,  nor  race,  nor  creed  can  limit  Christian 
charity.  In  its  relation  to  the  poor  the  church  will  always  be  in  the  future, 
as  she  has  been  in  the  past,  in  advance  of  the  state  in  all  examples  of 
beneficence. 

Bishop  Keane  paused  during  the  reading  of  the  paper 
submitted  by  Mr.  Donnelly  and  said: 

I  would  like  to  interject  three  principles  right  here.  First,  I  wish  to 
draw  a  distinction  between  poverty  and  destitution.  Christ  would  bless 
poverty,  but  Christ  would  never  bless  destitution.  Christ  was  poor,  his 
apostles  were  poor,  but  Christ  and  his  apostles  never  were  miserable  or 
destitute.  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  church  of  God  gives  any 
sanction  or  benediction  to  destitution  or  wretchedness. 

The  second  principle  is  this,  as  has  been  superbly  shown  this  morning; 
Christianity  stands  for  two  great  ideas — individualism  and  communism, 
socialism.  Our  divine  Lord  said:  “Whatever  ye  do  for  the  least  one  of 
these  ye  do  for  me.”  He  meant  that  whatever  was  done  for  any  individual 
soul,  human  like  ours,  though  a  miserable,  poor,  suffering  body,  that  in  it 
we  are  to  recognize  the  great  unity  of  all  in  Christ. 

The  third  principle  was  this:  All  these  holy  men  and  women,  in  order  to 
consecrate  themselves,  lived  in  retirement,  fully  appreciating  the  fact  that 
they  were  not  running  away  from  the  world,  but  that  they  &d  so  in  order 
to  do  the  Lord  better  service.  And  so,  in  the  great  normal  schools  and 
institutions  where  they  take  in  the  greater  fullness  of  the  spirit  of  Christ, 
that  they  go  out  and  do  better  work.  My  heart  was  glad  when  I  listened 
last  night  and  heard  our  good  friend,  the  Hindu,  confess  that  for  years  he 
did  not  know  where  he  was  going  to  get  his  next  meal.  That  was  the  way 
with  these  poor  Franciscan  monks.  They  were  reduced  to  poverty  in  order 
that  they  might  better  consecrate  themselves  to  the  service  of  God  every¬ 
where. 

And  let  me  also  say  here,  because  it  is  in  close  connection  with  the 
thought  printed  in  the  paper,  from  my  heart  I  indorse  the  denunciation 
that  was  hurled  forth  last  night  against  the  system  of  pretended  charity 
that  offered  food  to  the  hungry  Hindus  at  the  cost  of  their  conscience  and 
their  faith.  The  question  might  well  be  asked  whether  among  Christian 
people  such  a  system  was  possible;  and  yet  we  have  only  to  look  back 
to  the  history  of  the  famine  in  Ireland  in  order  to  know  that  such  things 
have  been.  A  shame,  a  disgrace,  to  those  who  call  themselves  Christians. 
But  I  am  happy  to  state,  in  answer  to  a  half-question  also  asked  last  night, 
and  in  connection  with  this  subject,  that  in  China  and  in  India,  the  Sisters 
of  Charity  and  the  Little  Sisters  of  the  Poor  have  many  institutions  in 
which  they  are  pledged  by  holy  vows  to  care  for  the  indigent,  no  matter 
what  might  be  their  faith,  without  asking  any  man  to  be  guilty  of  the 
sham  hypocrisy  of  pretending  conversion  in  order  to  get  bread. 

I  will  go  farther  and  say:  We  were  startled  at  the  denunciation  that 
came  also  from  the  heart  of  the  Hindu  monk  last  night,  of  the  Christian 
system  of  the  atonement,  as  he  understood  it.  I  sympathize  with  him 
from  his  standpoint.  There  have  been  men  who  through  a  mistaken  piety 
have  so  exhausted  the  supremacy  of  God  as  to  utterly  annihilate  all  respon¬ 
sibility  and  the  co-operation  of  the  human  free  will.  For  any  such  system 
or  idea  of  the  atonement  of  Christ  I  have  no  more  sympathy  than  has  our 
Buddhist  friend.  I  say  to  him  let  him  go  on  criticising  us  Christians;  we 
do  not  hear  half  enough  of  this.  I  firmly  believe  in  the  principle  laid  down 
by  dear  Bobby  Burns: 

O  wad  some  power  the  giftie  gie  us 

To  see  oursel’sas  ithers  see  us. 


526 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


And  if  by  these  criticisms  Vivekananda  can  only  stir  us  and  sting  us 
into  better  teachings  and  better  doings  in  the  great  work  of  Chric’.  in  the 
world,  I  for  one  will  be  profoundly  grateful  to  our  friend,  the  great  Hindu 
monk. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION. 

PROF.  F.  G.  PEABODY  OF  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY. 

Each  age  in  the  history  of  human  thought  is  marked  by  one  central 
problem  which  stands  out  from  a  distance  against  the  horizon  of  the  past 
as  the  outline  of  some  mountain  stands  out,  miles  away,  against  the  sky. 
In  one  age,  as  in  that  of  Luther,  the  center  of  European  thought  lay  in  a 
problem  of  theology;  in  another  age,  as  in  that  of  Kant,  this  commanding 
interest  was  held  by  a  question  of  philosophy;  fifty  years  later,  in  the  time 
of  Darwin,  the  critical  problem  was  one  of  science,  and  both  the  theologian 
and  philosopher  had  to  recast  their  formulas  under  the  new  thought 
of  evolution.  And  now,  fifty  years  later  still,  with  a  distinctness  hardly 
reached  before,  a  new  era  finds  its  center  of  interest  in  a  new  problem. 

We  do  not  have  to  wait  for  the  philosophic  historian  to  look  back  on  our 
time  as  we  look  back  on  that  of  Luther  or  Kant  or  Darwin  for  the  mark 
which  must  always  stamp  the  present  age.  It  is  already  past  a  doubt  what 
the  Great  Master  of  the  ages,  in  his  division  of  labor  through  the  history  of 
man,  is  proposing  that  this  special  age  of  ours  shall  do. 

The  center  of  interest,  alike  for  philosophers  and  agitators,  for  thinkers 
and  workers,  for  rich  and  poor,  lies  at  the  present  time  in  what  we  call  the 
“social  question.”  The  needs  and  hopes  of  human  society,  its  inequalities 
of  condition,  its  industrial  conflicts,  its  dream  of  a  better  order — these  are 
the  themes  which  meet  us  daily  in  the  books  and  magazines,  the  lectures 
and  sermons,  which  speak  the  spirit  of  the  present  age.  Never  before  in 
the  history  of  the  world  were  the  moral  senses  of  all  classes  thus  awakened 
to  the  evils  of  the  present  or  the  hopes  of  the  future. 

Once  the  relations  of  rich  and  poor,  or  employer  and  employe,  were 
regarded  as,  in  large  degrees,  natural  conditions,  not  to  be  changed,  but 
simply  to  be  endured.  Now,  with  a  great  suddenness,  there  has  spread 
through  all  the  civilized  countries  a  startling  gospel  of  discontent,  a  new 
restlessness,  a  new  conception  of  philanthropy. 

The  same  subjects  are  being  discussed  in  workingmen’s  clubs  and  in 
theological  seminaries.  It  is  the  age  of  the  Social  Question.  And  of  this 
concentration  of  attention  in  the  problem  of  human  society  there  is  one 
thing  to  be  said  at  the  very  start.  It  is  to  be  counted  by  us  who  live  in 
this  present  age  as  a  great  blessing.  The  needs  and  hopes  of  society  open, 
indeed,  into  very  difficult  questions,  often  into  very  pathetic  ones,  some¬ 
times  into  very  tragic  ones,  but  such  questions  have  at  least  two  redeem¬ 
ing  traits  which  make  the  age  devoted  to  them  a  fortunate  age.  They  are 
very  large  questions.  Some  epochs  in  history  have  been  devoted  to  ques¬ 
tions  which  were  very  near,  but  very  small,  such  as  questions  of  personal 
culture  or  taste,  and  some  to  questions  which  very  large,  but  very  remote, 
such  as  the  controversies  which  once  rent  Christendom  as  to  the  interior 
nature  of  the  Godhead,  but  for  the  present  we  are  happily  freed  both  from 
smallness  and  remoteness.  We  are  called  to  think  chiefly,  not  of  ourselves, 
but  of  others,  and  that  gives  us  a  large  subject,  and  we  are  called  to  think 
of  others  as  bound  up  with  us  in  the  social  order — that  gives  us  a  near 
subject 

Here  is  a  situation  which  should  first  of  all  make  us  glad.  A  time 
which  thus  redeems  the  mind  from  smallness  and  from  unreality  may  be  a 
time  of  special  apprehensions  and  grave  demands,  but  it  is  a  time,  at  least, 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION. 


527 


in  which  it  is  invigorating  and  wholesome  to  live.  It  has  many  of  the 
characteristics  of  the  time  when  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  reading  the  signs  of 
His  own  age,  opened  the  book  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  and  found  the  place 
where  it  was  written,  “  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me  because  He  hath 
anointed  me  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor;  He  hath  sent  me  to  heal 
the  broken-hearted,  to  preach  deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recovering  of 
sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bound,  to  preach  the 
acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.”  We,  too,  are  set  free  in  these  days  of  the 
remoter  controversies  of  theology,  or  the  narrower  study  of  tradition  and 
law;  and  are  anointed  to  a  gospel  of  social  welfare  and  to  the  healing  and 
recovering  of  the  bruised  and  broken-hearted  of  the  modern  world;  and 
that  is  what  makes  this  year  of  the  Lord,  to  any  thoughtful  student  of 
human  progress,  an  acceptable  year  in  which  to  live  and  to  learn. 

But  now,  as  we  thus  observe  the  signs  of  the  times,  a  further  question 
presses  upon  us.  What  has  religion  to  say  to  this  problem  of  the  modern 
age?  What  has  Christianity  to  do  with  these  things?  What  is  the  atti¬ 
tude  of  Christ’s  disciples  toward  these  varied  programmes  of  reform?  And, 
as  we  face  this  question,  there  opens  up  before  us,  first  of  all,  two  ways  in 
which  Christians  have  often  tried  to  answer  it — or,  to  speak  more  accu¬ 
rately,  have  often  avoided  the  answering  of  it  and  shirked  the  real  issue  in 
the  case. 

On  the  one  hand,  the  Christian  may  try  to  dismiss  the  question  from  his 
mind.  “Why,”  he  may  ask  himself,  “should  such  worldly  problems  as 
wealth  and  poverty,  capital  and  labor,  intrude  themselves  into  the  sacred¬ 
ness  of  my  worship?  In  tbe  church,  I  am  thinking  of  my  soul;  elsewhere 
I  will  think  of  my  business.  In  worship  let  me  find  peace  with  my  God; 
peace  with  my  employers,  my  tenants,  my  lands,  is  a  matter  not  of  the 
church  or  the  Lord’s  Day  but  of  the  market  and  the  mill.” 

Often  enough  have  Christians  pursued  this  policy  as  to  worldly  affairs. 
Often  enough  has  the  language  of  religion  been  kept  clean  of  the  phrases 
of  the  street;  and  worship  has  seemed  to  become  more  sacred  thereby.  But 
the  inevitable  reaction  has  to  come  from  such  a  view.  If  the  Christian 
church  is  to  have  no  interest  in  the  social  distresses  and  problems  of  the 
time,  then  those  most  concerned  with  such  distresses  and  problems  will 
have  no  interest  in  the  Christian  church.  The  simple  fact  which  we  have 
to  face  to-day  is  this— that  the  working  classes  have,  as  a  rule,  practically 
abandoned  the  churches  and  left  them  to  be  the  resorts  of  the  prosperous, 
and  the  simple  reason  for  this  desertion  is  the  neutrality  of  the  churches 
toward  the  social  problems  of  the  time. 

I  asked  that  honest  and  temperate  leader  of  the  working  class  in  Eng¬ 
land,  John  Burns,  two  years  ago,  what  he  thought  would  be  the  future  of 
religion  in  England — and  he  answered:  “  I  see  no  future  for  it.  It  plays  no 
part  in  the  workingman’s  programme.”  That  is  one  v/ay  forthe  Christian  to 
stand  toward  the  social  question.  He  tries  to  evade  responsibility  for  it; 
and  forthwith  the  Church  of  Christ  is  helpless  to  reach  and  redeem  the 
lives  of  a  whole  section  of  mankind.  But  the  opposite  way  is  hardly 
less  vicious  and,  just  now,  a  more  probable  peril.  The  pressure  of  these 
new  interests  is  just  now  so  great  that  indifference  to  them  is  unlikely. 
The  churches  are  accepting  these  human  questions  as  a  part  of  their 
religious  duty. 

The  theological  seminaries  are  adding  to  their  instruction  the  new  field 
of  sociology.  The  preachers  are  dealing  with  the  social  question.  Is  there 
not  some  danger,  one  may  well  ask  himself,  that  the  new  humanitarianism 
may  crowd  out  the  old  religion?  Are  our  sermons  to  become  discussions 
of  political  economy?  Are  our  churches  to  be  tran'sformed  into  labor 
unions?  Is  our  theological  education  to  be  given  over  to  economics?  Is 
religious  worship  to  be  abandoned  for  social  reform,  and  the  need  of  Christ 
to  be  forgotten  in  the  need  of  society?  So  the  pendulum  of  opinion  swings 


528 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


from  one  extreme  to  the  other — ^from  indifference  to  absorbing  interest, 
from  the  Christ  who  shuts  out  social  problems  to  the  social  problems 
which  shut  out  Christ.  And  in  both  situations  are  the  two  factors  of  the 
problem  which  lies  to-night  before  us — the  eternal  needs  of  the  soul  in 
worship,  and  the  pressing  question  of  the  day,  the  churches  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  world  on  the  other,  Christ  and  the  social  question  stand  unad¬ 
justed  and  opposite. 

And  so  we  return  again  to  our  original  question.  Is  there  no  organic, 
normal  relation  between  the  two?  When  the  Christian  returns  to  the 
social  questions  is  he,  on  the  one  hand,  turning  away  from  the  themes  of  a 
Christian  church,  or  is  he,  on  the  other  hand,  sacrificing  Christ  to  society, 
or  is  there,  lastly,  any  law  laid  down  by  Christ  Himself  which  directs  a 
Christian  in  his  study  of  such  affairs?  That  is  the  question  with  which  we 
turn  to  Christ,  and  He  gives  us  a  clear  and  often  reiterated  reply.  One  of 
the  first  things  which  strike  one  as  he  reads  the  gospel  is  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  a  great  individualist.  His  appeal  is  always  to  the  single  life;  his 
central  doctrine  of  humanity  is  that  of  the  infinite  worth  of  each  single 
soul. 

Nothing  can  make  up  for  the  loss  of  the  individual.  The  shepherd  goes 
Dut  after  the  one  lost  sheep;  the  woman  sweeps  the  house  to  find  the  one 
bit  of  money;  the  gain  of  the  world  is  nothing  if  a  man  loses  his  own  soul. 
Thus  Christ  and  his  teachings  stand  forever  over  against  the  schemes 
which  are  going  to  redeem  the  world  by  any  impersonal  mechanical  plan, 
He  seeks  to  save  men  one  at  a  time;  His  kingdom  is  within;  He  calls  His 
disciples  singly;  He  calleth  His  own  sheep  by  name  and  leadeth  them  out. 
It  is  a  personal  relation,  an  individual  work. 

This  personal  method  of  Jesus  has  been,  taken  up  into  the  history  of  the 
world.  The  new  value  of  the  individual  has  become  the  key  of  modern 
thought.  A  new  brotherhood,  a  new  philanthropy,  sprang  from  this  root  of 
the  worth  of  even  the  humblest  soul.  The  Protestant  Reformation  was  an 
appeal  to  the  individual  reason.  Modern  philosophy,  modern  jurisprudence, 
all  alike  have  accustomed  us  to  this  sense  of  the  individual  as  the  center 
of  concern.  “The  movement  of  progressive  societies,”  says  Sir  Henry 
Maine  in  his  “  Ancient  Laws,”  “has  been  uniform  in  one  respect.  The  indi¬ 
vidual  IS  steadily  substituted  for  the  family  as  the  unit  of  which  civil  laws 
take  account.  So  far,  then,  the  method  of  Christ  seems  to  stand  apart 
from  the  problem  of  society.  It  seems  to  confirm  Christians  in  their  neu¬ 
trality  toward  social  questions  and  needs.  What  has  the  church,  from  this 
point  of  view,  to  do  with  social  questions?  The  church  has  but  to  deliver 
the  message  of  Christ  for  the  saving  of  the  individual  soul. 

But,  in  reality,  there  is  one  whole  side  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  which 
such  a  view  entirely  ignores.  Suppose  one  goes  on  to  ask  humbly;  “Why 
does  Christ  thus  appeal  to  the  individual?  why  is  the  single  soul  of  such 
infinite  worth  to  Him?  Is  it  for  its  own  sake?  Is  there  this  tremendous  sig¬ 
nificance  about  my  little  being  and  doing  that  it  has  its  own  isolated 
worth?  Not  at  all.  A  man’s  life,  taken  by. itself,  is  just  what  it  seems — 
a  very  insignificant  affair.  What  is  it  that  gives  significance  to  such  a 
single  life?  It  is  its  relation  to  the  whole  of  which  it  is  a  part.  Just  as 
each  minutest  wheel  is  essential  in  some  great  machine,  just  as  the  health 
of  each  slighted  limb  or  organ  in  your  body  affects  the  vitality  and  health 
of  the  whole,  so  stands  the  individual  in  the  organic  life  of  the  social 
world.  “We  are  members  of  one  another,”  “We  are  one  body  in  Christ,” 
“  no  man  liveth  or  dieth  to  himself  ” — so  runs  the  Christian  conception  of 
the  common  life;  and  in  this  organic  relationship  the  individual  finds  the 
meaning  and  worth  of  his  own  isolated  self.  What  is  this  conception  in 
Christ’s  own  language?  It  is  his  marvelous  ideal  of  what  he  calls  “The 
Kingdom  of  God,”  that  perfected  world  of  humanity  in  which,  as  in  a  per¬ 
fect  body,  each  part  should  be  sound  and  whole,  and  thus  the  body  be  com- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION. 


529 


plete.  How  Jesus  looked  and  prayed  for  this  coming  of  a  better  world. 
The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  the  one  thing  to  desire.  It  is  the  good  seed  of 
the  future.  It  is  the  leaven  dropped  into  the  mass  of  the  world;  it  is  the 
hidden  treasure;  the  pearl  of  great  price.  It  may  come  slowly,  as  servants 
look  for  a  reckoning  after  years  of  duty  done;  it  may  come  suddenly,  as 
virgins  wake  and  meet  the  bridegroom. 

However  and  wherever  this  Christian  commonwealth,  this  kingdom  of 
God  arrives,  then  and  there  only  will  the  hopes  of  Jesus  Christ  be  fulfilled. 
“  Thy  kingdom  come  ”  is  the  central  prayer  of  the  disciple  of  Christ. 
What  does  this  mean,  then,  as  to  Christ’s  thought  of  society  ?  It  means 
that  a  completed  social  order  was  his  highest  dream.  We  have  seen  that 
he  was  the  great  individualist  of  history.  We  now  see  that  he  was  the 
great  socialist  as  well.  His  hope  for  man  was  a  universal  hope.  What  he 
prophesied  was  just  that  enlarged  and  consolidated  life  of  man  which  many 
modern  dreams  repeat,  where  all  the  conflicts  of  selfishness  should  be  out¬ 
grown,  and  there  should  be  one  kingdom  and  one  king ;  one  motive— that 
of  love  ;  one  unity — that  of  the  spirit ;  one  law — that  of  liberty.  Was  ever 
socialistic  prophet  of  a  revolutionary  society  more  daring  or  sanguine  or, 
to  practical  minds,  more  impracticable  than  this  visionary  Jesus  with  his 
assurance  of  a  coming  Kingdom  of  God  ? 

But  how  can  it  be,  we  go  on  to  ask  once  more,  that  the  same  teacher 
can  teach  such  opposite  truths  ?  How  can  Christ  appeal  thus  to  the  sin¬ 
gle  soul  and  yet  hope  thus  for  the  kingdom  ?  How  can  he  be  at  once  the 
great  individualist  and  the  great  socialist  of  history  ?  Are  we  confronted 
with  an  inconsistency  in  Christ’s  doctrine  of  human  life  ?  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  we  reach  here  the  very  essence  of  the  gospel  in  its  relation  to  human 
needs.  The  two  teachings,  that  of  the  individual  and  that  of  the  social 
order,  that  of  the  part  and  that  of  the  whole,  are  not  exclusive  of  each 
other  or  opposed  to  each  other,  but  are  essential  parts  of  the  one  law  of 
Christ. 

Why  is  the  individual  soul  of  sucn  inestimable  value?  Because  of  its 
essential  part  in  the  organic  social  life.  And  why  is  the  Kingdom  of  God 
set  before  each  individual?  To  free  him  from  all  narrowness  and  selfish¬ 
ness  of  aim.  Think  of  those  great  words  of  Jesus,  spoken  as  he  looked  back 
on  his  completed  work:  “For  their  sakes,  I  sanctify  Myself.”  “  For  their 
sakes  ” — that  is  the  sense  of  the  common  life  working  ar  a  motive  beyond 
all  personal  desire,  even  for  holiness  itself.  “  I  sanctify  Myself  ” — that  is 
the  way  in  which  the  common  life  is  to  be  saved.  The  individual  is  the 
means;  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  the  end. 

The  way  to  make  a  better  world  is  first  of  all  to  make  your  own  soul 
better,  and  the  way  to  make  your  own  soul  better  is  to  stir  it  with  the  sense 
of  the  common  life.  And  so  the  same  master  of  the  problem  of  life  becomes 
at  once  the  most  positive  of  individualists  and  the  most  visionary  of  social¬ 
ists.  His'  first  appeal  is  personal:  “  Sanctify  thyself.”  His  second  call  is 
the  common  life:  “For  their  sakes” — and  the  end  and  means  together 
make  a  motto  of  a  Christian  life — “  For  their  sakes  I  sanctify  Myself.”  Such 
is  Christ  in  his  dealing  with  the  social  question.  He  does  not  ignore  the 
social  problems  of  any  age,  but  he  approaches  them  always  at  their  personal 
ends.  With  unfailing  sagacity  he  declines  to  be  drawn  into  special  ques¬ 
tions  of  legislation  or  programmes  of  reform.  Changes  of  government  are 
not  for  him  to  make.  “  Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Cmsar’s.” 
The  precise  form  of  the  coming  kingdom  is  not  for  him  to  define.  “  To  sit 
on  my  right  hand  is  not  mine  to  give.” 

It  is  in  vain  to  claim  Jesus  Christ  as  the  expounder  of  any  social  pan¬ 
acea.  He  simply  brings  all  such  schemes  and  dreams  to  the  test  of  a 
universal  principle,  the  principle  of  sanctifying  oneself  for  others’  sakes, 
the  two-fold  principle  of  the  infinite  worth  of  the  individual  and  the  infinite 
hope  of  a  kingdom  of  God,  and  of  every  plan  and  work  which  is  proposed 


630 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


for  social  welfare,  Christ  says:  “Let  it  begin  with,  the  individual — his  char¬ 
acter,  his  liberty,  his  enlargement  of  life — and  then  out  of  this  individual 
sanctification  will  grow  the  better  social  world.” 

Such,  I  say,  is  Jesus  Christ  in  His  relation  to  human  society.  And  now, 
having  unfolded  before  ourselves  the  principle  of  His  teaching,  let  us  go  on 
to  see  its  practical  application  to  the  questions  which  concern  the  modern 
world.  Here  is  the  Christian,  facing  the  modern  social  order,  and  asking 
himself  how  its  seriousness  and  plans  are  to  be  met.  How  pressing,  how 
burning,  are  these  questions  which  thus  surround  us,  and  in  some  of  them 
each  of  us  has  his  inevitable  part.  On  the  one  hand  there  is  the  problem 
of  poverty,  and  on  the  other  the  problem  of  wealth,  each  with  its  own  perils 
both  to  the  persons  involved  and  to  the  welfare  of  us  all.  There  is  the 
problem  of  the  employer  and  the  problem  of  the  employed;  each  with  its 
own  responsibility,  its  irritations,  and  its  threats.  And  then,  growing  out 
of  all  these  conflicts  and  equalities  of  the  time,  there  are  the  dreams  of 
some  transformed  future,  when  there  shall  be  no  rich  and  no  poor,  no 
employer  and  no  employed,  but  all  shall  find  the  peace  and  leisure,  which 
now  seem,  to  all  almost  alike,  denied.  How  baffling  and  perplexing,  how 
tragic  and  hopeless  often  appear  such  questions' to  the  student  of  the  time. 
How  varied  are  the  panaceas  proposed  and  how  bitter  the  disputes. 

Men  are  groping  for  some  door  which  shall  open  before  them  into  a 
better  social  future,  but  they  are  like  men  bewildered  in  the  dark,  and  the 
key  they  carry  does  not  fit  the  lock  they  want  to  turn.  And  then  comes 
Christ  into  the  midst  of  modern  society  with  the  principle  He  has  made 
clear — the  principle  of  the  Christian  individual  giving  himself  to  the  social 
order — and  the  door  of  each  one  of  these  social  problems  swings  open  as 
He  comes  and  Christ  passes  through  from  room  to  room,  the  master  of  them 
all.  Let  us  see  how  this  answer  of  Christ  to  the  social  questions  fits  the 
lock  of  each  such  case. 

What  has  Christ,  let  us  ask  in  the  first  place,  to  say  to  the  problem  of 
poverty?  What  is  the  Christian’s  way  of  dealing  with  the  poor?  As  we 
look  back  over  the  long  history  of  Christian  charity,  it  might  seem  as  if 
one  would  have  to  say  of  it  that  it  was  the  history  of  one  long  and  costly 
mistake.  Prom  the  beginning  till  now  Christians  have,  of  all  people,  most 
indulged  themselves  in  indiscriminate  alm.8giving,  fostering  pious  frauds, 
encouraging  mendicancy,  often  holding  poverty  itself  to  be  a  virtue  and 
often  embarrassing  the  work  of  scientific  relief.  Who  are  so  devoted  to 
sentimentalism  in  charity,  one  might  ask,  as  the  religious  people?  Where 
is  beggary  most  conspicuous  and  most  cffliftless  but  in  European  countries 
like  Italy  or  Spain,  where  the  Church  of  ( Jhrist  has  had  for  centuries  uninter¬ 
rupted  control?  And  where  do  spurious  poverty  and  pious  mendicancy 
find  their  easiest  victims  to-day,  if  it  is  net  in  the  hearts  of  the  Christian 
congregations. 

All  such  criticisms  have  much  to  justify  them;  but  they  only  indicate 
how  the  Church  of  Christ  has  failed  to  grasp  the  method  of  Christ.  The 
fact  is  that  the  Christian  Church  has  been  so  deeply  impressed  with  one- 
half  of  Christ’s  truth — the  worth  of  the  individual — that  it  has  often  for¬ 
gotten  the  other  half — the  service  of  the  whole.  It  has  found  an  independent 
insignificance  in  each  humblest  life — the  beggar,  the  helpless,  the  poor — and 
forthwith  has  proceeded  not  to  lift  them  out  of  their  condition,  but  to  sup¬ 
port  them  just  as  they  were.  Thus  it  is  that  Christians  have  been  led  into  the 
most  mistaken  charity.  Almsgiving  has  been  a  part  of  their  religion.  The 
problem  before  them  has  been  not  that  of  education  to  usefulness,  but 
simply  that  of  temporary  relief. 

And,  meantime,  what  is  Christ’s  own  attitude  toward  poverty?  Every 
soul,  he  says,  no  matter  how  humble  or  depraved,  is  essential  to  God’s 
kingdom.  It  has  its  part  to  take  in  the  perfect  whole.  Every  soul  ought 
to  be  given  a  chance  to  do  and  be  its  best.  It  must  be  helped  to 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION. 


531 


help  itself.  The  question  of  the  Christian  is  to  make  as  much  out  of  that 
life  as  can  be  made.  It  must  be  made  the  life  of  a  man,  not  the  life  of 
a  brutal,  degraded  mepdicancy;  the  life  of  a  woman,  not  a  life  of  starved 
and  tempted  labor. 

Thus  Christian  charity  is  not  the  mere  relief  of  temporary  distress,  or 
the  alms  which  may  tempt  to  evil ;  it  is  personal,  painstaking  interest — 
the  taking  trouble  to  lift  up,  the  dismounting,  as  you  pass,  like  the 
Samaritan,  pouring  into  the  wounds  of  the  fallen  one  the  oil  and  wine  you 
had  meai for  yourself;  the  putting  the  victim  of  circumstances  on  your 
own  beast,  and  taking  him  where  he  shall  be  cared  for  and  healed. 

Christian  charity  meets  a  drunken  woman  in  the  streets,  as  did  a  fair 
young  girl  the  other  day,  takes  the  poor  slatternly  wretch  gently  round 
the  waist,  walks  down  the  crowded  thoroughfare  and  puts  the  half  uncon¬ 
scious  woman  to  bed,  warms  some  soup,  leaves  her  to  sleep,  and  then  from 
day  to  day  visits  the  home  until  for  very  love’s  sake  the  better  life  is  found 
and  the  devil  of  drink  cast  out  by  the  new  affection.  In  short,  Christian 
charity  sees  in  the  individual  that  v/hich  God  needs  in  His  perfect  world, 
and  trains  it  for  that  high  end.  There  is  more  Christian  charity  in  teach¬ 
ing  a  trade,  than  in  alms,  in  finding  work,  than  in  relieving  want. 

What  Christ  wants  is  the  soul  of  His  brother  and  that  must  be  trained 
into  personal  power,  individual  capacity,  self  help.  Thus,  true  Christian 
charity  is  the  one  with  the  last  principle  of  scientific  charity.  It  is  the 
transforming  of  a  helpless  dependent  into  a  self-respecting  worker.  It  is 
as  when  Peter  and  John  stood  at  the  beautiful  gate  of  the  Temple  and  the 
lame  man  lay  there,  as  the  passage  says,  “  hoping  that  he  might  receive  an 
alms,”  but  Peter  fastened  his  eyes  on  him  and  said:  “Silver  and  gold  have 
I  none,  but  such  as  I  have  give  I  unto  thee.  In  the  name  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  rise  up  and  walk.” 

Such  is  Christ  in  dealing  with  the  poor.  And  now  we  turn,  on  the 
other  hand,  to  the  opposite  end  of  the  social  order.  What,  I  ask  again,  has 
Christ  to  say  to  the  rich  ?  What  is  the  Christian  theory  of  wealth,  and  its 
rights  and  uses  ?  One  might  again  reply,  as  he  looks  at  some  sign  of  the 
time,  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  a  Christian  theory  of  wealth  in  the 
modern  world.  The  same  awful  warning  which  Christ  once  uttered 
against  the  rich  of  His  time  seems  to  be  needed  in  all  its  force  by  many 
rich  men  to-day. 

Luxur;/  and  ostentation,  indolence  and  extravagance  are  eating  into  the 
heart  of  modern  life  as  they  did  in  that  earlier  Roman  world,  and  we  begin 
to  understand  the  solemn  wisdom  of  Christ  when  he  said:  “How  hardly 
shall  they  who  have  riches  enter  into  the  Kingdom.”  But,  in  reality,  this 
condemnation  of  Jesus  was  directed,  not  against  the  fact  of  wealth,  but 
against  the  abuses  and  perils  of  wealth.  He  was  thinking  of  men’s  souls, 
and  He  saw  with  perfect  distinctness  how  wealth  tends  to  harden  and 
shrivel  the  soul.  “The  cares  of  this  world,  and  the  deceitfulnesz  of 
riches,”  as  He  said,  “  choke  the  world,  and  it  becometh  unfruitful.” 

He  would  have  seen  the  same  thing  now.  We  might  as  well  face  the 
fact  that  one  of  the  severest  tests  of  character  which  our  time  affords  has 
to  be  borne  by  the  rich.  The  person  who  proposes  to  maintain  simplicity 
and  sympathy,  responsibility  and  high-mindedness  in  the  midst  of  the 
wealth  and  luxury  of  the  modern  times  is  undertaking  that  which  he  had 
better  at  once  understand  to  be  very  hard.  The  rich  have  some  advantages, 
but  they  unmistakably  have  also  many  disadvantages,  and  the  Christiani¬ 
zation  of  wealth  is  beyond  question  the  most  serious  of  modern  problems. 

But  this  is  not  saying  that  rich  men  should  be  abolished.  Wealth  only 
provides  a  severer  school  for  the  higher  virtues  of  life,  and  the  man  or 
woman  who  can  really  learn  the  lesson  of  that  school  has  gained  one  of  the 
hardest  but  also  one  of  the  most  fruitful  experiences  of  modern  times. 
Never  before  did  the  world  provide  so  many  opportunities  for  the  services  of 


532 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


wealth,  and  never  before,  thank  God,  did  so  many  rich  men  hold  their 
wealth  as  a  trust  for  whose  use  they  owe  responsibility  to  their  God. 

What,  then,  does  Christ  ask  of  the  rich?  He  asks  that  they  should 
take  the  place  in  the  organism  of  modern  society  which  no  one  else  can 
take  so  well.  If  wealth  will  not  do  its  duty,  then  Christ  sweeps  it  aside  as 
a  hindrance  of  the  coming  kingdom,  as  he  did  with  that  young  man  who 
had  great  possessions.  But  if  the  rich  will  but  meet  the  rare  opportunity 
which  the  new  times  afford,  then  Christ  stands  for  the  right  of  each  part 
in  the  welfare  of  the  whole. 

Christ  calls  the  rich,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  extraordinary  privilege  and 
happiness  of  the  wise  uses  of  wealth  for  the  common  good.  Wealth  is  like 
any  other  gift  of  God  to  you,  like  your  health,  or  your  intellectual  powers, 
or  your  force  of  character;  indeed,  it  is  often  the  result  of  these  other  gifts, 
and  the  same  responsibility  goes  with  all.  They  are  all  blessings  which, 
selfisnly  used,  become  the  curses  of  life.  Your  bodily  strength  may  be  the 
source  of  destructive  passions;  your  intellectual  gift  may  leave  you  a  cynic 
or  a  snob;  your  wealth  may  shrivel  up  your  soul.  But,  taken  as  trusts  to 
use,  the  body  and  brain  and  wealth  are  all  alike  gifts  of  God  which,  the 
more  they  are  held  for  service,  the  more  miraculously  they  enrich  and 
refresh  the  giver’s  life. 

Thus,  to  rich  and  poor  alike,  Christ  comes  with  his  two-fold  doctrines  of 
society.  And  now  take  the  same  teaching  into  the  larger  world  of  our  mod¬ 
ern  industrial  affans.  How  does  Christ  enter  into  the  economic  problems 
of  modern  life?  How  does  he  deal  with  the  relations  of  employer  and 
employed?  What  are  his  rules  of  trade?  Who,  in  short,  is  the  Christian 
man  of  business? 

At  first  sight  there  might  seem  to  be  no  such  thing  as  Christianity  in 
business.  What  is  the  business  world,  one  asks  himself,  but  a  scramble  of 
self-interest,  a  victory  of  shrewdness  and  cunning,  a  close  shading  of  one’s 
conduct  between  what  is  absolutely  illegal  and  what  is  just  within  the 
limits  of  the  game?  What  is  modern  industry,  in  short,  but  the  new  way 
of  warfare  in«which  the  armies  of  great  corporations  are  pitted  against  each 
other  and  where  the  great  generals  get  the  glory  and  the  private  soldiers 
do  the  fighting  and  suffer  the  loss? 

Such  is  the  first  look  of  the  business  world,  a  mere  field  of  battle.  And 
yet  I  suppose  that  if  Jesus  Christ  could  come  again  into  the  modern  world 
He  would  at  once  recognize  that  the  great  present  opportunity  for  bearing 
witness  to  Him  was  in  the  midst  of  this  battlefield  of  modern  industrial 
life.  There  are  three  ways  with  which  you  may  deal  with  such  problems 
as  the  business  world  of  to-day  affords.  One  is  to  run  away  from  them  as 
the  early  monks  and  hermits  ran  away  from  the  world  of  earlier  times.  It 
was  so  bad  a  world  that  they  could  not  conquer  it  and  so  they  fled  to  their 
caves  and  monasteries  to  escape  its  attacks. 

Precisely  this  is  the  spirit  of  the  new  monasticism — the  spirit  of  Count 
Tolstoi,  the  spirit  of  many  a  communistic  colony,  calling  men  away  from 
all  the  struggles  of  the  world  to  seclusion  and  simplicity.  It  is  a  beautiful 
dream — this  of  retreat  from  all  the  strain  of  life,  and  yet  it  is  none  the  less 
a  retreat.  It  is  not  fighting  the  battle  of  life,  but  it  is  running  away.  It 
does  not  solve  the  problem  of  the  modern  world;  it  leaves  it  for  other  peo¬ 
ple  to  solve.  The  unholy  people  have  to  work  hard  so  that  the  saints  may 
be  idle.  The  battle  has  to  go  on,  and  the  best  troops  are  not  in  the  field. 

A  second  way  to  deal  with  the  world  is  to  stay  in  it,  but  to  be  afraid  of 
it.  Many  good  peojfie  do  their  business  timidly  and  anxiously,  as  if  it  ought 
not  to  interest  them  so  much.  That  is  a  very  common  relation  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  to  business.  He  thinks  it  is  somehow  wrong  to  care  so  much  for  his 
business.  He  hears  this  world  and  its  affairs  spoken  of  as  a  vale  of  tears, 
a  pilgrimage  to  some  better  home,  but  he  still  feels  the  joy  of  business 
effort,  and  in  the  strain  of  business  competition  he  has  to  give  ten  hours 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION. 


633 


a  day  to  things  which  on  Sunday  he  condemns,  and  so  his  life  is  hopelessly 
divided.  He  can  be  a  Christian  only  half — much  less  than  half — the  time. 
His  religion  and  his  business  are  enemies.  The  world  he  has  to  live  in  is 
not  God's  world. 

There  is  is  a  third  way  to  take  the  world  of  business.  It  is  to  believe 
in  it;  to  take  it  as  the  test  of  Christian  life  in  the  modern  age.  It  is  not  all 
clean  or  beautiful,  but  it  has  the  capacity  of  being  shaped  to  worthy  and 
useful  ends.  It  is  as  when  a  potter  bends  over  his  lump  of  clay  and  finds  it 
a  shapeless  mass  that  soils  the  hands  which  work  it,  yet  knows  that  his 
work  is  not  to  wash  his  hands  of  it,  but  to  take  it  just  as  it  is  and  work  out 
the  shapes  of  beauty  and  use  which  are  possible  within  the  limits  of  the 
clays.  So  the  Christian  takes  the  business  world.  In  this  warfare  of  indus¬ 
try,  which  looks  so  shapeless  and  unpromising,  the  Christian  sees  the 
possibilities  of  service.  It  is  not  very  clean  or  beautiful,  but  it  can  be 
shaped  and  moulded  into  an  instrument  of  the  higher  life.  That  is  the 
Christian’s  task  in  the  business  world. 

Christ  comes  into  the  business  world  of  to-day  and,  seeking  the  man 
who  wants  to  be  His  disciple,  says  to  him:  “This  world  of  affairs  is  not  to 
be  abandoned,  or  yet  to  be  feared;  it  is  to  be  redeemed.  Enter  into  it. 
Be  as  sagacious,  far-sighted,  intelligent,  judicious  as  the  children  of  this 
world.  Be  a  thoughtful,  good  man  of  business.  And  then  add  to  this  self¬ 
culture  the  larger  motive,  the  bringing  in  of  My  kingdom.  Ask  yourself 
this  question  of  your  business:  ‘Am  I  in  it  hindering  or  helping  the  better 
life  of  men?  Am  I  in  any  degree  responsible  for  the  ends  of  the  present 
industrial  system,  or  am  I  lessening  them  by  the  methods  of  my  own?  Is 
my  success  at  the  cost  of  my  employes’  degradation,  or  do  they  share  the 
satisfaction  of  my  own  prosperity?  In  short,  am  I  helping  to  make  this 
world  God’s  world,  or  would  it,  if  all  dealt  as  I  do,  soon  be  the  devil’s 
world?’  Then  having  answered  this  question  in  your  soul,  realize  still 
further  how  many  of  the  first  signs  of  the  coming  kingdom  wait  for  busi¬ 
ness  men  to  show.” 

We  hear  much  of  the  philanthropy  of  the  present  age,  and  certainly 
there  never  was  an  age  in  which  so  many  prosperous  people  felt  so  strongly 
called  to  generosity  and  benevolence.  But  the  most  profitable  philan¬ 
thropy  which  this  age  is  to  see  is,  after  all,  not  to  come  through  what  we 
call  charity,  but  through  better  methods  in  the  business  world. 

In  an  English  volume  of  essays,  published  a  few  years  ago,  the  author 
describes  what  he  calls  “Two  Great  Philanthropists.”  One  was  a  founder 
of  orphan  asylums  and  charities,  a  kind  and  noble  man;  the  other  was 
Leclaire,  the  beginner  of  the  system  which  gives  every  employe  an  interest 
in  the  business  of  the  firm;  and  the  second,  so  thought  this  essayist,  was 
the  better  philanthropist.  He  was  right. 

The  Christian  in  business  to-day  is  looking  for  every  stable  relation 
between  employer  and  employed.  Co-operation  is  to  him  better  than  com¬ 
petition.  He  sees  his  own  life  in  the  light  of  the  common  good.  The 
Christian  in  business  discovers  that  good  lodgings  for  the  working  classes 
are  both  wise  charity  and  good  business.  The  Christian  in  business  holds 
his  sagacity  and  insight  at  the  service  of  public  affairs.  He  is  not  ensnared 
in  the  meshes  of  his  own  prosperity.  He  owns  his  wealth;  it  does  not  own 
him.  The  community  leans  on  him,  instead  of  his  being  a  dead  weight  on 
the  community.  He  teaches  us  the  higher  use  of  wealth  instead  of  warn¬ 
ing  us  of  its  fearful  perils.  And  when  the  Christian  business  man  dies, 
the  properties  he  controlled  do  not  rise  in  the  market,  because  the  risk  of 
his  management  is  gone,  but  the  business  world  says  of  him:  “  This  man 
was  a  consistent  Christian.  He  did  not  fear  or  fiee  from  the  world,  but 
he  made  it  the  instrument  of  the  higher  life  of  man.  In  this  world’s  battle 
he  was  a  good  soldier  of  Jesus  Christ.” 

Let  us,  finally,  follow  the  principle  of  Christ  one  step  further  still. 


534 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Beyond  the  rich  and  the  poor,  beyond  the  employers  and  the  employed  of 
the  present  social  world,  there  appear  on  the  horizon  of  modern  society  still 
larger  schemes  and  dreams  of  some  better  future  which  shall  make  our 
present  social  problems  superfluous.  Now,  what  is  Christ’s  attitude  toward 
such  hopes  as  these?  How  does  Christ  stand  to  the  great  programmes  of 
change  which  are  now  so  confidently  proposed?  What  has  Christ  to  say  to 
the  abolition  of  all  private  capital  and  the  system  of  collective  ownership? 
What  is  the  relation  of  Christ  to  the  plan  of  socialism? 

First  of  all,  as  we  have  already  seen,  it  is  plain  that  Christ  can  not  be 
claimed  for  any  one  theory  of  the  function  of  governments  or  the  order  of 
society.  He  repeatedly  refused  to  be  involved  in  such  questions.  When 
one  said  to  Him,  “  Master,  speak  to  my  brother  that  he  divide  the  inherit¬ 
ance  with  me,”  He  answered:  “Man,  who  made  Me  a  judge  or  a  divider 
over  you?  ”  Thus  Christ  is  not  the  advocate  for  one  or  another  scheme  for 
socialistic  change,  for  He  dwelt  not  in  the  region  of  such  special  schemes, 
but  in  the  region  of  universal  principle. 

But  let  not  the  Christian  suppose  from  this  that  Christ’s  theory  of 
property  is  more  conservative  or  more  encouraging  to  the  hoarding  of 
wealth  than  these  plans  of  change.  His  theory  is  in  reality  much  more 
radical.  For  it  holds  not  that  part  of  your  property  is  not  your  own  and 
ought  to  be  put  at  the  service  of  the  general  community.  Christ 
holds  that  all  we  get  is  a  gift  to  us  from  the  common  life,  and  that  we  owe 
both  it  and  ourselves  to  the  common  good. 

We  do  not  make  money.  We  simply  put  ourselves  where,  from  the 
common  life,  profit  flows  in  on  us.  We  do  not  own  our  wealth;  we  owe  our 
wealth.  Life  in  all  its  aspects  is  a  trust  put  into  our  hands.  It  is  not 
our  own.  It  is  lent.  To  some  are  given  five  talents,  to  some  two,  to 
some  one.  Unequal  gifts  necessitate  social  inequality.  But  all  these 
varied  talents  are  for  service  of  the  Master  who  reckons  with  us.  This 
is  no  easy  doctrine.  It  is  a  more  sweeping  one  than  any  revolution 
which  the  socialist  proposes. 

The  difference  may  be  stated  in  a  formula.  The  thorough-going  indi¬ 
vidualist  of  the  present  order  says:  “Each  one  for  himself;  that  is  the 
best  law  of  society.  Each  one  of  us  is  to  be  responsible  for  himself 
and  himself  alone.”  Then  the  socialist  says:  “No,  that  is  mere  selfishness 
and  anarchy.  Let  all  of  us,  on  the  contrary,  be  responsible  for  the  life  of 
each.  Let  us  enlarge  and  strengthen  the  power  of  government,  until  at 
last  the  state,  which  is  but  another  name  for  all  of  us,  sees  that  each  of 
us  is  happy.” 

But  Christ  carries  us  beyond  both  the  individualist  and  the  socialist  in 
his  programme  of  society,  for,  He  says,  the  true  order  of  the  world  is  when 
each  of  us  cares  for  all  of  us,  and  holds  his  own  life,  his  power,  money, 
service,  as  a  means  of  the  common  good.  The  dream  of  socialism  and  the 
reaction  of  individualism  are  comprehended  and  reinforced  by  this  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  infinite  value  of  the  individual  as  the  means  by  which  the  better 
society  is  to  come  in.  The  socialistic  dream  of  the  future  is  of  a  co-opera¬ 
tion  which  shall  be  compulsory — dictatorial  government;  the  Christian’s 
dream  is  of  a  co-operation  which  shall  be  voluntary,  free,  personal.  The 
one  makes  of  society  an  army  with  its  discipline;  the  other  makes  of  it  a 
family  with  its  love.  In  one  we  are  officers  and  privates;  in  the  other  we 
are  brethren.  So  Christ  stands  in  the  midst  of  these  baffling,  complex 
questions  of  these  present  times — questions  of  wealth  and  poverty,  ques¬ 
tions  of  employers  and  employed,  questions  of  revolution  and  reform,  ques¬ 
tions  of  individualism  and  socialism.  The  two  views  seem  in  absolute 
opposition. 

Individualism  means  self-culture,  self-interest,  self -development.  Social¬ 
ism  means  self-sacrifice,  self-forgetfulness,  the  public  good.  Christ  means 
both.  Cultivate  yourself.  He  says,  make  the  most  of  yourself,  enrich  your- 


a 

•-I 

U) 

3' 

n 

rr 

3. 

CiJ 


C" 

?r 

C/5 

irr 

3. 

3' 

Z 

•-I 

3. 

3" 


LT) 

fa 

3^ 

< 

<■ 

ft) 

?r 

CO 

3 

CO 

3 

CO¬ 

CO 


m 

> 

C/) 

H 

5 

D 

> 

z 

o 

PO 

o 

c 


p: 

D 

3* 

CO 

•-t 

3 

CO 

■o 

3. 

3 


< 

n' 

cr 

CO 

3 

a- 

O 

3 

3 

(3- 

3r 


THE  WOMEN  OF  INDIA. 


535 


self,  and  then  take  it  all  and  make  it  the  instrument  of  self-sacrifice.  Give 
the  perfect  developed  self  to  the  perfect  common  good.  The  only  perma¬ 
nent  socialism  must  be  based  on  perfected  individualism.  The  Kingdom 
of  God  is  not  to  come  of  itself;  it  is  to  come  through  the  collective  conse¬ 
cration  of  individual  souls. 

Such,  I  suppose,  is  the  message  which  Christ  has  been  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  trying  to  explain  to  this  world.  Over  and  over  pgain  the  world  has 
been  stirred  by  great  plans  of  external  change,  political,  legislative, 
or  social  plans,  and  always  Christ  has  stood  for  internal  change,  the  refor¬ 
mation  of  the  community  through  the  regeneration  of  its  individuals.  So 
sta-  ds  Christ  to-day.  To  every  outward  plan  which  is  honest  He  says: 
“  Go  on  and  God  speed  you  with  all  your  endeavors  for  equality,  liberty, 
fraternity ;  but  be  sure  of  this,  that  no  permanent  change  will  rule  the 
lives  of  men  until  men’s  hearts  are  changed  to  meet  it.”  You  may  accom¬ 
plish  the  whole  programme  of  a  revolutionized  society  but  it  will  be  neither 
a  permanent  nor  a  happy  order  until  you  have  better  men  to  use  it.  The 
kingdom  begins  within.  The  wedding  garment  makes  ready  for  the  wed- 
dicg  feast. 

My  friends,  it  is  time  that  the  modern  world  heard  once  more,  with  new 
emphasis,  this  doctrine  of  Christ,  which  is  so  old  that  to  many  modern 
minds  it  may  seem  almost  new.  We  are  beset  by  plans  which  look  for 
wholesale,  outright,  dramatic  transformations  in  human  affairs,  plans  for 
redeeming  the  world  all  at  once,  and  the  old  way  of  Christ,  the  way  of 
redeeming  one  squl  at  a  time,  looks  very  slow  and  unpicturesque  and 
tiresome. 

None  the  less,  believe  me,  the  future  of  tl^e  world,  like  its  past,  lies  in 
just  such  inward,  personal,  patient,  spiritual  reform.  Out  of  the  life  of 
the  individual  flows  the  stream  of  the  world.  It  is  like  some  mighty  river 
flowing  through  our  midst  which  we  want  to  use  for  our  daily  drink,  but 
which  is  charged  with  poison  and  turbid  with  refuse.  How  shall  we  cleanse 
this  flowing  stream?  Try  to  Alter  it  as  it  sweeps  by  with  its  full  current; 
but  the  task  is  prodigious,  the  impurity  is  persistent,  the  pollutions  keep 
sweeping  down  on  us  from  the  sources  of  the  stream.  And  then  the  wise 
engineer  seeks  those  remote  sources  themselves.  He  cleanses  each  little 
brook,  each  secret  spring,  each  pasture  bank,  and  then  from  those  guarded 
sources  the  great  river  bears  down  purity  and  health  to  the  great  world 
below.  So  the  method  of  Christ  purifies  the  modern  world.  It  seeks  the 
sources  of  life  in  the  individual  soul,  and  then  out  of  the  myriad  such 
springs  which  lie  in  the  hearts  of  men  the  great  stream  of  human  progress 
flows  into  its  own  purer  and  broader  future  and  the  nations  drink  and  are 
refreshed. 


THE  WOMEN  OF  INDIA. 

MISS  JEANNE  SERABJI  OF  BOMBAY. 

I  would  ask  you  to  travel  with  me  in  thought  over  13,000  miles  across 
the  seas  to  have  a  glimpse  at  India,  the  land  of  glorious  sunsets,  the  conti¬ 
nent  inhabited  by  peoples  differing  from  each  other  almost  as  variously  as 
their  numbers  in  language,  caste,  and  creed,  and  yet  I  may  safely  say  I  can 
hear  voices  in  concord  from  my  country  saying:  “Tell  the  women  of 
America  we  are  being  enlightened,  we  thirst  after  knowledge,  and  we  are 
awakening  to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  greater  pleasure  than  that  of 
increasing  our  information,  training  our  minds,  and  reaching  after  the  goal 
of  our  ambitions.”  It  has  been  said  to  me  more  than  once  in  America  that 
the  women  of  my  country  prefer  to  be  ignorant  and  in  seclusion ;  that 
they  would  not  welcome  anybody  who  would  attempt  to  change  their  mode 


536 


THE  parliament  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  life.  To  these  I  would  give  answer  as  follows:  The  nobly  born  ladies, 
Zananas,  shrink  not  from  thirst  for  knowledge,  but  from  contact  with  the 
outer  world.  If  the  customs  of  the  country,  their  castes  and  creeds 
allowed  it,  they  would  gladly  live  as  other  women  do.  They  live  in  seclu¬ 
sion,  not  ignorance.  Highly  cultured  British  women,  with  love  for  the 
Master  burning  in  their  hearts,  have  the  exceptional  privileges  of  being 
their  companions  and  teachers,  and  they  have  marveled  at  the  intelligence 
of  some  of  them. 

’Tis  religion  that  does  give 
Sweetest  comfort. 

These  secluded  ladies  make  perfect  business  women.  They  manage 
their  affairs  of  state  with  a  grace  and  manner  worthy  consideration.  Do 
we  wish  these  women  to  give  up  seclusion  and  live  as  other  women  do? 
Let  us,  the  Christian  women  of  the  world,  give  up  to  our  high  and  holy 
calling  in  Christ  Jesus;  let  our  lights  shine  out  brilliantly,  for  it  is  the  life 
that  speaks  with  far  greater  force  than  any  words  from  our  lips,  and  let  us 
with  solemnity  grasp  the  thought  that  we  may  be  obstacles  in  the  paths  of 
others.  Are  we  living  what  we  preach  about?  Do  we  know  that  some  one 
is  better  for  our  being  in  the  world?  If  not,  why  is  it  not  so?  Let  us 
attend  to  our  lamps  and  keep  them  burning. 

The  women  of  India  are  not  all  secluded,  and  it  is  quite  a  natural  thing 
to  go  into  homes  and  find  that  much  is  being  done  for  the  uplifting  of 
women.  Schools  and  colleges  were  open  where  the  women  may  attain  to 
heights  at  first  thought  impracticable.  The  Parsee  and  Brahman  women 
in  Bombay  twenty  years  ago  scarcely  moved  out  of  their  houses,  while 
to-day  they  have  their  libfhries  and  reading-rooms,  they  can  converse  on 
politics,  enjoy  a  conversation,  and  show  in  every  movement  culture  and 
refinement  above  the  common.  Music,  painting,  horsemanship  come  as 
easily  to  them  as  spelling  the  English  language  correctly.  The  princes  of 
the  land  are  interesting  themselves  in  the  education  of  the  women  around 
them.  Foremost  among  these  is  the  Maharajah  of  Mysore,  who  has  opened 
a  college  for  women,  which  has  for  its  pupils  Hindu  ladies,  maidens, 
matrons,  and  widows  of  the  highest  caste.  This  college  is  superintended 
by  an  English  lady,  and  has  all  the  departments  belonging  to  the  ladies’ 
colleges  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  of  England.  It  is  the  only  college  where 
the  zither,  the  vena,  and  the  violin  are  taught.  The  founder  had  to  work 
three  long  years  before  he  was  able  to  introduce  these  instruments,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  these  nobly  born  high  caste  women  associated  the 
handling  of  musical  instruments  with  the  stage  and  women  of  no  repute. 

There  are  schools  and  colleges  for  women  in  Bombay,  Poona,  and 
Guzerap;  also  Calcutta,  Alahabad,  Missoorie,  and  Madras.  The  latter  col¬ 
lege  has  rather  the  lead  in  some  points  by  conferring  degrees  upon  women. 
The  Victoria  high  school  has  turned  out  grand  and  noble  women;  so  also 
has  the  new  high  school  for  women  in  the  native  city  of  Poona.  These 
schools  have  Christian  women  as  principals.  The  college  of  Ahrmedabad 
has  a  Parsee  (Christian)  lady  at  its  head.  What  women  have  done  women 
can  do. 

Do  you  wish  to  see  purity  as  white  as  the  driven  snow  in  woman?  Allow 
me  to  bring  before  you  in  thought  that  form  of  a  beautiful  woman  of 
India,  the  Pundita  Rambai,  who  has  opened  the  Sharida  Sadan  or  widows’ 
home  in  India.  She  has  traveled  a  great  deal,  and  was  in  America  for 
awhile,  taking  from  you  sympathy,  affection,  and  funds  for  her  noble  work. 
Do  you  wish  to  hear  of  learned  women?  Again  let  me  mention  the  Pun¬ 
dita  Rambai  and  in  companionship  with  her  Cornelia  Sorabji,  B.  A.,  LL.  D. 
Men  and  women  have  written  of  these  in  prose  and  song;  their  morality  is 
unquestionable,  their  religion  beautiful  (for  they  belong  to  Christ  Jesus), 
their  humility  proverbial.  These  are  women  for  a  nation  to  be  proud  of. 
Having  prepared  themselves  to  fill  important  posts  they  have  gone  back  to 


BUDDHA. 


537 


their  country  and  their  life  to  glorify  their  Maker.  These  good  women 
must  have  had  good  mothers.  I  can  speak  of  one  who  lives  the  life  of  which 
she  is  so  great  an  advocate;  with  her  Godliness  and  refinement  go  hand  in 
hand;  her  faith  in  God  is  wonderful  and  her  children  will  look  back  in 
years  to  come  and  call  her  blessed.  There  are  others  worthy  of  your  notice  — 
the  poet,  Sumibai  Goray;  the  physician,  Dr.  Anandibai  Joshi,  whom  death 
removed  from  our  midst  just  as  she  was  about  starting  her  grand  work, 
and  the  artist  of  song,  Mme.  Therze  Langrana,  whose  God-given  voice 
thrills  the  hearts  of  men  and  women  in  London.  My  countrywomen  have 
been  at  the  head  of  battles,  guiding  their  men  with  word  and  look  of  com¬ 
mand.  My  countrywomen  will  soon  be  spoken  of  as  the  greatest  scientists, 
artists,  mathematicians,  and  preachers  of  the  world. 

Instead  of  the  absurd  saying,  “  a  woman  is  at  the  bottom  of  every  evil,” 
let  us  rather  say,  all  great  works  are  due  to  good  women,  noble  women,  true 
women,  pure  women,  the  greatest  as  well  as  the  least  of  God’s  creatures. 

A  woman?  ifes,  1  thank  the  day 
When  I  was  made  to  live. 

To  east  a  bright  or  shining  ray, 

To  love,  to  live,  to  give; 

To  draw  aside  from  paths  of  sin 
The  halt,  the  lame,  the  blind. 

A  woman,  glorious,  noble,  grand, 

A  woman  I  would  be. 

To  live,  to  conquer,  to  command. 

To  lessen  misery; 

To  glorify,  in  word,  in  deed. 

The  Maker  I  adore! 

To  help,  regardless  caste  or  creed. 

The  sad.  the  lone,  the  poor. 


BUDDHA. 

RT.  REV.  ZITSUZA  ASHITSU 

The  paper  was  read  by  Dr.  Barrows. 

Is  it  not,  really,  a  remarkable  event  in  human  history  that  such  a  large 
number  of  the  delegates  of  different  creeds  are  come  together,  from  every 
corner  of  the  world,  as  in  a  concert,  to  discuss  one  problem  of  humanity — 
universal  brotherhood — without  the  least  jealousy?  I  am  so  happy  in 
giving  an  address  as  a  token  of  my  cordial  acceptance  of  the  membership 
of  this  Congress  of  Religions. 

My  subject  is  Buddha.  This  subject  might  be  treated  in  two  ways, 
either  absolutely  or  relatively.  But  if  I  were  to  take  an  absolute  way 
I  am  afraid  I  should  not  be  able  to  utter  even  a  single  word,  because,  when 
Buddha  is  observed  at  absolute  perfection,  there  is  no  word  in  human 
tongue  which  is  powerful  enough  to  interpret  the  state  of  its  grand 
enlightenment.  So,  meanwhile,  I  stoop  down  to  the  lower  stage,  that  is, 
to  the  manner  of  relativity,  in  treating  this  subject,  and  will  explain  the 
highest  human  enlightenment,  which  is  callea  Buddha,  according  to  the 
order  of  its  five  attitudes;  that  is,  denomination,  personality,  principle, 
function,  and  doctrine. 

Denomination.  Buddha  is  a  Sanskrit  word,  and  is  translated  Kakusha 
in  Chinese  language.  The  word  kaku  means  enlighten,  so  one  who  enlight¬ 
ened  his  own  mind,  and  also  enlightened  those  of  others,  was  called  Buddha. 
Buddha  has  three  personalities,  namely,  Hosshin,  Hoshin,  and  Wojin. 
Now,  in  Hosshin,  Ho  means  law,  and  Shin  means  personality,  so  it  is  the 
name  given  to  the  personality  of  the  constitution  after  the  Buddha  got 
the  highest  Buddhahood.  This  personality  is  entirely  colorless  and  form- 


538 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


less,  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  has  the  nature  of  eternality,  omnipresence, 
and  unchangeableness.  Hosshin  is  called  Birushana  in  Sanskrit,  and  Hen- 
issai-sho  in  Chinese,  both  meaning  omnipresence. 

Then  in  Hoshin,  Ho  means  effect,  so  this  is  the  name  given  to  the  per¬ 
sonality  of  the  result,  which  the  Buddha  attained  by  refining  his  action. 
Its  Sanskrit  name  is  Rushana,  and  in  Chinese  it  is  Joman,  in  which  Jo 
means  clear,  and  Man  means  fullness,  and  when  put  together  it  means  a 
state  of  the  mind  free  from  lust  and  evil  desire,  but  full  of  enlightened 
virtues  instead. 

This  personality  has  another  designation  which  is  called  Jiyn-shin, 
meaning  an  enjoying  personality.  And  it  is  again  sub-divided  into  two 
classes  of  Jijiyu  and  Tajiyu.  Jijiyu  means  to  enjoy  the  Buddha  himself, 
the  pleasure  of  attaining  to  the  highest  human  virtues  ;  while  Tajiyu,  which 
is  also  called  world  enlightenment,  designates  the  Buddha’s  benevolent 
action  of  imparting  his  holy  pleasure  to  his  fellow-beings  with  his  supreme 
doctrine. 

In  short  the  former  is  to  enlighten  one’s  own  mind,  while  the  latter  is 
to  enlighten  those  of  others.  These  two  make  a  whole  as  Hoshin,  which 
is  the  name  given  to  the  personality  of  the  constitution,  as  I  mentioned 
before,  attained  by  the  Buddha  by  his  self -culture.  So  this  personality 
has  a  beginning,  but  no  end. 

Lastly,  Wojin  is  the  name  given  to  a  personality  which  spontaneously 
appears  to  all  kinds  of  beings  in  any  state  and  condition  in  order  to  preach 
and  enlighten  them  equally.  In  Sanskrit  it  is  called  Shakammi,  and  in 
Chinese,  Noninjakumoku.  Jakumoku  means  calmness,  and  Nonin  means 
humanity.  He  is  perfectly  calm,  therefore  he  is  entirely  free  from  life  and 
death.  He  is  perfectly  humane,  consequently  is  not  content  even  in  his 
state  of  Nirvana. 

These  three  personalities  which  I  have  just  briefly  mentioned  are  the 
attributes  of  the  Buddha’s  intellectual  activity,  and  at  the  same  time  they 
are  the  distributes  of  his  one  supreme  personality.  Nay,  in  the  way  of 
explanation,  we  can  say  that  these  three  personalities  are  not  the  monopoly 
of  the  Buddha,  but  we  also  are  provided  with  the  same  attributes.  Our 
constitution  is  Hosshin,  our  intellect  is  Hoshin,  while  our  actions  are 
Wojin.  Then  what  is  the  difference  between  the  ordinary  beings  and 
Buddha,  who  is  most  enlightened  of  all?  Nothing  but  that  he  is  devel¬ 
oped,  by  his  self-culture,  to  the  highest  state,  while  we  ordinary  beings  are 
buried  in  the  dust  of  passions.  If  we  cultivate  our  minds  we  can,  of 
course,  clear  off  the  clouds  of  ignorance  and  reach  the  same  enlightened 
place  with  the  Buddha. 

So  in  my  sect  of  Buddhism  we,  the  ordinary  beings,  are  also  called 
Risoku  Buddha,  or  beings  with  nature  of  Buddha.  But,  as  our  minds  are 
unfortunately  full  of  lusts  and  superstition,  we  can  not  be  called  Kukyo- 
soku  Buddha,  as  Ahaka,  or  Gautama,  is.  He  is  so  entitled  because  he  has 
sprung  up  to  the  highest  state  of  mental  achievement  and  there  is  no 
higher  attainable  He  says  in  his  sacred  Sutra,  “Bomino,”  “I  am  the 
Buddha  already  enlightened  hereafter.” 

Personality.  The  person  of  Buddha  is  perfectly  free  from  life  and 
death.  (Pusho  fumetsu.)  We  call  it  Nehan  or  Nirvana.  Nehan  is 
divided  into  four  classes — Honrai  Jishoshojo  Nehan,  Uyo  Nehan,  Muyo 
Nehan,  Mujusho  Nehan. 

Honrai  Jishoshojo  Nehan  is  the  name  given  to  the  nature  of  Buddha, 
which  has  neither  beginning  nor  end,  and  is  perfectly  clear  of  lust  like  a 
perfect  mirror.  But  such  an  excellent  nature  as  I  just  mentioned  is  not 
the  peculiar  property  of  Buddha,  but  every  being  in  the  universe  has  just 
the  same  constitution  as  Buddha.  So  it  is  told  in  Kegon  Sutra  that 
“  there  is  no  slight  distinction  between  Mind,  Buddha,  and  Beings.” 

Uyo  Nehan  is  the  name  given  to  the  state  little  advanced  from  the  above, 


BUDDHA. 


539  . 


when  we  perceive  that  our  solicitude  is  fleeting,  our  lives  are  inconstant 
and  even  there  is  no  such  thing  as  ego.  In  this  state  our  mind  is  quite 
empty  and  clear,  but  there  still  remains  one  thing,  that  is,  the  body.  So  it 
is  called  Uyo,  or  “  something  left.” 

Muyo  Nehan  is  the  state  which  has  advanced  one  step  higher  than  Uyo. 
In  this  Nehan  our  body  and  intellect  come  to  entire  annihilation  and  there 
nothing  is  traceable.  Therefore,  this  state  is  called  Muyo,  or  “  nothing 
left.” 

Mujusho  Nehan  is  the  highest  state  of  Nirvana.  In  this  state  we  get  a 
perfect  intellectual  wisdom ;  we  are  no  more  subject  to  birth  and  death. 
Also,  we  become  perfectly  merciful;  we- are  not  content  with  the  self- 
indulging  state  of  highest  Nirvana;  but  we  appear  to  the  beings  of  every 
class  to  save  them  from  prevailing  pains  by  imparting  the  pleasure  of 
Nirvana. 

These  being  the  principal  grand  desires  of  Buddhahood,  the  four  mer¬ 
ciful  vows  accompany  them,  saying: 

I  hope  I  can  save  all  the  beings  in  the  universe  from  this  ignorance ! 

I  hope  lean  abstain  from  my  inexhaustible  desires  of  ignorance! 

I  hope  I  can  comprehend  the  boundless  meaning  of  the  doctrine  of  Buddha! 

I  hope  I  can  attain  the  highest  enlightenment  of  Buddhasliip! 

Out  of  these  four  classes  of  Nirvana  the  first  and  last  are  called  the 
Nirvana  of  Mahayana,  while  the  remaining  are  that  of  Ninayana. 

Principle.  The  fundamental  principle  of  Buddha  is  the  mind,  which 
may  be  compared  to  a  boundless  sea  into  which  the  thousand  rivers  of 
Buddha’s  doctrines  flow;  so  it  is  Buddhism  comprehends  the  whole  mind. 

The  mind  is  absolutely  so  grand  and  marvelous  that  even  the  heaven 
can  never  be  compared  to  its  highness,  while  the  earth  is  too  short  for 
measuring  its  thickness.  It  has  shape  neither  long  nor  short,  neither  round 
nor  square.  Its  existence  is  neither  inside  nor  outside,  nor  even  in  the 
middle  part  of  bodily  structure.  It  is  purely  colorless  and  formless  and 
appears  freely  and  actively  in  every  place  throughout  the  universe.  But 
for  the  convenience  of  studying  its  nature  we  call  it,  True  Mind  of  Absolute 
Unity  (Shinnyo). 

It  is  told  in  Sutra  that  “  all  figures  in  the  universe  are  stamped  but  by 
the  one  form.”  What  does  that  one  form  mean?  It  is  nothing  but  another 
designation  of  absolute  unity,  and  that  stamps  out  figures,  means  the 
innumerable  phenomena  before  our  eyes  which  are  the  shadow  or  appear¬ 
ance  of  the  absolute  unity. 

Thus  the  mind  and  the  figure  (or  color)  reflect  each  other;  so  the  mind 
can  not  be  seen  without  the  figure,  and  the  figure  can  not  be  seen  without 
the  mind.  In  other  words,  the  figure  and  mind  are  standing  relatively,  so 
the  figure  can  not  exist  without  the  mind,  and  the  mind  can  not  exist  with¬ 
out  the  figure.  It  is  told  in  Sutra  that  “  when  we  see  color  we  see  mind.” 
There  is  nothing  but  the  absolute  mind-unity  throughout  the  universe. 
Every  form  of  figure  such  as  heaven,  earth,  mountains,  rivers,  trees,  grasses, 
even  a  man,  or  what  else  it  might  be,  is  nothing  but  the  grand  personality 
of  absolute  unity;  and  as  this  absolute  unity  is  the  only  object  with  which 
Buddha  enlightens  all  kinds  of  existing  beings,  so  it  is  clear  that  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  Buddha  is  the  mind. 

Function.  Three  sacred  virtues  are  essential  functions  of  Buddha, 
which  are  the  sacred  wisdom,  the  graceful  humanity,  and  the  sublime 
courage.  Of  these  the  sacred  wisdom  is  also  called  absolute  wisdom. 
Wisdom  in  ordinary  is  a  function  of  mind  which  has  the  power  of  judging. 
When  it  is  acting  relatively  to  the  lusts  of  mind  it  is  called,  in  Buddhism, 
relative  wisdom,  and,  when  standing  alone,  without  relation  to  ignorance 
or  superstition,  it  is  called  absolute  wisdom.  The  Buddha  with  his  abso¬ 
lute  wisdom  is  called  Monju  Bosatsu,  or  Buddha  of  intellectual  light 


640 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


(Chiye  Kivo  Butsu),  or  Myochi  Mutorin  (marvelous  wisdom,  nothing  com¬ 
parable). 

The  graceful  humanity  is  a  production  of  wisdom.  When  intellectual 
light  shines,  penetrating  the  clouds  of  ignorant  superstition  of  all  beings, 
they  are  free  from  suffering,  misery,  ard  endowed  with  an  enlightened 
pleasure.  It  is  told  in  Sutra,  “  The  mind  of  Buddha  is  so  full  of  humanity 
that  he  waits  upon  every  being  with  an  absolutely  equal  humanity.” 

The  object  of  Buddha’s  own  enlightenment  is  to  endow  with  pleasure 
and  happiness  all  beings  without  making  a  slight  distinction  among  them. 
So  it  is  told  in  Hokke  Sutra  that  “F  >v  all  these  three  worlds  (which,  as  a 
whole,  means  the  universe)  are  possessed  of  my  hand,  all  beings  upon  them 
are  my  loving  children.  These  worlds  are  full  of  innumerable  pains,  from 
which  J  alone  can  save  them.” 

The  vvord  humanity  in  Buddhism  is  interpreted  in  two  ways.  One  is  to 
tender  and  bring  something  up,  while  the  other  is  to  pity  and  save.  Again, 
the  humanity  of  Buddha  is  divided  into  three  classes,  namely:  Humanity 
relating  to  all  kinds  of  beings,  humanity  relating  to  the  appearance  and 
humanity  universally  common  to  all  things. 

Now,  firstly,  humanity  relating  to  all  beings  is  the  humanity  with  which 
Buddha  comprehends  the  relation  of  all  beings  and  saves  them  all  alike, 
just  as  merciful  parents  would  do  their  children.  Secondly,  humanity 
relating  to  the  appearance  is  the  humanity  with  which  Buddha  com  pre¬ 
hen  ’s  all  phenomenal  appearances  which  exist  in  'relation  to  conditions 
and  preserves  them  on  the  field  of  perfect  unity  where  there  are  no  such 
distinctions  as  ego  and  non-ego  and  no  difference  of  beings.  Thirdly, 
humanity  which  is  universally  common  to  all  beings  is  the  humanity  with 
which  Buddha,  appearing  everywhere,  saves  all  the  beings  according  to 
their  different  conditions,  as  naturally  as  a  loadstone  attracts  iron.  This 
is  one  of  the  four  holy  vov/s of  Buddha,  that  is:  “I  hope  I  can  save  all  the 
beings  in  the  universe  from  their  ignorance.” 

Although  the  Buddha  have  these  two  virtues  of  wisdom  and  humanity, 
he  could  never  save  a  being  if  he  had  not  another  sacred  virtue,  that  is, 
courage.  But  he  had  such  wonderful  courage  as  to  give  up  his  imperial 
priesthood,  full  of  luxury  and  pleasure,  simply  for  the  sake  of  fulfilling  his 
desire  of  salvation.  Not  only  this,  he  will  not  spare  any  trouble  or  suffering, 
hardship  or  severity,  in  order  to  crown  himself  with  spiritual  success. 

So  Amita  Buddha  also  said  to  himself  that  “  firmness  of  mind  will  never 
be  daunted  amid  an  extreme  of  pains  aud  hardships.”  Truly,  nothing  can 
be  done  without  courage.  Courage  is  the  mother  of  success.  Courage  is 
the  foundation  of  all  requisites  for  success.  It  is  the  same  in  the  saying 
of  Confucius,  “a  man  who  has  humanity  in  his  mind  has,  as  a  rule,  certain 
courage.” 

Among  the  disciples  of  the  Buddha,  Kwan-on  represents  humanity, 
Monju  represents  wisdom  and  Sei-shi  represents  courage;  so  it  is  very  mani¬ 
fest  that  these  three  sacred  virtues  are  essential  functions  of  Buddha. 

Doctrine.  After  Shaku  Buddha’s  departure  from  this  world,  two  dis¬ 
ciples,  Kasho  and  Snan,  collected  the  dictations  of  his  teachings.  This  is 
the  first  appearance  of  Buddha’s  book,  and  it  was  entitled  “  The  Three 
Stores  of  Hinayana  (Sanzo),”  which  means  it  contains  three  different  classes 
of  doctrine,  namely,  Kyo,  or  principle,  Ritsu,  or  law,  and  Ron,  or  argument. 

Now,  firstly,  Kyo  (Sanskrit  Sutra)  is  a  Chinese  word  which  means  per¬ 
manent,  so  that  it  designates  the  principle  which  is  permanent  and  is 
taken  as  the  origin  of  the  law  of  the  Buddhist.  Secondly,  Ritsu  (Sanskrit 
Vini)  means  a  law  or  commandment,  so  that  this  portion  of  the  stores  con¬ 
tains  the  commandments  founded  by  the  Buddha  to  stop  human  evils. 
Thirdly,  Ron  (Sanskrit  Abidaema)  means  argument  or  discussion,  so  this 
part  contains  all  the  arguments  or  discussions  written  by  his  disciples  or 
followers, 


BUDDHA. 


541 


These  three  stores  being  a  part  of  Buddhist  works,  there  is  another 
collection  of  three  stores  which  is  called  that  of  Mahayana,  compiled  by 
the  disciples  of  the  Buddha  Monju  Miroku,  Anan,  etc.  Both  Hinayana 
and  Mahayana  were  prevailing  together  among  the  countries  of  India  for  a 
long  time  after  the  Buddha’s  departure.  But  when  several  hundred  years 
were  past  they  were  gradually  divided  into  three  parts.  One  of  them  has 
been  spread  toward  northern  countries,  such  as  Thibet,  Mongolia,  Man- 
chooria,  etc.  One  has  been  spread  eastward  through  China,  Corea,  and 
Japan.  Another  branch  of  Buddhism  is  still  remaining  in  the  southern 
portion  of  Asiatic  countries  such  as  Ceylon,  Siam,  etc.  These  three 
branches  are  respectively  called  Northern  Mahayana,  Eastern  Mahayana, 
and  Southern  Hinayana,  and  at  present  Eastern  Mahayana,  in  Japan,  is 
the  most  powerful  of  all  the  Buddhist  branches. 

The  difference  between  Mahayana  and  Hinayana  is  this:  The  former  is 
to  attain  an  enlightenment  by  getting  hold  of  the  intellectual  constitution 
of  Buddha,  while  the  latter  teaches  how  to  attain  Nirvana  by  obeying 
strictly  the  commandments  given  by  Buddha.  But  if  you  would  ask  which 
is  the  principal  part  of  Buddhism  I  should  say  it  is,  of  course,  Mahayana, 
in  which  is  taught  how  to  become  Buddha  ourselves  instead  of  Hinayana. 

There  have  been  a  great  many  Europeans  and  Americans  who  studied 
Buddhism  with  interest,  but  unfortunately  they  have  never  heard  of 
Mahayana.  They  too  hastily  concluded  that  the  true  doctrine  of  Buddhism 
is  Hinayana,  and  that  so-called  Mahayana  is  nothing  but  a  portion  of 
Indian  pure  philosophy.  They  are  wrong.  They  have  entirely  misunder¬ 
stood.  They  have  only  poorly  gained  with  their  scanty  knowledge  a  smat¬ 
tering  of  Buddhism.  They  are  entirely  ignorant  of  the  boundless  sea  of 
Buddha’s  doctrine  rolling  just  beneath  their  feet.  His  preaching  is  really 
so  great  that  the  famous  Chishadaishi  of  ancient  China  divided  it  into  five 
epochs  of  time  and  eight  teachings. 

Right  after  Buddha  attained  his  perfect  enlightenment  he  preached  that 
all  beings  have  the  same  nature  and  wisdom  with  him.  This  epoch  is 
called  Kegon. 

Then  he  preached  the  Hinayana  doctrine  of  four  Agons;  that  is  Cho 
Agon,  Chu  Agon,  Zo  Agon,  Zochi  Agon.  This  doctrine  is  divided  into  three 
classes,  namely,  Shomon,  Engaku,  and  Bosaku.  Buddha  preached  and 
taught  to  the  Shomon  class  of  his  followers  the  principle  of  four  glorious 
doctrines,  according  to  which  one  can  attain  Nirvana  of  Hinayana:  First, 
the  world  is  full  of  sufferings  and  miseries;  second,  superstitions  and  lusts 
come  one  after  another  and  induce  us  to  misconceive  birth  and  death;  third, 
the  way  of  attaining  Nirvana  is  to  get  rid  of  pains;  fourth,  calmness  and 
emptiness  is  the  profound  state  of  Nirvana. 

Next  he  preached  to  his  followers  of  the  Engaku  class  about  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  twelve  causes  and  conditions  of  human  mind,  which  follow  each 
other  continually  just  like  links  in  a  chain — sudden  appearance  of  idea, 
continuation  of  idea,  intellect,  uniting  of  intellect  and  body,  completion  of 
six  organs,  feeling,  retaining,  loving,  catching,  having  birth,  old  age,  and 
death.  In  this  class  one  is  also  able  to  attain  Nirvana  by  closely  pursuing 
the  course  of  mental  culture. 

Then  he  taught  six  glorious  behaviors  to  his  followers  of  the  Bosaku 
class,  by  which  man  becomes  Buddha,  such  as  charity,  good  behavior,  for¬ 
bearance,  diligence,  meditation,  comprehension.  These  three  teachings  of 
Agon  are  what  are  called  the  three  fundamental  principles  of  Hinayana. 

After  he  finished  the  teaching  of  Agon  he  began  to  preach  the  principle 
of  Yuima,  Shiyaku,  Eyoga,  Ryogon,  etc.  This  was  the  means  adopted  by 
him  to  lead  the  disciples  from  Hinayana  doctrine  to  Mahayana,  and  the 
time  is  called  the  Ho-do  epoch. 

Next  comes  the  epoch  of  Mahayana,  or  the  time  when  he  taught  the 
personality  of  wisdom,  that  it  is  perfectly  spiritual  and  entirely  colorless 


542 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


and  formless.  By  this  teaching  he  led  his  higher  disciples  to  comprehend 
the  constitution  of  the  spiritual  world. 

And  he  at  last  brought  his  disciples  to  the  highest  summit  of  his  doc¬ 
trine,  where  he  taught  the  perfect  principle  of  absolute  unity,  the  perfect 
enlightenment  of  true^  grand,  Nirvana.  This  epoch  is  called  the  time  of 
Hokke  and  Nehan  (or  Nirvana). 

These  five  epochs  are  so  arranged  according  to  the  development  of  the 
Shaka  Buddha's  preaching.  His  intention  is  simply  to  lead  his  followers 
into  the  glorious  stage  of  true  Nirvana,  so  he,  for  the  sake  of  convenience, 
temporarily  showed  the  truth  at  the  first,  and  then  proceeded,  step  by 
step,  to  the  absolutely  highest  truth. 

This  is  a  brief  explanation  of  the  five  epochs  of  Buddha’s  preaching. 
Now  let  me  speak  a  few  words  of  the  so-called  eight  teachings. 

First  comes  Ton,  that  is,  sudden,  and  it  is  a  teaching  for  the  persons 
who  have  a  quick  perception.  Second  comes  Zen,  that  is,  by  degrees,  and 
it  is  a  teaching  for  the  class  of  beings  who  can  only  develop  gradually,  step 
by  step.  Third  comes  Himitsu,  that  is  secret,  and  it  is  the  teaching  which 
does  not  correspond  to  either  of  Ton  or  Zen,  but  which  each  understand 
separately.  Fourth  comes  Fujo,  that  is,  unfixed,  and  it  is  the  teaching 
which  corresponds  to  both  Ton  and  Zen;  it  means  that  the  teaching  is  not 
limited  to  any  particular  class  at  all,  but  sometimes  it  is  for  the  beings  of 
gradual  progress,  or,  in  other  words,  it  preaches  as  the  case  might  demand. 
Fifth  comes  Zo,  that  is,  a  store,  and  it  is  the  teaching  of  three  collections 
of  principles,  law,  and  argument. 

Sixth  comes  Tsu,  that  is  correspondence,  and  it  is  the  preaching  which 
corresponds  with  those  three,  the  fifth,  the  seventh,  and  the  eighth.  Sev¬ 
enth  comes  Beku,  that  is  difference,  and  it  is  a  teaching  quite  different 
from  those  with  which  the  last  corresponds.  Eighth  comes  En,  that  is 
perfection,  and  it  is  the  teaching  of  perfect  absoluteness. 

Of  these  eight  teachings,  the  first  four  are  called  the  four  kinds  of 
teaching  manners,  while  the  last  four  are  called  the  four  kinds  of  teaching 
principle.  These  eight  teachings  are  the  doorway  through  which  the  Bud¬ 
dhists  enter  the  perfect  enlightenment. 

Daizokyo,  or  “  complete  work  of  Skaku  Buddha,”  is  really  a  wonderful 
store  of  truth.  Most  students  in  Buddhism  lose  their  courage  and  ambi¬ 
tion  at  the  first  glance  at  this  inexhaustible  fountain  of  the  truth,  so 
profound  in  meaning.  But  still  the  pleasure  once  felt  in  digesting  its 
meaning  can  never  be  forgotten,  and  will  naturally  lead  scholars  into 
deeper  and  deeper  parts  of  the  sea  of  spiritual  tranquility  and  calmness. 
They  will  at  once  understand  that  those  deep  problems  are  nothing  but 
symbols  of  grand  unity  which  is  perfectly  absolute  from  the  human  word. 
So,  shortly  before  closing  his  eyes,  Shaku  Buddha  said  :  “  I  have  never 
spoken  a  word  until  now,  since  I  attained  to  perfect  enlightenment.”  If 
you  understand  what  Shaku  said,  you  can  easily  see  the  greatness  of 
Buddha  or  his  attainment. 

I  am  not  an  orator,  neither  a  great  talker,  myself,  but  I  sincerely 
believe  that  your  characteristic  quick  perception  has  made  you  understand 
what  I  have  said  hitherto,  and  that  the  miscomprehension  you  had  about 
Buddha  or  Buddhism  has  been  cleared  off.  But  I  hope  you  will  not  stay 
there  satisfied  with  what  you  have  hitherto  understood.  Go  on,  my  dear 
brothers  and  sisters.  Keep  on,  and  you  will  at  last  succeed  in  crowning 
your  future  with  the  perfect  enlightenment.  It  is  for  your  own  sake. 
Nay,  not  only  for  your  own,  but  also  for  your  neighbors.  You  Occidental 
nations,  working  in  harmony,  have  wrought  out  the  civilization  of  the 
present  century,  but  who  will  it  be  that  establishes  the  spiritual  civiliza- 
'  tion  of  the  20th  century  ?  It  must  be  you. 

You  know  very  well  that  our  sun-rising  Island  of  Japan  is  noted  for  its 
beautiful  cherry-tree  flowers.  But  don’t  you  know  that  our  native  country 


BUDDHA. 


543 


is  also  the  kingdom  where  the  flowers  of  truth  are  blooming  in  great  beauty 
and  profusion  at  all  seasons  ?  Come  to  Japan.  Don’t  forget  to  take  with 
yc<u  the  truth  of  Buddhism.  Ah,  hail  the  glorious  spiritual  spring  day 
when  the  song  and  odor  of  truth  invite  you  all  out  to  our  country  for  the 
search  for  holy  paradise ! 

I  do  not  believe  it  totally  uninteresting  to  give  here  a  short  account  of 
our  Indo  Busseki  Kofuku  Society  of  Japan. 

The  object  of  this  society  is  to  restore  and  re-establish  the  holy  places  of 
Buddhism  in  India  and  to  send  out  a  certain  number  of  Japanese  priests 
to  perform  devotional  services  in  them,  and  promote  the  convenience  of  pil¬ 
grims  from  Japan.  These  holy  places  are  Buddha  Gaya,  where  Buddha 
attained  to  the  perfect  enlightenment;  Kapilavastu,  where  Buddha  was 
born;  the  Deer  Park,  where  Buddha  first  preached,  and  Kusinagara,  where 
Buddha  entered  Nirvana. 

Two  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twenty  years  ago — that  is,  1,026  years 
before  Christ — the  world  became  honored — Prince  Siddhartha  was  born  in 
the  palace  of  his  father,  King  Suddhodana,  in  Kapilavastu,  the  capital  of 
the  kingdom  Magadha.  When  he  was  nineteen  years  old  he  began  to  lament 
men’s  inevitable  subjection  to  the  various  sufferings  of  sickness,  old  age,  and 
death;  and,  discarding  all  his  precious  possessions  and  the  heirship  of  the 
kingdom,  he  went  into  a  mountain  jungle  to  seek,  by  meditation  and  ascet¬ 
icism,  the  way  of  escape  from  these  sufferings.  After  spending  six  years 
there,  and  finding  that  the  way  besought  was  not  in  asceticism,  he  went  out 
from  there  and  retired  under  the  Bodhi  tree  of  Buddha  Gaya,  where  at  Inst, 
by  profound  meditation,  he  attained  the  supreme  wisdom  and  became 
Buddha.  The  light  of  truth  and  mercy  began  to  shine  from  him  over  the 
whole  world,  and  the  way  of  perfect  emancipation  was  opened  for  all  human 
beings,  so  that  everyone  can  bathe  in  his  blessings,  and  walk  in  the  way  of 
enlightenment. 

When  the  ancient  King  Asoka  of  Magadha  was  converted  to  Buddhism, 
he  erected  a  large  and  magnificent  temple  over  the  spot  to  show  his  grati¬ 
tude  to  the  founder  of  his  new  religion. 

But,  sad  to  say,  since  the  fierce  Mohammedans  invaded  and  laid  waste 
the  country,  there  being  no  Buddhist  to  guard  the  temple,  its  possession 
fell  into  the  hand  of  a  &ahmanist  priest  who  chanced  to  come  there,  and 
seized  it. 

It  was  early  in  the  spring  of  1891  that  the  Japanese  priest.  Rev.  Shaku 
Kionen,  in  company  with  H.  Dharmapala  of  Ceylon  visited  this  holy 
ground.  The  great  Buddha  Gaya  Temple  was  carefully  repaired  and  re¬ 
stored  to  its  former  state  by  the  British  government,  but  they  could  not 
help  being  very  much  grieved  to  see  it  subjected  to  such  desecration  in 
the  hands  of  the  Brahmanist  Mahant,  and  communicated  to  us  their 
earnest  desire  to  rescue  it. 

With  warm  sympathy  for  them,  and  thinking,  as  Sir  Edwin  Arnold 
said,  that  it  is  not  right  for  Buddhists  to  leave  the  guardianship  of  the 
holy  center  of  a  Buddhist’s  religion  of  grace  to  the  hand  of  a  Brahmanist 
priest,  we  organized  this  Indo  Busseki  Kofuku  Society  in  Japan  to 
accomplish  the  object  above  mentioned,  in  co-operation  with  the  Maha 
Bodhi  Society,  organized  by  Mr.  H.  Dharmapala  and  other  Buddhist 
brothers  in  India. 

These  are  the  outlines  of  the  origin  and  object  of  our  Indo  Busseki 
Kofuku  Society;  and  I  believe  our  Buddha  Gaya  movement  will  bring 
people  of  all  Buddhist  countries  into  closer  connection  and  be  instrumental 
in  promoting  the  brotherhood  among  the  people  of  the  whole  world. 


544 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  SOCIAL  CONDITION. 

ALEXANDER  WEBB,  A  MOHAMMEDAN. 

One  of  the  greatest  mistakes  the  follower  of  any  religion  can  make  is 
to  form  and  express  a  positive  opinion  of  the  moral  effects  of  another 
religious  system  from  the  general  conduct  of  those  who  profess  to  follow  it, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  ignore  the  faults  and  weaknesses  of  those  who  are 
within  the  fold  of  his  own  faith.  It  is  unfortunate,  perhaps,  that  among 
the  masses  of  believers,  religious  prejudice  is  so  strong  as  to  prevent 
the  exercise  of  a  calm  and  just  discrimination  in  the  examination  of  an 
opposing  creed. 

It  would  be  neither  just  nor  truthful  to  assert  that  every  man  who 
lives  in  an  American  city,  town,  or  village  is  a  Christian  and  represents  in 
his  acts  and  words  the  natural  effects  of  Christian  teachings.  Nor  is  it 
fair  to  judge  the  Islamic  system  in  a  similar  manner,  and  yet  I  regret  to 
say  that  it  is  quite  generally  done  in  Europe  and  in  America.  There  are  in 
Asia  to-day  many  thousands  of  people  who  call  themselves  Mussulmans  and 
yet  who  have  a  no  more  truthful  conception  of  the  character  and  teachings 
of  Mohammed  than  they  have  of  the  habits  of  the  man  in  the  moon.  If  one 
or  a  dozen  of  these  should  commit  an  act  of  brutal  intolerance  or  fanati¬ 
cism  would  it  be  just  to  say  that  it  was  due  to  the  meritable  tendencies  of 
their  religion? 

There  are  several  reasons  why  Islam  and  the  character  of  its  followers 
are  so  little  understood  in  Europe  and  America,  and  one  of  these  is  that 
when  a  man  adopts,  or  says  he  adopts,  Islam  he  becomes  known  as  a  Mus¬ 
sulman  and  his  nationality  becomes  merged  in  his  religion.  As  soon  as 
a  Hindu  embraces  Islam  his  character  disappears. 

If  a  Mohammedan,  Turk,  Egyptian,  Syrian,  or  African  commits  a  crime 
the  newspaper  reports  do  not  tell  us  that  it  was  committed  by  a  Turk,  an 
Egyptian,  a  Syrian,  or  an  African,  but  by  a  Mohammedan.  If  an  Irishman, 
an  Italian,  a  Spaniard,  or  a  German  commits  a  crime  in  the  United  States 
we  do  not  say  that  it  was  committed  by  a  Catholic,  a  Methodist,  ora  Baptist, 
nor  even  a  Christian;  we  designate  the  man  by  his  nationality.  There  are 
thousands  of  men  in  the  prisons  of  our  country  whose  religious  belief,  if 
they  have  any,  is  rarely  or  never  referred  to.  We  do  not  refer  to  them  as 
Christians  simply  because  their  parents  attended  a  Christian  church,  or  they 
themselves  had  a  church  membership  at  some  time  in  the  remote  past.  But, 
just  as  soon  as  a  native  of  the  East  is  arrested  for  a  crime  or  misdemeanor, 
he  is  registered  as  a  representative  of  the  religion  his  parents  followed  or 
which  he  has  adopted. 

We  should  only  judge  of  the  inherent  tendencies  of  a  religious  system 
by  observing  carefully  and  without  prejudice  its  general  effects  upon  the 
character  and  habits  of  those  who  are  intelligent  enough  to  understand  its 
basic  principles,  and  who  publicly  profess  to  teach  or  follow  it.  If  we  find 
that  their  lives  are  clean  and  pure  and  full  of  love  and  charity,  we  may 
fairly  say  that  their  religion  is  good.  If  we  find  them  given  to  hypocrisy, 
dishonesty,  uncharitableness,  and  intolerance,  we  may  safely  infer  that 
there  is  something  wrong  with  the  system  they  profess. 

In  forming  our  estimate  of  a  religion  we  should  also  calmly  analyze  its 
fundamental  and  consider  the  racial  and  climatic  influences  that  surround 
its  followers,  as  well  as  their  national  habits  and  customs. 

I  take  it  that  we  all  desire  to  know  the  truth,  and  that  we  are  willing  to 
have  our  attention  called  to  the  fact  if  we  make  a  mistake  in  our  estimate 
of  our  neighbor’s  religion.  That  was  the  sentiment  that  possessed  me  ten 
years  ago,  when  I  began  the  study  of  the  Oriental  religions,  and  I  hope  that 
it  largely  influences  the  minds  of  all  who  hear  me  to-day. 

Another  of  the  most  potent  reasons  for  the  unfavorable  opinion  of  Islam 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  SOCIAL  CONDITION, 


545 


and  its  professed  followers  which  prevails  in  America  and  Europe  to-day,  is 
the  disposition  of  the  people  of  the  West  to  judge  the  people  of  the  East  by 
our  Western  standard  of  civilization.  We  of  the  West  believe  that  our 
wonderful  progress  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  the  perfection  of  those 
means  by  which  our  physical  comfort  and  pleasure  are  secured,  gives  us 
just  cause  to  feel  superior  to  those  who  doaiot  bask  in  the  sunshine  of  our 
19th-century  civilization.  In  a  general  way,  and  with  some  few  exceptions, 
perhaps,  we  consider  our  social  system  admirable,  and  jwhen  we  find  that 
many  Mohammedans,  Buddhists,  Plindus,  and  other  Eastern  people  do  not 
join  with  us  in  this  opinion,  we  console  ourselves  with  the  belief  that  it  is 
because  they  are  heathens  and  incapable  of  recognizing  and  appreciating  a 
good  thing  when  they  see  it.  It  would,  undoubtedly,  surprise  some  of  my 
hearers  to  know  what  many  of  the  more  intelligent  Mussulmans  and  Hin¬ 
dus  of  India  think  of  this  civilization  of  ours  of  which  we  are  so  proud. 

There  is  a  class  of  Mussulmans  and  Hindus  and  Buddhists  in  the  East, 
with  whom  the  Western  missionaries  rarely  come  in  contact,  and  when  they 
do  there  is  no  discussion  of  religious  doctrines,  because  these  “  heathens” 
have  learned  by  experience  that  it  is  worse  than  a  waste  of  time  to  argue 
over  such  matters;  but  generally  they  are  men  of  profound  learning,  who 
speak  English  as  fluently  as  they  do  the  Oriental  tongues,  and  who  are  well 
versed  in  all  the  known  systems  of  religion  and  philosophy.  It  will  prob¬ 
ably  surprise  many  people  here  to  know  that  nearly  all  the  more  intehi- 
gent  and  highly  educated  Mussulmans  of  India  are  quite  as  well  informed 
as  to  the  history  and  doctrines  of  the  other  religious  systems  as  they  are 
concerning  their  own. 

We  Mussulmans  firmly  believe  that  the  teachings  of  Moses,  Abraham, 
Jesus,  and  Mohammed  were  substantially  the  same;  that  the  followers  of 
each  truly  inspired  prophet  have  always  corrupted  and  added,  more  or  less, 
to  the  system  he  taught,  and  have  drifted  into  materialistic  forms  and 
ceremonies;  that  the  true  spirit  has  often  been  sacrificed  to  what  may,  per¬ 
haps,  be  called  the  weak  conceptions  of  fallible  humanity. 

In  order  to  realize  the  influence  of  Islam  upon  social  conditions,  and  to 
comprehend  and  appreciate  the  teachings  of  Mohammed,  his  whole  life  and 
apparent  motives  must  be  inspected  and  analyzed  carefully  and  without 
prejudice.  In  view  of  the  very  unsatisfactory  and  contradictory  nature  of 
much  that  has  been  written  in  English  concerning  him,  we  must  learn  to 
read  between  the  lines  of  so-called  hist:jy.  When  we  have  done  this  we 
will  find  that  the  .ethics  he  taught  are  Identical  with  those  of  every  other 
prominent  religious  system.  That  is  to  say,  he  presented  the  very  highest 
standard  of  morality,  established  a  system  of  worship  calculated  to  pro¬ 
duce  the  best  results  among  all  classes  of  his  followers,  and  made  aspira¬ 
tion  to  God  the  paramount  purpose  of  life. 

Like  every  other  truly  inspired  teacher,  he  showed  that  there  were 
two  aspects  or  divisions  of  the  spiritual  knowledge  he  had  acquired — one 
for  the  masses  who  were  so  thoroughly  occupied  with  the  aff air s'of  this 
world  that  they  had  only  a  very  small  portion  of  their  time  to  devote  to 
religion,  and  the  other  for  those  who  were*cai)able  of  comprehending  the 
higher  spiritual  truths  and  realized  that  it  was  better  to  lay  up  treasures 
for  the  life  to  come  than  to  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  this  world.  But  his 
purpose,  clearly,  was  to  secure  the  most  perfect  moral  results  by  methods 
applicable  to  ail  kinds  and  conditions  of  humanity. 

In  analyzing  the  hades  or  sayings  of  the  Prophet,  aside  from  the  Koran, 
we  should  always  bear  in  mind  the  social  conditions  prevalent  among  the 
Arabs  at  the  time  he  taught,  as  well  as  the  general  character  of  the  people. 
Presuming  that  Mohammed  was  truly  inspired  by  the  Supreme  Spirit,  it  is 
quite  reasonable  to  supjjose  that  he  used  quite  different  methods  of  bring¬ 
ing  the  truth  to  the  attention  of  the  Arabs  1,200  years  ago  than  he  would 
follow  before  an  audience  of  intelligent,  educated  people,  such  as  sits  before 
me,  in  this  19th  century. 


546 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Before  proceeding  further  I  desire  to  explain  that,  in  order  to  show 
clearly  the  influence  of  Islam  upon  social  conditions,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
make  some  comparisons  between  the  habits  and  customs  in  Mussulman 
communities  and  in  the  cities  and  towns  of  Europe  and  America,  where 
Christianity  is  the  prevailing  religion.  In  doing  this  I  have  no  intention 
to  reflect  upon  the  latter  nor  give  offense  to  any  of  its  followers.  My  pur¬ 
pose  is  to  show,  as  lucidly  and  distinctly  as  possible,  a  side  of  the  Islamic 
faith,  which  is  quite  familiar  to  my  fellow-countrymen,  and  which  is  the 
life  of  the  Moslem  social  fabric. 

There  are  a  number  of  objections  to  Islam  raised  by  Western  people 
which  I  would  like  to  reply  to  fully,  but  the  very  limited  time  allotted  to 
me  prevents  my  doing  so.  I  can  only  enter  a  general  denial  and  trust  to 
time  and  the  earnest,  honest  efforts  of  some  of  those  who  hear  me  to  prove 
the  truth  of  what  I  say.  Nearly,  if  not  quite  all,  the  objections  I  refer  to 
have  their  birth  and  growth  in  ignorance  of  the  vital  principles  of  Islam. 

The  chief  objection,  and  the  first  one  generally  made,  is  polygamy.  It 
is  quite  generally  believed  that  polygamy  and  the  Purdah,  or  exclusion  of 
females,  is  a  part  of  the^Islmaic  system.  This  is  not  true.  There  is  only 
one  verse  in  the  Koran  which  can  possibly  be  distorted  into  an  excuse  for 
polygamy,  and  that  is,  practically,  a  prohibition  of  it.  Only  the  other  day 
I  read  a  communication  in  a  church  newspaper,  written  by  a  well-known 
clergyman,  who  said  that  the  Koran  required  the  Sultan  of  Turkey  to  take 
a  new  wife  every  year.  There  is  no  such  requirement  in  the  Koran,  and 
what  surprised  me  most  was  that  such  an  intelligent,  well-educated  man  as 
the  writer  should  make  that  statement.  I  am  charitable  enough  to  admit 
that  he  made  it  through  ignorance.  I  never  met  but  two  Mussulmans  in 
my  life  who  had  more  than  one  wife.  There  is  nothing  in  the  sayings  of 
the  Prophet,  nor  in  the  Koran,  warranting  or  permitting  the  Purdah. 
During  the  life  of  the  Prophet,  and  the  early  caliphates,  the  Arabian  women 
went  abroad  freely,  and,  what  is  more,  were  honored,  respected,  and  fully 
I)rotected  in  the  exercise  of  their  rights  and  privileges. 

Islam  has  been  called  “  The  religion  of  the  sword,”  and  there  are  thou¬ 
sands  of  good  people  in  America  and  Europe  who  really  believe  that 
Mohammed  went  into  battle  with  the  sword  in  one  hand  and  the  Koran  in 
the  other.  This  is  rather  a  singular  charge  for  Christian  writers  to  make; 
but  they  do  make  it  and  very  inconsistently  and  unjustly,  too. 

The  truth  is  that  the  Prophet  never  encouraged  nor  consented  to  the 
propagation  of  Islam  by  force  and  the  Koran  plainly  forbids  it.  It  says: 

Let  there  be  no  forcing  in  religion;  the  right  way  has  been  made  clearly  dis¬ 
tinguishable  from  the  wrong  one.  If  the  Lord  has  pleased,  all  who  are  on  the 
earth  would  have  believed  together;  and  wilt  thou  force  men  to  be  believers? 

And  in  the  second  sura,  258th  verse,  it  says: 

Let  there  be  no  compulsion  in  religion.  Now  is  the  right  way  made  distinct 
from  error;  whoever,  therefore,  denieth  Yaghoot  (literally  error)  andbelieveth  in 
God  hath  taken  hold  on  a  strong  handle  that  hath  no  flaw.  And  God  is  Ho  who 
heareth,  knoweth. 

Our  Prophet  himself  was  as  thoroughly  non-aggressive  and  peace-loving 
as  the  typical  Shaker,  and,  while  he  realized  that  a  policy  of  perfect  non- 
resistance  would  speedily  have  resulted  in  the  murder  of  himself  and  every 
Mussulman  in  Arabia,  he  urged  his  followers  to  avoid,  as  far  as  possible, 
violent  collisions  with  the  unbelievers  and  not  to  fight  unless  it  was  neces¬ 
sary  in  order  to  protect  their  lives.  It  can  be  shown,  too,  that  he  never  in 
his  life  participated  in  a  battle  and  never  had  a  sword  in  his  hand  for  the 
purpose  of  killing  or  maiming  a  human  being. 

It  fias  been  charged  that  slavery  is  a  part  of  the  Islamic  system  in  the 
face  of  the  fact  that  Mohammed  discouraged  it,  and  the  Koran  forbids  it, 
making  the  liberation  of  a  slave  one  of  the  most  meritorious  acts  a  person 
can  perform.  But,  in  weighing  the  evidence  bearing  upon  this  subject,  w^ 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  SOCIAL  CONDITION, 


547 


should  never  loose  sight  of  the  social  and  political  conditions  prevalent  in 
Arabia  at  the  time  the  Prophet  lived  and  the  Koran  was  compiled. 

It  has  also  been  said  that  Mohammed  and  the  Koran  denied  a  soul  to 
woman  and  ranked  her  with  the  animals.  The  Koran  places  her  on  a  per¬ 
fect  and  complete  equality  with  man,  and  the  Prophet’s  teachings  often 
place  her  in  a  position  superior  to  the  males  in  some  respects.  Let  me 
read  you  one  passage  from  the  Koran  bearing  upon  the  subject.  It  is  the 
thirty-fifth  verse  of  the  thirty-third  sura; 

Truly  the  men  who  resign  themselves  to  God  (M-Oslems), 

And  the  women  who  resign  themselves, 

And  the  believing  men. 

And  the  believing  women, 

And  the  devout  men. 

And  the  devout  women. 

And  the  men  of  truth. 

And  the  women  of  truth, 

And  the  patient  men. 

And  the  patient  women. 

And  the  humble  men. 

And  the  humble  women. 

And  the  men  who  give  alms. 

And  the  women  who  give  alms. 

And  the  men  who  fast. 

And  the  women  who  fast. 

And  the  chaste  men. 

And  the  chaste  women. 

And  the  men  and  women  who  oft  remember  God, 

For  them  hath  God  prepared  forgiveness  and  a  rich  recompense. 

Could  anything  have  been  written  to  emphasize  more  forcibly  the  per¬ 
fect  equality  of  the  sexes  before  God?  The  property  rights  which  Ameri¬ 
can  women  have  enjoyed  for  only  a  few  years  have  been  enjoyed  by 
Mohammedan  women  for  1,200  years;  and  to-day  there  is  no  class  of  women 
in  the  world  whose  rights  are  so  completely  protected  as  those  of  the  Mus¬ 
sulman  communities. 

And  now,  having  endeavored  to  dispel  some  of  the  false  ideas  concern¬ 
ing  Islam,  which  have  been  current  in  this  country,  let  me  show  you  briefly 
what  it  really  is  and  what  its  natural  effects  are  upon  social  conditions. 
Stated  in  the  briefest  manner  possible,  the  Islamic  system  requires  belief 
in  the  unity  of  God  and  in  the  inspiration  of  Mohammed.  Its  pillars  of 
practice  are  physical  and  mental  cleanliness,  prayer,  fasting,  fraternity, 
alms-giving,  and  pilgrimage.  There  is  nothing  in  it  that  tends  to  immo¬ 
rality,  social  degradation,  nor  fanaticism.  On  the  contrary,  it  leads  on  to 
all  that  is  purest  and  noblest  in  the  human  character;  and  any  professed 
Mussulman  who  is  unclean  in  his  person  or  habits,  or  is  cruel,  untruthful, 
dishonest,  irreverent,  or  fanatical,  fails  utterly  to  grasp  the  meaning  of  the 
religion  he  professes. 

But  there  is  something  more  in  the  system  than  the  mere  teaching  of 
morality  and  personal  purity.  It  is  thoroughly  practical,  and  the  results, 
which  are  plainly  apparent  among  the  more  intelligent  Moslems,  show  how 
well  the  Prophet  understood  human  nature.  It  will  not  produce  the  kind 
of  civilization  that  we  Americans  seem  to  admire  so  much,  but  it  will  make 
a  man  sober,  honest,  and  truthful,  and  will  make  him  love  his  God  with  all 
his  heart  and  all  his  mind,  and  his  neighbor  as  himself. 

Every  Mussulman  who  has  not  become  demoralized  by  contact  with 
British  civilization  prays  five  times  a  day,  not  whenever  he  happens  to  feel 
like  it,  but  at  fixed  periods.  His  prayer  is  not  a  servile,  cringing  petition  for 
some  material  benefit,  but  a  hymn  of  praise  to  the  one  incomprehensible, 
unknowable  God.  the  omnipotent,  omniscient,  omnipresent  ruler  of  the 
universe.  He  does  not  believe  that  by  argument  and  entreaty  he  can  sway 
the  judgment  and  change  the  plans  of  God,  but,  with  all  the  force  of  his 
soul,  he  tries  to  soar  upward  in  spirit  to  where  he  can  gain  strength,  to  be 
|jure  and  good  and  holy  and  worthy  of  the  happiness  of  the  future  life*  His 


548 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


purpose  is  to  rise  above  the  selfish  pleasures  of  earth  and  strengthen  his 
spirit  wings  for  a  lofty  flight  when  he  is  at  last  released  from  the  body. 

Before  every  prayer  he  is  required  to  wash  his  face,  nostrils,  mouth, 
hands,  and  feet,  and  he  does  it.  During  youth  he  acquires  the  habit  of 
washing  himself  five  times  a  day,  and  this  habit  clings  to  him  through  life 
and  keeps  him  physically  clean.  He  comes  in  touch  with  his  religion  five 
times  a  day  in  a  manner  which  produces  results  proportionate  to  the  intel¬ 
ligence  and  spiritual  development  of  the  man.  His  religion  is  not  a  thing 
apart  from  his  daily  life,  to  be  put  on  once  a  week  and  thrown  aside  when 
it  threatens  to  interfere  with  his  business  or  pleasure.  It  is  a  fixed  and 
inseparable  part  of  his  existence  and  exerts  a  direct  and  potent  influence 
on  his  every  thought  and  act.  Is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  his  idea  of 
civilization  differs  from  that  of  the  West?  That  it  is  less  active  and  pro¬ 
gressive,  less  grand,  and  imposing,  and  dazzling,  and  noisy? 

I  will  confess  that  when  I  went  to  live  among  the  intelligent  Mussul¬ 
mans  I  was  astonished  beyond  measure  at  the  social  conditions  1  encoun¬ 
tered.  I  had  acquired  the  idea  that  prevailed  generally  in  this  country 
and  Europe,  and  was  prepared  to  find  the  professed  followers  of  Islam 
selfish,  treacherous,  untruthful,  intolerant,  sensual,  and  fanatical.  I  was 
very  agreeably  disappointed.  I  saw  the  practical  results  of  Islam  mani¬ 
fested  in  honesty,  truthfulness,  sobriety,  tolerance,  gentleness,  and  a  degree 
of  true  brotherly  love  that  was  a  surprise  to  me.  The  evils  that  we  Ameri¬ 
cans  complain  of  in  our  social  system — drunkenness,  prostitution,  marital 
infidelity,  and  cold  selfishness — were  almost  entirely  absent. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  only  Mussulmans  who  drink  whisky  and 
gamble  are  those  who  wear  European  clothing  and  imitate  the  appearance 
and  habits  of  the  Englishmen.  I  have  never  seen  a  drunken  Mussulman 
nor  one  who  carried  the  odor  of  whisky  or  beer  about  with  him.  But  I 
have  heard  that  some  of  those  who  have  become  Anglicized  and  have 
broken  away  from  the  Moslem  dress  and  customs  actually  do  drink  beer 
and  whisky  and  smoke  cigarettes. 

I  have  been  in  mosques  where  from  500  to  3,000  Mussulmans  were  gath¬ 
ered  to  pray,  and  at  the  conclusion  of  the  prayer  T  was  hemmed  in  by  a 
hundred  of  them  who  were  eager  to  shake  my  hand  and  call  me  their 
brother.  But  I  never  detected  those  disagreeable  odors  which  suggest  the 
need  of  extended  facilities  for  bathing.  I  have  repeatedly  called  this  fact 
to  mind  white  riding  on  the  elevated  railways  in  New  York,  and  in  two  or 
three  public  assemblages  in  London. 

Prostitution  and  marital  infidelity,  with  scandalous  newspaper  reports 
of  divorce  proceedings,  are  quite  impossible  in  a  Mussulman  community 
where  European  influences  have  no  foothold.  A  woman  toiling  over  a 
washtub  to  support  a  drunken  husband  and  several  children,  and  a  poor 
widow  with  her  little  ones  turned  into  the  streets  for  non-payment  of  rent 
are  episodes  that  never  occur  where  Islamic  laws  and  customs  prevail. 
Woman  takes  her  place  as  man’s  honored  and  respected  companion  and 
helpmeet,  and  is  the  mistress  of  her  home  whenever  she  is  disposed  to 
occupy  that  position.  Her  rights  are  accorded  to  her  freely. 

It  is  true  that  she  does  not  attend  public  balls  and  receptions,  wearing 
a  dress  that  some  people  might  consider  immodest,  and  waste  her  health 
and  jeopard  ice  her  marital  happiness  in  the  enervating  dance;  nor  does 
her  husband  do  so.  She  does  not  go  to  the  theater,  the  circus,  the  races, 
nor  other  public  gatherings  in  search  of  amusement,  but  finds  her  pleasure 
and  recreation  at  home  in  the  pure  atmosphere  of  her  husband's  and  chil¬ 
dren’s  love  and  the  peaceful,  refining  occupations  of  domestic  life.  Both 
she  and  her  husband,  as  well  as  their  children,  are  taught  and  believe 
that  it  is  better  to  retire  at  9,  just  after  the  prayer  of  the  day,  and  arise 
before  daybreak  and  say  the  morning  prayer  just  as  the  first  rays  of  the 
sun  are  gilding  the  eastern  horizon, 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  SOCIAL  CONDITION. 


549 


Another  feature  of  the  Islamic  social  life  that  has  impressed  me  is  the 
wtter  absence  of  practical  joking,  or  what  is  popularly  known  as  “guying.” 
There  is  little  or  no  sarcasm,  bitter  irony,  cruel  wit  among  the  Mussul¬ 
mans  calculated  to  cause  their  fellows  chagrin,  shame,  or  annoyance, 
wounding  the  heart  and  breaking  that  bond  of  loving  fraternity  which 
should  subsist  between  men.  The  almost  universal  disposition  seems  to  be 
to  cultivate  unselfishness  and  patience,  and  place  as  little  value  as  possible 
upon  the  things  of  this  world. 

In  the  household  of  the  true  Mussulman  there  is  no  vain  show,  no  labored 
attempt  to  follow  servilely  the  fashions,  including  furniture  and  ornaments, 
in  vogue  in  London  and  Paris.  Plainness  and  frugality  are  apparent  every¬ 
where,  the  idea  being  that  it  is  far  better  to  cultivate  the  spiritual  side  of 
our  nature  than  to  waste  our  time  and  money  trying  to  keep  up  appear¬ 
ances  that  we  hope  will  cause  our  neighbors  to  think  that  we  have  more 
money  than  we  really  have,  and  are  more  msthetic  in  our  tastes  than  we 
really  are. 

“  But,”  some  one  may  say,  “  what  about  the  story  that  a  Mussulman 
Vielieves  that  he  will  go  directly  to  Paradise  if  he  dies  while  trying  to  kill  a 
rihristian?  ” 

This  is  one  of  the  numerous  falsehoods  invented  by  enemies  of  the  truth 
to  injure  as  peaceful  and  non-aggressive  a  class  of  people  as  the  world  has 
ever  seen.  A  traveler  who  has  visited  nearly  all  the  Mohammedan  coun¬ 
tries  said  to  me  last  week:  “  I  would  rather  be  alone  in  the  dark  woods  and 
miles  away  from  a  town  with  one  hundred  Mussulmans  than  to  walk  half 
a  dozen  blocks  in  the  slums  of  an  English  or  American  city  after  dark.” 

He  also  told  me  that  while  he  was  on  a  steamer  at  Constantinople,  he 
gave  a  Turkish  boatman  a  lira,  or  about  $5  to  buy  him  some  fruit  and 
cigarettes.  The  English  passengers  laughed  at  his  credulity  and  assured 
him  that  he  would  never  see  his  lira  again.  But  just  as  the  anchor  was 
being  raised  the  boatman  returned  bringing  with  him  the  fruit  and  cigar¬ 
ettes  and  the  exact  change. 

In  April  last  a  lady  at  the  Dosbrosses  street  ferry  in  New  York  gave  her 
cloak  to  a  young  man  to  hold  while  she  purchased  her  ticket.  She  has  not 
seen  him  since. 

A  Mussulman,  if  he  is  hungry  and  has  no  lodging-place,  may  walk  into 
the  house  of  a  brother  Mussulman  and  be  sure  of  a  cordial,  hospitable  wel¬ 
come.  He  will  be  given  a  seat  at  the  frugal  meal  and  a  place  where  he  can 
spread  his  mat.  One  of  the  best  of  Islamic  social  customs  is  hospitality. 
Many  Mussulmans  are  glad  to  have  the  opportunity  to  give  a  home  and  food 
to  a*  poor  brother,  believing  that  God  has  thus  favored  them  with  the 
means  of  making  themselves  more  worthy  to  inherit  Paradise. 

The  greeting,  “  Assallam  Aleikum  ”  (Peace  be  with  thee),  and  the 
response,  “Aleikum  Salaam”  (With  thee  be  peace),  have  a  true  fraternal 
sound  in  them,  calculated  to  arouse  the  love  and  respect  of  anyone  who  hears 
them.  In  the  slums  of  our  American  cities  this  summer  there  were 
hundreds  of  hungry,  homeless  people,  while  hundreds  of  houses  in  the  fash¬ 
ionable  streets  were  closed  and  empty  and  their  owners  were  living  luxuri¬ 
ously  at  summer  resorts.  Such  a  state  of  affairs  would  be  impossible  in  a 
purely  Mussulman  community. 

I  have  seen  it  asserted  that  under  the  Islamic  system  a  high  state  of 
civilization  is  impossible.  Stanley  Lane-Poole  writes  as  follows : 

For  nearly  eight  centuries  under  her  Mohammedan  rulers  Spain  set  to 
all  Europe  a  shining  example  of  a  civilized  and  enlightened  state.  Her 
fertile  provinces,  rendered  doubly  prolific  by  the  industry  and  engineering 
skill  of  her  conquerors,  bore  fruit  in  a  hundred-fold.  Cities  innumerable 
sprang  up  in  the  rich  valleys  of  the  Guadalquiver  and  Guadiana,  whose 
names,  and  names  only,  still  commemorate  the  vanquished  glories  of  their 
past.  Art,  literature,  and  science  prospered  as  they  then  prospered  nowhere 


550 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


else  in  Europe  Students  flocked  from  France  and  Germany  and  England 
to  drink  from  the  fountains  of  learning  which  flowed  only  in  the  cities  of 
the  Moors.  The  surgeons  and  doctors  of  Andalusia  were  in  the  van  of 
science ;  women  were  encouraged  to  devote  themselves  to  serious  study, 
and  a  lady  doctor  was  not  unknown  among  the  people  of  Cordova.  Mathe¬ 
matics,  astronomy  and  botany,  philosophy  and  jurisprudence  were  to  be 
mastered  in  Spain  and  in  Spain  alone.  The  practical  work  of  the  fleld,  the 
scientiflc  methods  of  irrigation,  the  arts  of  fortification  and  ship-building, 
the  highest  and  most  elaborate  products  of  the  loom,  the  graver  and  the 
hammer,  the  potter’s  wheel  and  the  mason’s  trowel  were  brought  to  per¬ 
fection  by  Spanish  lords.  In  the  practice  of  war,  no  less  than  in  the  arts 
of  peace,  they  long  stood  supreme.  Whatsoever  makes  a  kingdom  great 
and  prosperous,  whatsoever  tends  to  refinement  and  civilization  was  found 
in  Moslem  Spain. 

And  what  has  become  of  this  grand  civilization,  traces  of  which  we  still 
see  in  some  of  the  Spanish  cities  and  the  splendid  architecture  of  the  Mogul 
emperors  of  India?  It  is  to  be  seen  here  in  Chicago  and  in  wherever  there 
is  a  manifestation  of  materialistic  progress  and  enlightenment. 

So  long  as  the  pure  teachings  of  the  Prophet  were  followed  the  Moslem 
development  was  pure  and  healthy  and  much  more  stable  and  admirable 
than  the  gaudy  materialism  that  finally  developed  and  brought  with  it  utter 
ruin.  True  civilization — a  civilization  based  upon  purity,  virtue  and  fraternal 
love — is  the  kind  of  civilization  that  exists  to-day  among  the  better  classes 
of  Mussulmans,  and  brings  with  it  a  degree  of  contentment  and  happiness 
unknown  amid  the  tumult  of  the  Western  social  system. 

The  devout  Mussulman,  one  who  has  arrived  at  the  intelligent  compre¬ 
hension  of  the  true  teachings  of  the  Prophet,  lives  in  his  religion  and 
makes  it  the  paramount  principle  of  his  existence.  It  is  with  him  in  all  his 
goings  and  the  comings  during  the  day  and  he  is  never  so  completely  occu¬ 
pied  with  his  business  or  worldly  affairs  that  he  can  not  turn  his  back  upon 
them  when  the  stated  hour  of  prayer  arrives  and  present  his  soul  to  God, 
His  love,  his  sorrows,  his  hopes,  his  fears  are  all  immersed  in  it— it  is  his 
last  thought  when  he  lies  down  to  sleep  at  night  and  the  first  to  enter  his 
mind  at  dawn,  when  the  voice  of  the  muezzin  sings  out  loudly  and  clearly 
from  the  minaret  of  the  mosque,  waking  the  soft  echoes  of  the  morn  with 
its  thrilling,  solemn,  majestic  monotones:  “  Come  to  prayer;  prayer  is  better 
than  sleep.” 


CHRISTIANITY  AS  A  SOCIAL  FORCE. 

PROF.  RICHARD  T.  ELY  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

Christianity  is  a  social  force  above  everything  else.  Its  social  char¬ 
acter  is  a  distinguishing  feature  of  Christianity.  Other  religions  are  also 
social  forces,  but  it  strikes  me  that  in  the  degree  to  which  Christianity 
carries  its  social  nature  we  have  one  of  its  essential  peculiarities. 

He  who  would  understand  Christianity  must  begin  with  a  consideration 
of  Judaism.  While,  as  a  general  principle,  this  is  admitted  by  all,  it  is 
overlooked  by  many  in  their  treatment  of  the  social  doctrines  of  Christian¬ 
ity.  Judaism  was  a  social  force  which  worked  chiefly  within  national 
boundaries,  and  its  aim  within  the  nation  was  to  establish  an  ideal  common¬ 
wealth,  in  which  neither  pauperism  nor  plutocracy  should  be  known.  But 
we  may  go  even  further  and  say  that  it  was  the  avowed  aim  that  Israel 
should  be  kept  free  from  both  poverty  and  riches.  “  Give  me  neither  pov¬ 
erty  nor  riches.  Peed  me  with  food  convenient  for  me,  lest  I  be  full  and 
deny  Thee,  and  say,  who  is  the  Lord?  or  lest  I  be  i)oor  and  steal  and  take 
the  name  of  my  God  in  vain.”  This  prayer  of  Agur  is  simply  an  expression 


CHRISTIANITY  AS  A  SOCIAL  FORCE. 


551 


of  a  national  ideal  never  fully  attained,  but  never  forgotten  by  noble  souls 
in  Israel.  Every  revival  of  pure  religion  meant  an  effort  to  reach  this  ideal 
of  national  life.  The  prophets  were  great  social  reformers  who  voiced  the 
yearning  cry  of  the  nation  for  righteous  social  relations.  The  Jewish  law, 
differing  from  the  Roman  codes  of  the  Western  World,  was  not  chiefly  neg¬ 
ative  and  repressive,  but  positive  and  constructive.  It  perpetually 
commanded  “Thou  shalt,”  as  well  as  “Thou  shalt  not.”  It  was  to  the 
weak  a  bulwark  and  to  the  oppressed  a  stronghold;  to  assaulted  feebleness 
a  fortress;  for  all,  in  time  of  distress,  a  refuge.  It  was  thus  that  Israel 
found  the  law  a  delight.  It  is  the  social  law  of  which  we  speak,  and  not 
the  ceremonial  law.  The  true  Jewish  priest  and  prophet  regarded  right¬ 
eousness  which  did  not  include  a  brotherly  aim  as  but  filthy  rags.  All  the 
legislation  of  Moses  had  in  view  the  development  of  a  national  brotherhood, 
and,  as  a  means  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  end,  it  aimed  to  prevent  the 
separation  of  Israel  into  widely  separated  social  classes.  Economic  extremes 
in  conditions  were  dreaded,  and  to  produce  equality  of  opportunity  was  the 
desire  of  every  true  Hebrew  leader.  Facilities  for  the  development  of 
the  faculties  of  all  naturally  followed  from  the  faithful  application  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Mosaic  legislation.  At  the  same  time  the 
Hebrew  commonwealth  was  never  designed  to  be  a  pure  democracy.  An 
aristocratic  element  was  favored,  because  it  was  endeavored  to  secure  the 
leadership  of  the  wise  and  gifted,  and  obedience  to  this  leadership  was 
enjoined  on  ail.  Sedition  and  rebellion  were  regarded  as  crimes.  Equality 
of  all  in  faculties  and  in  fitness  for  government  were  absurdities  not  enter¬ 
tained. 

The  time  is  too  limited  to  allow  a  description  of  the  fundamental  social 
institutions  in  the  ideal  Hebrew  commonwealth,  and  it  can  scarcely  be 
necessary,  as  they  will  occur  to  all.  The  provisions  relating  to  land  and 
interest  were  perhaps  the  most  important  features  of  the  social  legislation 
of  Moses.  The  land  belonged  to  the  Almighty,  and  it  was  held  by  the 
children  of  Israel  under  strictly  limited  tenure.  It  was  a  trust  designed 
to  afford  provision  for  each  family.  It  could  by  no  means  be  monopolized 
without  an  infraction  of  the  fundamental  law,  and  such  a  thing  as  modern 
speculation  in  land  violated  the  conditions  of  the  land  tenure.  The  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  land  was  to  furnish  a  sbusistence  and  to  promote  the  acquisi¬ 
tion  of  a  competence — but  by  no  means  of  a  great  fortune. 

The  laws  regulating  interest  were  even  more  radical.  Interest  was  not 
forbidden  by  Moses  because  he  failed  to  understand  the  truisms  iterated 
and  reiterated  by  the  Manchester  men,  who  fancy  themselves  far  wiser 
than  this  greatest  of  legislators,  but  because  the  receipt  of  interest  would 
have  militated  against  the  fundamental  social  purposes  which  Moses 
desired  to  accomplish.  It  is,  of  course,  conceded  that  conditions  were  dif¬ 
ferent  at  that  time,  and  that  capital  in  the  modern  sense  hardly  existed. 
But,  altogether  apart  from  this,  it  is  true  that  Moses  wished  property  to  be 
used  for  mutual  helpfulness.  Eoans  were  to  be  made  to  assist  a  brother, 
and  not  for  the  sake  of  gain.  “Thou  shalt  open  thine  hand  wide  to  thy 
brother,  to  thy  poor  and  thy  needy  in  thy  land.”  At  least  two  things  were 
evidently  dreaded  in  the  taking  of  interest.  The  growth  of  inequality 
among  them  and  the  opportunity  it  afforded  for  economic  gain  without 
direct  personal  exertion. 

The  regulations  concerning  slavery  were  also  aimed  at  these  dangers, 
and  in  them  we  And  the  enunciation  of  the  truth  that  private  property 
exists  for  social  purposes.  The  institution  of  slavery  was  relatively  mild 
among  the  Hebrews,  and  provision  was  made  for  the  release  of  the  Hebrew 
bondman  and  bondwoman  after  a  brief  period  of  service.  The  foreigner 
was  excluded  from  this  brotherhood,  and  even  when  kind  treatment  of  the 
stranger  is  enjoined,  he,  after  all,  is  regarded  as  one  separated  from  the 
range  of  complete  ethical  obligation. 


552 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Jesiis  came  with  an  avowed  determination  to  do  two  things — to  break 
down  the  ceremonial  law,  which  confined  within  narrow  limits  the  circle  of 
brotherhood,  rendering  it  merely  national,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  extend 
to  universality  the  benefits  of  the  social  law  of  Moses.  And  it  was  of  this 
law  that  He  said  not  one  jot  or  tittle  should  pass  away  until  all  should  be 
fulfilled.  Jesus  did  not  proclaim  Himself  the  Son  of  Abraham,  which  would 
have  implied  national  brotherhood,  but  the  Son  of  Man,  which  implied 
brotherhood  as  wide  as  humanity.  He  was  not,  first  of  all,  an  Israelite,  but 
a  man.  Who  was  the  neighbor?  is  a  question  answered  in  the  parable  of 
the  Good  Samaritan,  which  enforces  the  lesson  that  any  and  every  man, 
whenever  and  wherever  found,  is  'a  brother. 

Christianity,  then,  as  a  social  force,  seeks  to  universalize  the  socio-eco- 
nomical  institutions  of  the  Jews.  But  it  must  be  remembered  in  this  con¬ 
nection  that  it  is  the  letter  that  killeth,  but  the  spirit  which  giveth  life. 
The  exact  law  of  Moses  respecting  land  and  interest,  for  example,  can  not 
be  reproduced  in  modern  society.  But  all  who  profess  allegiance  to  Christ 
must  endeavor  to  universalize  their  spirit.  The  church  is  a  universal  anti¬ 
poverty  society,  or  she  is  false  to  her  Pounder.  It  is  hoped  ihat  I  will  not  be 
misunderstood  in  saying  that  she  also  stands  for  anti-millionairism,  because 
extremes  are  subversive  of  brotherhood. 

Christianity,  on  the  other  hand,  favors  the  development  of  the  most 
diverse  social  institutions  and  the  development  of  a  grand  public  life, 
because  these  mean  fraternity.  What  is  private  separates;  what  is  public 
draws  together.  Art  galleries,  for  example,  when  private,  mean  withdrawal 
and  withholding  the  products  of  the  mind  of  man,  while  public  art  galler¬ 
ies  signify  public  uses  of  that  which  is  essentially  public  in  its  nature.  As 
a  social  force,  Christianity  favors  private  frugality  and  generous  public 
expenditures.  We  may  express  all  this  and  something  more  in  the  state¬ 
ment  that  Christianity  means  social  solidarity,  or  it  means  nothing.  When 
the  founder  of  Christianity  said  He  was  the  Son  of  Man,  He  at  the  same 
time  proclaimed  social  solidarity.  Social  solidarity  means  the  recognition 
of  the  identity  of  all  human  interests,  and,  truly  understood,  it  promotes 
the  identification  of  oneself  with  humanity.  Fullness  of  life  in  every  depart¬ 
ment  must  be  sought  in  human  society.  Wealth,  art,  music,  literature, 
religion,  even  language  itself,  are  all  social  products.  What  Christianity 
teaches  in  this  respect  social  science,  rightly  understood,  teaches  also.  Iso¬ 
lated  life  means  material  poverty  and  the  absence  of  intellectual  achieve¬ 
ments.  Man  becomes  great  only  when  humanity  moves  within  him. 
Art  is  great  only  when  it  is  an  expression  of  the  social  life.  Master¬ 
pieces  of  art  were  exposed  on  the  highways  of  a  nation  able  to  appreciate 
them.  Literature  makes  epochs  when  in  a  writer  the  national  life  pul¬ 
sates  and  through  him  the  nation  speaks.  Morality  finds  its  source  and  its 
sanction  in  society  and  it  is  re-enforced  by  the  commands  of  the  Almighty. 

Individualism,  as  ordinarily  understood,  is  anti-Christian,  because  it 
means  social  isolation  and  disintegration.  Individual  liberty,  as  frequently 
proclaimed,  means  the  right  of  one  man  to  injure  others  to  the  full  extent 
of  his  capacity  and  resources.  The  claim  to  this  liberty  (which  is  not  lib¬ 
erty  at  all  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word)  is  anti-Christian.  Individual 
salvation,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word,  is  an  impossibility,  because  it 
implies  a  denial  of  that  which  is  fundamental  in  Christianity. 

Christianity  has  been  distinguished  in  the  World’s  Parliament  of  Relig¬ 
ions  into  true  and  false — and  this  is  well.  There  is  false  Christianity,  which 
may  be  termed  anti-Christ — for  if  there  is  any  anti-Christ  it  is  this — which  has 
brought  reproach  on  the  name  of  Christianity  itself.  It  is  this  false  Christian¬ 
ity  which  fails  to  recognize  the  needs  of  others,  and  centers  itself  on  individ¬ 
ual  salvation,  neglecting  what  the  Apostle  J ames  called  “  Pure  and  undefiled 
religion,”  namely,  ministration  to  one’s  fellows.  The  social  life  of  this  land 
of  ours  would  proclaim  the  value  of  Christianity,  if  it  could  in  its  true 


CHRISTIANITY  AS  A  SOCIAL  FORCE. 


553 


sense  be  called  a  Christian  land.  But  we  can  not  be  called  such  a  land- 
We  do  not  attempt  to  carry  out  the  principles  of  fraternity,  and  any  claim 
that  we  do  is  mere  ignorance  or  pretense — hypocrisy  of  the  kind  condemned 
by  Christ  in  the  strongest  language.  It  does  not  avail  us  to  make  long 
prayers  while  we  neglect  widows  and  orphans  in  need.  He  who  did  this  in 
the  time  of  Christ,  violated  the  principles  of  national  brotherhood.  He 
who  does  so  now  violates  the  principles  of  universal  brotherhood. 

Shall  a  land  be  called  Christian  which  slaughters  human  beings  need¬ 
lessly  by  the  thousand  rather  than  introduce  improvements  in  railway 
transportation  simply  because  they  cost  money?  That  is  exalting  material 
things  above  human  beings.  Shall  a  city  like  Chicago  be  called  Christian, 
maintaining  its  grade  crossings  and  killing  innocent  persons  by  the  hun¬ 
dred  yearly,  simply  because  it  would  cost  money  to  elevate  its  railway 
tracks?  To  make  the  claim  for  our  country  that  it  is  a  Christian  land  is  a 
cruel  wrong  to  Christianity.  If  we  were  animated  by  the  spirit  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  we  would  do  away  at  the  earliest  moment  with  such  abuses  as 
these  and  others  which  daily  in  factory  and  workshop  maim  and  mutilate 
men,  women,  and  children. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  be  honest  with  ourselves  in  order  to  answer  ques¬ 
tions  which  arise  in  this  connection.  If  any  one  individual  before  me 
knew  that  he  himself,  or  his  mother,  we  will  say,  would  be  horribly  muti¬ 
lated  or  crushed  to  death  in  case  some  needed  improvements  in  an  indus¬ 
trial  establishment  or  on  a  railway  were  not  introduced  within  six  months, 
how  he  would  bestir  himself  to  have  these  improvements  introduced! 
But  we  complacently  fold  our  hands  because  some  one  else,  or  perhaps  the 
mother  of  some  one  else,  will  suffer  a  horrible  death.  Thousands  will  die 
needlessly  a  cruel  death  within  the  next  six  months.  Who  will  be  those 
thousands? 

Christianity  as  a  social  force  stands  for  progress.  It  has  been  a  char¬ 
acteristic  of  religions  to  give  minute  directions  for  the  formation  of  the 
social  life  of  the  nation.  These  minute  directions  and  detailed  specifica¬ 
tions  have,  doubtless,  in  many  instances,  promoted  brotherhood,  for  the 
time  being,  at  least,  but  not  providing  for  changes  they  have  later  retarded 
progress.  As  Christ  established  a  universal  brotherhood  He  could  not 
even  for  any  one  time  promulgate  a  social  code,  and  still  less  could  He  pre¬ 
scribe  legislation  for  all  time.  He  gave  the  spirit,  however,  to  which  the 
legislation  of  every  country  and  every  time  should  seek  to  conform,  and  He 
established  a  goal  far  in  advance  of  the  men  of  the  time,  and  inspiring  all 
true  followers  with  a  desire  to  reach  this  goal  and  strengthening  them  in 
their  efforts  to  attain  it.  He  gave  an  impulse  which  can  never  fail  to  make 
for  progress  so  long  as  society  exists. 

Christianity  as  a  social  force  makes  not  only  for  progress  but  for 
peaceful  progress,  which,  in  the  end,  is  the  most  rapid  and  secure 
progress.  He  encouraged  patience  and  long  suffering  along  with  tireless 
effort  and  dauntless  courage.  Christianity  carries  with  it  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  word  an  aristocracy.  Rulership  was  recognized  and  obedience  to 
constituted  authority  taught  as  a  Christian  duty.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
all  kings  and  rulers  of  men  were  taught  that  they  held  their  offices  from 
God  as  a  sacred  trust.  We  all  know  the  parable  of  the  talents,  and  its 
interpretation  is  clear.  All  mental  and  physical  strength  and  all  material 
resources  are  to  be  used  not  for  oneself  but  for  the  promotion  of  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  all  humanity.  Inequalities  in  attainment  were  implicitly  recog¬ 
nized,  but  inequality  was  thus  to  be  made  an  instrument  of  progress. 
Ignorance  finds  support  in  the  wisdom  of  the  wise;  strength  is  debtor  to 
weakness.  Perhaps  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  of  Christ  in  this  respect  has 
not  been  better  expressed  by  anyone  than  by  the  French  socialist,  Louis 
Blanc,  who  says: 


554 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OP  RELIGIONS. 


Man  has  received  of  nature  certain  faculties— faculties  of  loving,  of  knowing, 
of  acting.  But  these  have  by  no  means  been  given  him  in  order  that  he  sliould 
exercise  them  solitarily ;  they  are  but  for  the  supreme  indication  of  that  which 
each  one  owes  to  the  society  of  which  he  isi  a  member;  and  this  indication  each 
one  bears  vvritten  in  his  organization  in  letters  of  fire.  If  you  are  twice  as  strong 
as  your  neighbor,  it  is  a  proof  that  nature  has  destined  you  to  bear  a  double 
burden.  If  your  intelligence  is  superior,  it  is  a  sign  that  your  mission  is  to 
scatter  about  your  light.  Weakness  is  a  creditor  of  strength;  ignorance  of  learn¬ 
ing.  The  more  a  man  can,  the  more  he  ought;  and  this  is  the  meaning  of  those 
beautiful  words  of  the  gospel :  “  Whoever  will  be  chief  among  you.  let  him  be  your 
servant.”  Hence  the  axiom,  from  every  one  according  to  his  faculties;  that  is 
one’s  duty. 

We  may  thus  say  that  Christianity  as  a  social  force  stands  for  the  con¬ 
servation  of  energy.  It  seeks  the  utilization  of  all  human  power  for  the 
advancement  of  the  welfare  of  man,  and  it  tends  to  preserve  the  achieve¬ 
ments  of  the  past  because  it  means  peaceful  progress.  It  may  be  thus 
said  that  Christianity  stands  for  progress  emphatically,  but  for  conserv¬ 
ative  progress. 

Christianity  means  a  mighty  transformation  and  turning  of  things 
upside  down,  and  while  it  seeks  to  bring  about  the  most  radical 
changes  in  peace,  it  has  forces  within  it  which  nothing  can  withstand  and 
resistance  to  which  is  sure  to  result  in  revolutionary  violence.  It  is  thus 
that  Christ  said  he  came  to  bring  not  peace,  but  a  sword — signifying  the 
opposition  of  malevolence  to  social  progress;  yet  a  fruitless  opposition,  for 
in  the  end  the  peace  of  Christ  must  triumph. 

We  can  imagine  Christ  amongius  to-day,  pointing,  as  of  old,  to  our  great 
temples  and  warning  us  that  the  time  will  come  when  one  stone  of  them 
shall  not  rest  upon  another.  We  can  imagine  Christ  pointing  to  our  grade 
crossings,  and  to  our  link  and  pin  couplers,  covered  with  the  blood  of  muti¬ 
lated  brakemen,  and  crying  out  to  us:  “  Woe  unto  you,  hypocrites,  ye  do 
these  things,  and  for  a  pretense  make  long  prayers.”  We  can  also  imagine 
Him  summoning  before  our  vision  the  thousands  who  have  lost  their  limbs 
in  needless  industrial  accidents,  and  pointing  to  the  hospitals  to  relieve 
them,  and  the  charities  to  furnish  them  with  artificial  limbs,  and  again 
uttering  His  terrible  maledictions:  “  Woe  unto  you,  hypocrites!  ”  We  can 
also  imagine  Him  in  His  scathing  denunciations  and  heart-searching  ser¬ 
mons  opening  our  eyes  to  our  social  iniquities  and  shortcomings,  and  calling 
to  mind  the  judgment  to  come  in  which  reward  or  penalty  shall  be  vis¬ 
ited  upon  us,  either  as  we  have  or  have  not  ministered  to  those  who  needed 
our  ministrations — the  hungry,  the  naked,  the  prisoner,  and  the  captive. 
The  reward:  “  Come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inasmuch  as  ye  have  done 
it  unto  the  least  of  these  ye  have  done  it  unto  me;  ”  the  penalty:  “  Inas¬ 
much  as  ye  have  not  done  it  unto  the  least  of  these — depart  from  me.” 


WHAT  JUDAISM  HAS  DONE  FOR  WOMAN. 

MISS  HENRIETTA  SZOLD. 

Briefly,  the  whole  education  conferred  by  Judaism  lies  in  the  principle 
that  it  did  not  assign  to  woman  an  exceptional  position;  yet,  by  taking 
cognizance  of  the  exceptional  position  assigned  to  woman  by  brute  force, 
or  occupied  by  her  on  account  of  her  physical  constitution  and  natural 
duties,  Judaism  made  that  education  effectual  and  uninterrupted  in  its 
effects.  It  would,  indeed,  be  possible  to  begin  with  our  own  Emma 
Lazarus,  distinguished  for  gifts  alike  of  heart  and  brain,  and  pass  upward 
through  history,  mounting  from  Jewish  woman’s  achievement  to  Jewish 
woman’s  achievement,  our  path  marked  by  poetesses,  martyrs,  scholars, 
queens,  and  prophetesses,  until  we  reach  the  wilds  of  our  patriarchs.  Yet, 
by  these  last  only  may  we  hope  to  be  taught  about  Jewish  women.  In 


WHAT  JUDAISM  HAS  DONE  FOR  WOMAN. 


555 


Jewish  history,  as  in  that  of  the  rest  of  mankind,  leaders  in  politics,  i-n 
thought,  in  spiritual  endeavor,  are  only  milestones.  They  but  indicate  the 
categories  of  phenomena  that  deserve  attention.  Nor  do  I  conceive  that 
it  would  be  a  help  to  dwell  upon  the  acknowledged  virtues  of  the  modern 
Jewish  women,  which  shine  out  upon  us  from  the  darkness  of  medieval 
prejudice  and  glorify  the  humblest  home  of  the  Jew  in  squalid  ghetto. 
That  has  been  fulsomely  treated.  We  wish  to  know,  as  it  were,  the  ancestry 
of  such  steadfast,  incorruptible  virtue.  Moreover,  Judaism  is  so  compact 
a  system  that  it  is  hazardous  to  speak  of  any  kind  of  faith.  By  reason  of 
its  conservatism  it  requires  more  inexorability  than  any  other  system.  Our 
question  calls  for  the  spiritual  data  about  the  typical  woman  whom  Juda¬ 
ism  has  prepared  for  19th-century  work.  To  discover  them  we  must  go 
back  to  1,900  years  ago,  to  the  women  of  the  time  of  Abraham. 

Abraham  stands  out  in  the  historic  picture  of  mankind  as  the  typical 
father.  He  it  was  of  whom  it  was  known  that  he  would  command  his 
children  and  his  household  after  him  that  they  should  keep  the  way  of  the 
Lord,  to  do  righteousness  and  justice.  What  was  Sarah’s  share  in  this 
paramount  work  of  education?  Ishmael  was  to  be  removed  in  order  that 
Isaac,  the  disciple  of  righteousness  and  justice,  might  not  be  lured  away 
from  the  way  of  the  Lord.  In  connection  with  this  plan,  wholly  educa¬ 
tional  in  its  aims,  it  is  enjoined  upon  Abraham,  “  In  all  that  Sarah  may 
say  unto  thee,  hearken  unto  her  voice.” 

The  next  generation  again  illustrates,  not  the  sameness  in  function,  but 
equality  in  position  of  man  and  woman.  Isaac  and  Rebecca  differ  in  their 
conception  of  educational  discipline  and  factors.  But  Rebecca,  more  ener¬ 
getic  than  her  husband,  follows  up  sentiment  and  perception  with  prac¬ 
tical  action.  She  makes  effectual  her  conviction  that  mankind  will  be 
blessed  through  the  gentleness  of  Jacob,  while  Esau’s  rule  means  relapse 
into  barbarism. 

From  the  trend  of  the  story  we  may  infer  that  there  must  have  been 
much  unwholesome  discussion  between  father  and  mother  about  the  com¬ 
parative  merits  of  the  two  favorites,  and  the  methods  of  bringing  up  chil¬ 
dren  in  general.  There  in  an  echo  in  Rebecca’s  plaint:  “  I  am  weary  of  my 
life,  because  of  the  daughters  of  Heth,”  whom  Esau  had  married.  “  If 
Jacob,”  she  continues,  “  takes  a  wife  from  the  daughters  of  Heth  such  as 
these,  from  the  daughters  of  the  land,  what  good  will  life  do  me?”  And 
although  we  are  told  earlier  in  the  narrative  that  the  wives  of  Esau  “were 
a  grief  of  mind  unto  Isaac  and  to  Rebecca,”  it  is  only  after  he  has  been 
prodded  by  his  wife’s  words  that  Isaac  charges  Jacob,  “  Thou  shalt  not 
take  a  wife  from  the  daughters  of  Canaan.”  Finally,  whatever  may  ha,e 
been  the  difference  of  opinion  between  them  in  regard  to  their  children’s 
affairs,  before  their  children  father  and  mother  are  completely  at  one,  for 
when  the  first  suspicion  of  displeasure  comes  to  Esau  it  reaches  him  in 
Isaac’s  name  alone.  We  are  told  that  “then  saw  Esau  that  the  daughters 
of  Canaan  were  evil  in  the  eyes  of  Isaac,  his  father.  (Gen.  xxviii.,  6.)  Isaac, 
the  executive,  had  completely  adopted  the  tactics  of  Rebecca,  the  advisory 
branch  of  the  government. 

The  scene,  moreover,  is  remarkable  by  the  fact  that  we  are  shown  the 
first  social  innovator,  the  first  being  to  act  contrary  to  tradition  and  the 
iron-bound  customs  of  society.  Rebecca  refuses  to  yield  to  birth  its  rights, 
in  a  casein  which  were  involved  the  higher  considerations  of  the  guardian¬ 
ship  of  truth.  And  this  reformer  was  a  traditionally  conservative  woman. 
Rebecca  is,  indeed,  the  most  individual  of  the  women  of  patriarchal  days, 
both  in  her  feminine  aftractions  and  inner  womanly  earnestness.  To  her 
strong  character,  it  is  doubtless  due,  that  Isaac  became  a  strict  monoga¬ 
mist,  thus,  perhaps,  making,  by  the  side  of  Abraham’s  and  Jacob’s  numerous 
additions  to  civilization’s  work,  his  sole  positive  contribution  to  its  advance. 

Such  are  the  ideals  of  equality  between  man  and  woman  that  have 


55(3 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


come  down  to  us  from  the  days  of  the  patriarchs.  We  hear  of  the  motners 
of  the  greatest  men,  of  Yochebed,  the  mother  o2  Moses,  and  of  Hannah, 
the  mother  of  Samuel,  and  the  sole  director  of  his  earthly  career.  We 
still  read  of  fathers  and  mothers,  acting  in  equal  conjunction,  as  in  the  dis¬ 
astrous  youth  of  Samson.  The  law  ranges  them  together;  “If  a  man 
have  a  stubborn  and  rebellious  son,  who  hearkeneth  not  to  the  voice  of  his 
father,  or  the  voice  of  his  mother,  and  they  chastise  him,  and  he  will  not 
hearken  unto  them,  then  shall  his  father  and  his  mother  lay  hold  on  him.” 
(Deut.  xxi.,  18, 19.)  It  is  sufficient  to  indicate  a  king’s  evil  character  to  say : 
“  For  a  daughter  of  Ahab  had  he  for  a  wife  ”  (II.  Kings  viii.,  18),  attesting 
abundantly  a  wife’s  influence,  though  it  be  for  evil.  Nor  could  Abigail’s 
self-confldence  (I.  Sam.  xxv.)  have  been  a  sporadic  phenomenon,  without 
precedent  in  the  annals  of  Jewish  households.  Finally,  we  have  a  most 
striking  evidence  of  woman’s  dignity  in  the  parallel  drawn  by  the  prophets 
between  the  relation  of  Israel  to  God  and  that  of  a  wife  to  her  husband 
most  beautifully  in  this  passage,  which  distinguishes  between  the  husband 
of  a  Jewish  woman  and  the  lord  of  a  medieval  Grisedis  :  “  And  it  shall 

happen  at  that  day,  saith  the  Lord,  that  thou  shalt  call  me  Ishi  (my  hus¬ 
band)  and  shalt  not  call  me  any  more  Balali  (my  lord).  *  *  *  j 

will  betroth  thee  unto  me  forever.  Yea,  I  will  betroth  thee  unto  me  in 
righteousness  and  in  justice,  and  in  loving  kindness  and  in  mercy.  And 
I  will  betroth  thee  unto  me  in  faithfulness.”  (Hosea  ii.,  18,  21,22.) 

But  Israel  was  a  backsliding  nation.  Even  its  purity  of  family  life — 
crowning  glory — was  sullied,  as  for  instance,  at  Gibah  (Judges  xx.),  and  by 
David  (II.  Sam.  xi.,  xii.).  In  the  process  of  time,  Israel  came  into  contact 
with  strange  nations,  with  their  strange  gods  and  their  strange  treatment 
of  women.  It  went  after  idols  whose  worship  consisted  of  unchaste  rites. 
Israel’s  son  married  the  daughter,  not  of  the  stranger,  but  of  a  strange  god. 
It  was  the  Israelite’s  crown  of  distinction  that  his  wife  was  his  companion, 
whose  equality  was  so  acknowledged  that  he  made  with  her  a  covenant. 
But  this  crown  was  dragged  in  the  mire  when  he  married  the  daughter  of 
the  strange  god.  Direst  misfortune  taught  Israel  the  folly  of  worshiping 
strange  gods,  but  the  blandishments  of  the  daughters  of  a  strange  god 
produce  the  enactment  of  many  a  law  by  the  rabbis  of  the  Talmud.  Here 
was  the  problem  that  confronted  them:  Israel’s  ideals  of  womanhood  were 
high,  but  the  nations  around  acted  up  to  a  brutal  standard  and  Israel  was 
not  likely  to  remain  untainted.  Thus  Mosaic  legislation  recognizes  the 
exceptional  position  occupied  by  woman  and  profits  by  its  knowledge 
thereof,  to  lay  down  stringent  regulations,  ordering  the  relation  of  the 
sexes. 

We  have  the  rights  of  woman  guarded  with  respect  to  inheritance,  to 
giving  in  marriage  in  the  marriage  relation,  and  with  regard  to  divorce. 
The  maid-servant,  the  captive  taken  in  war,  the  hated  wife,  the  first  wife  t ) 
be  dethroned  by  a  successor — they  all  are  remembered  and  protected.  But 
woman’s  greatest  safeguard  lay  in  the  fact  that  both  marriage  and  divorce 
among  the  Jews  were  civil  transactions  connected  with  certain  amount  of 
formality.  We  hear  of  the  bill  of  divorcement  as  early  as  the  times  of 
Moses.  Marriage  was  preceded  in  some  cases  by  the  space  of  a  whole  year, 
during  which  the  woman  remained  with  her  father,  by  the  making  of  a 
contract  of  betrothal  which  in  every  way  was  as  binding  as  the  act  of  mar¬ 
riage  itself.  Thus  Malachi’s  expression,  “  the  wife  of  thy  covenant,”  was 
not  an  empty  phrase.  It  indicates  a  substantial  reality  and  at  the  same 
time  emphasizes  the  difference  between  Israel’s  well-regulated,  moral 
household  and  the  irregularities  and  violences  of  heathen  lands. 

This  then  was  the  Jewish  basis  upon  which  the  rabbis  could  and  did  build. 
The  subject  of  marriage  and  divorce  is  by  them  considered  so  important 
that  one  whole  treatise  out  of  the  six  constituting  the  Mishnah  is  devoted 
to  it.  But  its  treatment  is  so  multifarious  and  exhaustive  that  only  a  very 
skilled  Talmudist  and  an  equally  systematic  mind  would  be  able  to  arrang' 


WHAT  JUDAISM  HAS  DONE  FOR  WOMAN. 


557 


all  the  details  under  satisfactory  heads  sulSciently  to  give  it  a  just  idea  of 
its  admirable  perfection.  1  am  not  able  to  do  more  than  give  some 
instances  and  some  laws  in  order  to  illustrate  how  the  rabbis  accept  woman's 
exceptional  position,  and  by  so  doing  to  shield  her  from  wrong  and  protect 
her  in  her  right. 

The  marriage  contract  assured  to  the  wife  a  certain  sum  of  money,  the 
minimum  being  fixed  by  law,  in  the  case  of  the  death  of  her  husband,  or 
divorce.  This  contract  had  to  be  duly  signed  and  properly  drawn  up.  More¬ 
over,  a  widow  is  entitled  to  this  mimimum  sum  even  though  no  mention  is 
made  thereof  in  the  contract.  With  regard  to  the  position  of  a  married 
woman  the  rule  was:  The  wife  rises  with  the  husband,  but  does  not 
descend  with  him.  The  expenses  of  a  woman’s  funeral,  for  instance,  are 
regulated  by  the  position  of  her  husband;  if  his  is  superior  hers  is  superior. 
A  husband  must  provide  his  wife  with  food  and  raiment,  is  obliged  to 
ransom  her  if  she  is  taken  captive,  and  owes  her  decent  burial.  A  wife’s 
duties  are  also  defined.  She  must  grind,  bake  bread,  wash  the  linen,  nurse 
her  children,  make  her  husband’s  bed,  and  work  in  wool.  If  she  has  a  serv¬ 
ant  at  her  disposal  she  is  not  obliged  to  grind,  nor  to  bake  bread,  nor  to 
wash  the  linen.  Her  work  diminishes  with  the  number  of  servants  at  her 
beck  and  call.  If  she  has  four  she  need  do  nothing.  Even  if  she  had  a 
hundred  servants  her  husband  may  exact  spinning  from  her,  for  idleness 
leads  to  wicked  thought.  Rabbi  Simon  says:  “If  a  husband  has  vowed 
that  his  wife  shall  do  no  work,  he  is  obliged  to  divorce  her,  and  pay  her  hei 
dowry,  for  idleness  may  bring  about  mental  alienation.”  This  last  dread  of 
idleness  throws  light  upon  the  praise  accorded  the  virtuous  woman:  “  The 
bread  of  idleness  she  doth  not  eat.”  Furthermore,  there  are  regulations 
fixing  the  wife’s  right  to  property,  her  husband’s  claims  upon  it,  as  upon 
what  she  may  earn;  even  the  girl  in  her  father’s  home  could  own  property, 
of  which  she  could  dispose  as  she  wished.  A  man  with  one  wife  could 
marry  a  second  only  with  the  consent  of  the  first — a  most  potent  measure 
for  resisting  polygamy. 

The  laws  and  regulations  of  divorce  are  equally  full  and  detailed.  A 
passage  often  quoted  in  order  to  give  an  idea  of  the  Jewish  divorce  law  is 
the  following:  The  school  of  Shammai  —  clinging  to  biblical  ordinances — • 
says  that  “a  wife  can  be  divorced  only  on  account  of  infidelity.”  The 
school  of  Hillel  says  that  the  husband  is  not  obliged  to  give  a  plausible 
motive  for  divorce;  he  may  say  she  spoiled  his  meal.  R.  Akiba  expresses 
the  same  idea  in  another  way;  he  may  say  that  he  has  found  a  more  beau¬ 
tiful  woman.  And  those  that  wish  to  throw  contempt  upon  the  Jewish 
law  add  that  the  school  of  Ilillel,  the  milder  school,  is  followed  in  practical 
decisions.  This  is  one  of  the  cases  in  which  not  the  whole  truth  is  told. 
In  the  first  place,  a  woman  has  the  same  right  to  apply  for  a  divorce  with¬ 
out  assigning  any  reason  which  motives  of  delicacy  may  prompt  her  to 
withhold.  The  idea  underlying  this  seeming  laxity  is  that  when  a  man  or 
a  woman  is  willing  to  apply  for  a  divorce  on  so  trivial  a  ground,  then,  regard 
and  love  having  vanished,  in  the  interests  of  morality  a  divorce  had  better 
be  granted,  after  due  efforts  have  been  made  to  effect  a  reconciliation.  In 
reality,  however,  divorce  laws  were  far  from  being  lax.  The  facts  that  a 
woman  who  applied  for  a  divorce  lost  her  dowry,  and  in  almost  all  cases  a 
man  who  applied  for  it  had  to  pay  it,  would  suffice  to  restrain  the  tendency. 
The  important  points  characterizing  the  Jewish  divorce  law  and  distin¬ 
guishing  it  far  beyond  other  nations  of  antiquity  are  these:  A  man,  as  a 
rule,  could  not  divorce  his  wife  without  providing  for  her;  he  could  not 
summarily  send  |  her  from  him,  as  was,  and  is,  the  custom  of  Eastern 
countries,  but  was  obliged  to  give  her  a  duly  drawn-up  bill  of  divorcement, 
and  women,  as  well  as  men,  could  sue  for  a  divorce. 

Besides  these  important  provisions  regulating  woman’s  estate,  there  are 
various  intimations  in  the  Talmud  of  delicate  regard  paid  to  the  finer  sen¬ 
sibilities  of  women.  In  a  mixed  marriage,  the  child  follows  the  religion  of 


558 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


its  mother.  If  men  and  women  present  themselves  when  alms  are  distrib¬ 
uted,  the  women  must  be  attended  to  first  so  that  they  need  not  wait. 
When  men  and  women  had  cases  before  Rabba,  he  first  dispatched  those 
of  the  women,  as  it  is  a  humiliation  for  women  to  wait.  Again,  if  an 
orphaned  boy  and  an  orphaned  girl  have  to  be  supported  by  public  charity, 
the  girl  is  to  be  helped  first,  for  begging  is  more  painful  to  a  woman  than 
a  man.  Under  no  circumstances  could  a  wife  be  forced  to  clothe  herself  in 
a  way  to  attract  remark  or  call  forth  ridicule. 

Women  are  accorded  certain  privileges  in  legal  proceedings  on  account 
of  their  grace,  that  is  to  say,  their  sex.  This  is  still  subtler  in  the  deference 
it  pays  to  woman’s  influence.  A  daughter  must  remain  with  her  mother. 
If  a  man  dies,  and  his  sons,  his  heirs,  who  are  obliged  to  provide  for  the 
daughters  out  of  the  inheritance,  wish  to  do  so  at  their  own  home,  while 
the  mother  wishes  to  keep  her  daughters  with  her,  then  the  sons  are 
obliged  to  take  care  of  them  at  their  mother’s  house.  With  regard  to  the 
education  of  women,  this  may  be  quoted:  According  to  the  Mishnah,  girls 
learn  the  Bible  like  boys.  The  religious  obligations  of  women  are  thus 
defined.  All  the  duties  toward  children  rest  upon  the  father  not  upon  the 
mother.  All  the  duties  toward  parents  rest  upon  sons  and  daughters  alike. 
All  the  positive  commandments  which  must  be  observed  at  a  fixed  time  are 
obligatory  on  men  and  not  on  women. 

These  and  such  are  the  provisions  which,  originating  in  the  hoary  past, 
have  entrenched  the  Jewess’  position  even  unto  this  day.  Whatever  she 
may  be,  she  is  through  them.  But  what  is  she?  She  is  the  inspirer  of  a 
pure,  chaste  family  life,  whose  hallowing  influences  are  incalculable;  she  is 
the  center  of  all  spiritual  endeavors,  the  fosterer  and  confidante  of  every 
undertaking.  To  her  the  Talmudic  sentence  axjplies:  “It  is  a  woman 
alone  through  whom  God’s  blessings  are  vouchsafed  to  a  house.  She 
teaches  the  children,  speeds  the  husband  to  the  place  of  worship  and 
instruction,  welcomes  him  when  he  returns,  keeps  the  house  godly  and 
pure,  and  God’s  blessings  rests  upon  all  these  things.” 

Now,  finally,  with  what  fitness  to  meet  19th  century  demands  has  Juda¬ 
ism  endowed  her  daughters?  Our  pulses  are  quickened  and  throbbing 
with  the  new  currents  of  an  age  of  social  dissatisfaction  and  breathless 
endeavor.  The  19th-century  Jewess  is  wholly  free  to  do  as  and  what  she 
wishes,  nor  need  she  abate  a  jot  of  her  Judaism,  Judaism  does  not,  indeed, 
bid  her  become  a  lawyer,  a  physician,  a  book-keeper,  or  a  telegraph  opera¬ 
tor,  nor  does  it  forbid  her  becoming  anything  for  which  her  talents  and 
her  opportunities  fit  her.  It  simply  says  nothing  of  her  occupations. 
Moreover,  by  reason  of  her  Jewish  antecedents,  the  Jewess  stands  ready  to 
cope  with  the  new  requirements  of  life.  Her  fitness  for  moral  responsibil¬ 
ity  has  always  been  great,  and  as  for  her  mental  capacity,  it  has  not  oozed 
away  under  artificial  homage,  nor  been  paralyzed  by  exclusion  from  the 
intellectual  work  and  practical  undertakings  of  her  family.  Judaism  i)er- 
mits  her  daughters  to  go  forth  into  this  new  world  of  ours  to  assume  new 
duties  and  responsibilities  and  rejoice  in  its  vast  ox)portunities;  but  it  says: 
“  Beware  of  forfeiting  your  dignity.”  Remember,  morever,  that  like  moth¬ 
ers  in  all  ages,  be  they  kindly  or  unkindly  disposed  to  women,  I  shall  stand 
and  wait,  aye,  and  be  ready  to  serve  you.  My  Sabbath  lamp  shall  ever  be 
a  light;  in  its  rays  you  will  never  fail  to  find  yourself,  your  dignity,  your 
peace  of  heart  and  mind. 


INDIVIDUAL  EFFORT  AT  REFORM  NOT  SUFFICIENT. 

PKOF.  0.  R.  HENDERSON,  D.  D.,  UNIVERSITY  OE  CHICAGO. 

Men,  when  compared  with  an  ideal  standard,  are  informed  and 
deformed.  Vivid  is  the  contrast  between  an  undeveloped  babe  and  an 


INDIVIDUAL  EFFORT  AT  REFORM  NOT  SUFFICIENT.  559 


athletic  soldier,  between  the  wasp  waist  of  a  Paris  fashion  plate  and  the 
vigorous  grace  of  the  Venus  of  Milo  in  the  Louvre  gallery.  Mankind  has 
an  ideal  standard  or  it  would  never  see  deformity.  It  is  the  moral 
ideal  which  we  identify  with  our  object  of  worship.  Our  religion  stands 
over  against  an  actual  conduct  and  character,  awes  us  to  shame,  stirs  us  to 
divine  discontent,  fills  us  with  sublime  aspirations. 

Deformed  men  perform  monstrous  deeds.  Their  works  are  imperfect, 
sometimes  hellish.  Outward  actions  proceed  from  inner  states,  reveal  the 
soul,  then  return  upon  the  soul  to  torment  and  defile  it.  The  artist  becomes 
enamored  of  his  statue.  The  story  of  Frankenstein  shows  a  man  at  work 
upon  a  giant  without  a  conscience,  and  this  work  of  his  hands  terrorizes 
the  maker  as  his  tyrant. 

Men,  out  of  the  impulses  of  their  bodies  and  the  treasures  of  their  souls, 
form  families,  schools,  newspapers,  courts,  governments,  churches,  and  then 
these  social  institutions  turn  back  upon  men  and  shape  them  as  in  iron 
moulds. 

The  necessity  of  reform  is  acknowledged  by  all.  It  is  a  perpetual  neces- 
sity. 

Evolution  proceeds  by  correction  of  discrepancy  between  ideal  and  fact. 

In  this  x^rocess  intuition  and  experience  toil  as  rivals  and  as  partners. 

Reform  is  primarily  a  change  of  the  inner  mao.  Changes  of  institutions 
must  be  made  by  man,  and  such  changes  imply  spiritual  advance  or  vener¬ 
ation.  It  forever  remains  true  that  man  has  the  power  of  eternal  life,  and 
this  can  never  be  completely  embodied  in  a  form  of  social  organization. 

When  we  come  to  the  instruments  of  reform  we  must  find  them  in  insti¬ 
tutions,  in  social  organs.  The  individual  is  always  a  member  of  the  social 
body,  and  can  be  touched  only  through  socialized  agencies. 

A  human  person  is  by  nature — that  is,  by  divine  creation  and  appoint¬ 
ment — a  social  being.  Inner  instinct  and  outward  conditions  make  him 
social.  He  is  born  into  the  family,  a  natural  social  institution,  and  there 
he  is  nourished,  protected,  taught  the  rudiments  of  all  the  intellectual  pos¬ 
sessions  of  his  race,  as  language,  morals,  trade,  play,  justice,  and  religion. 

Arrived  at  the  adult  stage  he  discovers  a  social  network  of  schools,  jour¬ 
nals,  governments,  churches,  customs,  laws,  already  prepared  to  act  upon 
and  for  him.  These  have  not  much  respect  for  his  individual  will.  He 
findc  it  easier  to  bow  than  to  re-shape.  By  reform,  then,  we  may  mean  a 
change  of  ourselves,  or  of  others,  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  moral  level,  and  the 
proposition  I  shall  illustrate  is  this:  We  can  not  ignore  socialized  effort 
embodied  in  physical  form  without  great  loss  of  power  and  efficiency. 

It  is  wise  to  state  the  case  for  purely  individual  and  spiritual  efforts  at 
reform. 

The  wise  man  of  virtue  is  above  human  law  so  far  as  his  will  is  with  the 
Perfect  who  is  the  source  of  law.  The  good  man,  with  treasures  above, 
provides  for  his  family,  deals  honestly  with  his  customers,  is  faithtul  to 
his  tasks  without  once  thinking  what  the  priests  may  do  in  case  he  neglects. 
His  own  conscience  requires  of  him  costly  actions  which  no  legislator 
would  dream  of  requiring.  Having  been  treated  graciously  by  the  Lord, 
he  gladly  takes  up  a  cross;  he  m.akes  sacrifices  for  others.  It  would  be 
impossible  to  frame  statutes  to  inclose  such  refined  and  delicate  feelings, 
such  soaring  motives. 

It  is  vain  to  attempt  to  make  men  moral  and  religious  by  statute  and 
penalty.  The  magistrates  can  make  a  hypocrite,  but  never  a  believer.  The 
Kingdom  of  God  will  ever  be  beyond  the  institutions  of  power  and  authority 
and  can  never  be  identified  with  the  State.  The  State  has  an  eye  to  overt 
actions,  but  can  not  measure  motives  and  sentiments.  There  are  vast  tracts 
of  holiness  on  which  the  ruler  of  state  can  never  lay  his  surveying  chains. 

No  human  government  was  ever,  or  ever  will  be,  found  wise  and  good 
enough  to  control  a  voluntary  and  ideal  conduct  of  a  nation.  Moral  laws, 


5G0 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


promulgated  by  human  law-givers,  in  the  name  of  deity,  are  sure  to  par¬ 
take  of  the  imperfections  of  the  age;  they  become  obsolete,  then  obstructive. 
Even  socialists,  who  would  extend  the  powers  of  government  over  all  capi¬ 
tal,  would  leave  men  secure  in  the  title  of  their  homes  and  the  exercise  of 
their  faith. 

The  coarse  machinery  of  the  best  human  law  can  not  create  the  relig¬ 
ious  life,  and  its  interference  is  sure  to  mar  that  life.  A  bridge  factory  is 
not  adapted  to  the  production  of  delicate  microscopes  and  chronometers. 

Reforms  must  deal  with  individuals.  There  is  no  substitute  for  j)er- 
sonal  knowledge,  choice,  and  effort.  Surround  a  man  with  the  most  favor¬ 
able  environment,  furnish  him  with  every  solicitation  to  goodness,  remove 
from  him  temptation  to  do  evil,  and  there  still  remains  the  necessity  of  the 
one  supreme,  finally  decisive  act  of  will. 

Social  acts  are  compounded  of  seiJarate personal  decisions.  Blood  is  red 
because  the  several  globules  are  red.  A  forest  is  green  because  the  leaves 
are  green.  A  society  is  moral  when  its  members  are  moral.  To  influence 
and  reform  society  means,  primarily,  the  instruction,  conversion,  improve¬ 
ment  of  distinct  xjersons. 

It  is  said  that  society  has  the  criminals  it  deserves.  So  it  has  the  con¬ 
gressmen  or  coun oilmen  it  deserves.  Its  legislature  will  reptresent  the  jjeo- 
])le  as  truly  as  the  hands  of  a  clock  will  report  what  the  inside  works  are 
doing.  It  is  needful  to  dwell  on  these  two  aspects  of  the  subject,  because 
many  of  those  who  are  zealous  for  social  and  communal  enterprises  do  not 
always  make  it  clear  that  they  see  the  necessity  for  individual  and  spiritual 
regeneration  of  character. 

By  advocating  a  truth  with  one-sided  argument  we  bring  that  truth  into 
contempt.  Only  related  truth  is  strong  and  convincing. 

There  is  no  real  ground  for  difference  between  those  who  advocate  per¬ 
sonal  action  and  those  who  plead  for  social  action.  A  plant  lives  by  its 
roots  and  also  by  its  leaves,  since  its  food  comes  from  both  soil  and  air. 

We  turn  to  the  correlated  and  complementary  truth:  Individual  effort 
at  reform  must  be  a  part  of  a  social  jjlan  and  spiritual  forces  must  become 
embodied  if  they  are  to  be  redemptive.  This  pjrinciple  is  implied  in  the 
Christian  teaching  of  the  incarnation  and  of  the  church. 

Paul's  comparison  of  humanity  redeemed  to  a  body  composed  of  recip¬ 
rocally  dependent  and  united  members  expjresses  the  inlncipjle.  The  old 
Roman  fable  of  the  “  Billy  Goat  and  Its  Members”  was  used  by  the  orator 
to  reconcile  alienated  citizens  in  turbulent  times. 

A  society  is  not  exactly  like  a  human  body  in  all  particulars.  There  are 
obvious  and  essential  differences.  But  there  are  likenesses  which  make 
the  comparison  instructive.  All  conscious  members  of  a  community  are 
vitally  dependent  on  all  others  at  some  point.  It  would  be  useless  to  urge 
this  commonplace  truth  if  it  were  not  so  often  ijractically  denied.  There 
lingers  a  deep  susx)icion  in  many  devout  minds  that  in  pressing  society 
reforms  we  are  neglecting  jjersonal  and  spjiritual  methods. 

Law  and  custom  are  like  the  serpent  whose  length  goes  around  the 
world.  Who  shall  lift  its  folds?  To  change  the  individual  all  environ¬ 
ments  must  be  considered.  So  far  as  the  social  fact  is  heljjful  we  may  use 
it.  When  that  environment  is  saturated  with  evil  we  must  have  much 
charity  for  the  individual  and  attack  the  system  which  enslaves  him. 

Most  reform  work  would  proceed  with  greater  speed  and  less  haste  and 
loss  if  this  fact  of  social  environment  was  more  fully  considered.  It  does 
not  annihilate  freedom  and  responsibility,  but  it  modifies  the  practical 
possibility  of  action  for  all  of  us.  Let  us  bring  these  rather  abstract  state¬ 
ments  into  the  light  of  concrete  problems. 

How  can  we  reform  the  “  Abnormal  Man  ”  ? 

The  dependent  pauper,  the  defective  in  mind,  the  delinquent  criminal 
— how  shall  we  save  these  and  help  them  to  live  a  useful  life  ? 


INDIVIDUAL  EFFORT  AT  REFORM  NOT  SUFFICIENT.  561 


Many  good  people  live  as  though  there  V7ere  no  abnormal  men.  Their 
preaching,  their  labors,  their  measures  are  well  adapted  to  ordinary  citi¬ 
zens  living  in  homes  under  the  inHuences  of  newspapers  and  churches. 

C.  D.  Wright  surveys  the  whole  range  of  misery  in  this  country  and 
Europe  and  declares :  “  As  the  condition  of  the  laborer  rises,  pauperism 
and  criminality  fall.  Employment  of  the  unemployed  will  not  stop  pauper¬ 
ism  and  crime,  education  will  not,  Christianity  will  not,  but  all  these  com¬ 
bined  will  work  together  with  great  power  for  good,  and  will  go  far.” 

Schiffle  says:  “  Social,  and  not  merely  individual  evil,  immorality  and 
lawlessness  grow  to  be  a  widespread  power,  and  temporarily  a  collective 
power,  superior  to  law  and  morality.  This  power  organizes  itself  into  a 
formidable  army  to  fight  against  morals  and  law,  as  in  the  dangerous 
classes.” 

These  organized  bandits  have  their  halls,  clubs,  and  associations  in  all 
our  great  cities.  They  crack  their  whips  over  political  conventions  and 
dictate  measures  and  nominations  to  mayors  and  governors  and  councils. 

These  facts  are  enough  to  show  that  to  save  one  abnormal  man  out  of 
this  ruin  we  must  go  systematically  and  mildly  to  work.  Guerrilla  fighting 
has  its  place,  but  organization  of  animals  alone  will  contend  successfully 
with  entrenched  forces  led  by  the  prince  of  darkness. 

We  may  take  the  labor  movement  as  an  illustration  of  the  necessity  of 
united  and  general  action.  It  would  be  easy  to  drag  out  of  past  and  con¬ 
temporary  history  many  examples  of  the  selfishness,  cruelty,  and  stupidity 
of  the  agitators  and  leaders  of  organized  laborers.  The  story  is  dreary 
enough.  But,  if  we  consider  their  superior  advantages  and  responsibilities, 
the  seltishness,  cruelty,  and  stupidity  of  organized  capitalists  will  quite 
match  those  of  the  laborers. 

But  back  of  all  foul  abuses  of  co-operation — aouses  which  are  the  legiti¬ 
mate  fruit  of  centuries  of  oppression,  misrule,  and  enforced  ignorance — is 
the  sublime  motive  of  this  labor  reform.  There  is  a  struggle  of  humanity 
to  live  a  genuine  human  life;  to  rise  above  animalism  and  barbarism;  to 
enter  into  the  heritage  of  the  ages;  to  enjoy  the  pure  delights  of  home,  the 
beauty  of  art,  the  revelations  of  science,  the  justice  of  the  state,  the  fresh 
air,  and  divine  symbolism  and  the  freedom  of  sons  of  God.  The  lion  in  the 
hour  of  creation  is  pictured  as  pawing  to  be  free  from  the  clay.  This  move¬ 
ment  has  a  profound  significance,  for  its  inmost  impetus  comes  from  God 
and  its  ideals  lead  to  God. 

The  roots  of  this  tree  of  freedom  may  grow  in  black  soil,  soaked  and 
fertilized  with  blood,  but  its  blossoms  and  fruit  will  be  fair.  If  for  fifty 
years  the  labor  agitators  have  been  obliged  to  make  their  way  with  rude 
weapons  along  an  obstructed  path,  the  fault  is  not  all  their  own.  An 
intelligent  and  discriminating  sympathy  of  religious  people  with  what  is 
good  in  the  trade-union  movement  would  diminish  the  tendency  to  use  the 
language  and  arms  of  military. 

If  the  income  of  the  laborer  is  to  be  sufficient  to  lift  him  from  the  con¬ 
dition  of  brute  and  slave  ;  if  his  home  is  to  become  a  fit  human  habitation, 
where  virtue  is  possible ;  if  his  sense  of  injustice  and  spirit  of  revolt  are  to 
be  appeased  ;  if  bis  attention  is  to  be  won  and  held  for  the  ideal  elements 
of  life  ;  then  agitator,  pastor,  politician,  statesman,  jurist,  editor,  and  capi¬ 
talist  must  be  instructed  in  the  ways  of  agreement.  At  this  point  the 
university  comes  into  touch  with  all  the  other  institutions  of  human 
advancement. 

Turn  now  to  the  commercial  man. 

For  him  also,  love,  joy,  righteousness,  and  peace  are  elements  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  But  their  sphere  of  manifestation  is  not  merely  the  closet 
of  secret  prayer  and  the  temple  of  prayer.  The  bank  and  the  factory  are 
his  sanctuary,  where  God  is  praised  or  blasphemed. 

Take  a  typical  example.  There  is  a  religious  dealer  in  clothing,  upright 


562 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


in  purpose,  just  and  humane  in  feeling.  It  is  his  business  to  sell  at  a 
narrow  margin,  or  profit,  certain  cotton  garments  which  are  made  by  a 
thousand  women.  Their  wages  are  so  low  that  slow  starvation,  disorderly 
houses,  rickety  and  enfeebled  offspring,  and  drunken  husbands  rise  like  the 
tides  of  ocean  about  an  island,  pitiless  as  a  wave. 

This  honest  and  humane  merchant  comes  to  be  aware  of  the  facts. 
Their  images  harrow  his  conscience,  disturb  his  dreams,  and  poison  his 
pleasures.  He  determines  to  add  to  the  wages  and  put  the  advance  in  the 
price  of  his  goods.  This  he  attempts  alone.  His  competitors,  less  scrup¬ 
ulous,  undersell  him  and  drive  him  toward  bankruptcy.  What  can  this 
religious  merchant  do  alone?  Absolutely  nothing.  He  can  not  persuade 
his  competitors  to  agree  with  him  to  raise  the  price  of  wages  and  of  goods 
to  a  living  rate.  They  would  laugh  at  him  as  a  dreamer  and  a  fanatic,  and 
the  law  might  declare  his  effort  culpable  as  a  conspiracy  to  hinder  free 
competition. 

And  so  the  wages  of  the  seamstresses  fall  in  London.  When, fifty  years 
ago,  Tom  Hood  wrote  his  “  Song  of  the  Shirt,”  the  seamstresses  in  England 
earned  "2%  pence  an  hour;  to-day  most  of  them  can  not  average  more  than 
1%  pence  per  hour.  The  wages  of  the  men  have  risen  during  the  same 
time,  and  men  are  organized  to  vote.  Women  are  not  organized  and  do 
not  vote.  The  aristocratic  friends  of  poor  women  in  England  began  by 
giving  them  alms,  but  they  have  come  to  urge  factory  inspection  and 
trades  unions. 

It  is  in  this  path  of  universal  law  and  labor  unions  that  we  must  travel 
if  our  religious  merchant  dare  to  be  honest  and  humane. 

Wealth  does  not  render  the  richest  trafficker  independent  of  social  help 
in  the  foundation  of  his  own  character.  To  his  aid  must  come  the  masses, 
if  he  will  wash  the  blood  of  guilt  from  his  own  garment. 

It  is  easy  for  a  theologian  or  a  pastor  with  a  reasonable  salary  to  teach 
the  duty  of  being  honest  in  the  face  of  the  world,  but  when  the  rate  of 
income  falls  to  90  cents  a  day,  and  uncertain  at  that,  the  dependence  of 
spirit  on  the  body  and  the  independence  of  both  on  society  becomes  felt. 
The  sheltered  preacher  of  individual  morality  declares  that  he  does  not 
need  state  law  to  make  him  honest,  chaste,  just,  loving,  and  benevolent. 
Only  in  part  true.  Law  has  done  more  for  his  moral  education  than  he 
thinks.  Christian  people  generally  are  greatly  influenced  in  their  moral 
standards  by  statutes  of  commercial  law.  Many  a  good  deacon  was  not 
conscious  that  he  was  stealing  from  his  neighbor  until  reminded  by  a  legal 
deflnition  which  stopped  his  path.  Religious  manufacturers  were  not 
aware  that  they  were  murdering  their  employes  with  dust  until  told  by  the 
inspectors. 

Here  are  thousands  of  merchants  selling  goods  marked  “  all  wool  ”  when 
they  know  cotton  is  liberally  mixed  in,  because  “  all  do  so.”  Here  are 
Christian  men  selling  adulterated  tea,  coffee,  spices,  as  “  absolutely  pure,” 
because  “  their  competitors  do  the  same.” 

Is  there  no  need  of  social  help  for  personal  protection? 

Metaphysically  a  cashier  may  remain  honest  without  the  auditing  of 
his  accounts,  but  practically  he  needs  the  help  of  the  directors  to  watch 
him,  even  if  he  is  a  Bible-class  teacher.  When  Paul  took  money  for  the 
Jerusalem  saints  he  was  compelled  to  have  witnesses  and  letters.  Com¬ 
mon  sense  is  not  in  antagonism  to  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

International  morality  is  made  possible  by  social  co-operation  and  by 
that  alone. 

Germany  is  called  a  Christian  nation.  Prance  is  called  a  Christian 
nation.  Italy  is  the  home  of  the  head  of  the  Roman  Church.  They  all 
possess  a  creed,  through  state  churches,  which  certainly  forbids  murder. 
Yet  they  all  stand  around,  day  and  night,  as  nations,  ready  to  commit  mur¬ 
der  at  a  moment’s  notice,  on  the  largest  possible  scale.  France,  alone,  can 
not  disarm.  Nor  can  victorious  Germany. 


INDIVIDUAL  EFFORT  AT  REFORM  NOT  SUFFICIENT.  563 


The  great,  powerful,  and  rich  people  must  ask  the  consent  of  its  neigh¬ 
bors  to  be  able  to  obey  one  of  the  simplest  duties  of  ordinary  morality. 

The  Christian  churches  are  now  attempting  to  give  the  gospel  to  the 
residents  of  the  slums  in  our  cities  and  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  dark  con¬ 
tinent.  In  this  effort  the  church  meets  the  slave  trade  in  the  heart  of 
Africa  and  the  cursed  drink  traffic  on  all  continents.  Does  any  man  imagine 
that  mere  individual  effort  would  be  adequate  here,  or  even  serious,  with¬ 
out  legislation?  Par  be  it  from  me  to  cast  any  reproach  on  the  magnificent 
labors  of  great  evangelists  or  on  the  silent  and  continuous  labors  of  humble 
workexS  in  obscure  places.  We  honor  them  all.  But  God  has  used  the 
organs  of  social  power  to  help  these  individual  toilers  and  such  helps  are 
evidently  to  be  augmented  in  the  future. 

The  Louisiana  planter  can  not  till  his  field  without  the  protection  of  the 
dike,  which  is  under  the  care  of  the  government.  The  water  supply  of 
many  Pennsylvania  towns  depends  on  the  Delaware  River,  and  the  purity  of 
that  river  depends  on  the  conduct  of  people  of  other  States  whence  its 
fiows.  The  usefulness  of  Christian  missions  in  India  greatly  depends  on 
the  discipline  of  the  British  army  and  on  the  habits  of  European  sailors 
and  merchants.  After  thirty-one  years  spent  in  India,  Archbishop  Jeffries 
makes  this  terrible  charge:  ‘‘For  one  really  converted  Christian,  as  the 
proof  of  missionary  labor,  the  drinking  practices  of  England  have  made  a 
thousand  drunkards.”  Says  Dr.  Reichel,  of  the  Moravian  missions  :  “  A 
cry  of  horror  rises  from  all  mission  fields.  Drunkenness  reached  the  Lapps 
in  Europe  and  nearly  destroyed  them  before  the  gospel  reached  them.” 
American  traders  and  the  Hudson  Bay  Company  have  done  similar  work 
among  the  nations  of  this  continent.  Of  the  300,000  natives  who  inhabited 
the  Sandwich  Islands  when  they  were  discovered  “  civilization  ”  destroyed 
all  but  40,000.  British  rum  has  not  only  reduced  but  actually  obliterated 
the  Hottentot.  In  East  Africa  German  merchants  import  liquor  in  the 
face  of  Mohammedan  protest.  It  is  said  the  Congo  Land  was  bought  with 
alcohol,  and  even  savages  protested  against  this  factor  of  “Christian” 
commerce.  The  New  York  Tmies  said  :  “  Every  ship  that  takes  mission¬ 
aries  to  Africa  carries  enough  poisonous  rum  and  gin  to  offset  a  thousand 
missionaries.”  To  endure  this  crime  without  protest  is  not  meekness,  but 
stupidity  and  cowardice. 

In  our  great  cities  we  have  already  proofs  of  the  supreme  value  of 
co-operation.  The  organizing  ability  of  Mr.  Moody  increases  the  efficiency 
of  all  his  co-workers  a  hundred-fold.  The  city  mission  societies,  the  Sun¬ 
day-school  connections,  illustrate  the  power  of  concerted  labors,  for  they 
accomplish  what  individual  members  of  local  churches  could  never  achieve 
in  isolation.  But  there  is  room  in  our  home  mission  work  for  vast  improve¬ 
ment.  In  every  city  and  in  every  commonwealth  immense  resources  of 
money  and  energy  are  abandoned  between  the  churches. 

In  many  cities  the  teaching  of  vice  and  crime  is  permitted  by  the 
authorities  to  undo  the  work  of  the  missionaries.  The  preacher  begs  for  a 
hearing  and  the  local  political  tyrant  laughs  and  insults,  bribes  and  domi¬ 
neers.  The  saloon,  the  brothel,  and  the  gamblers  are  indulged  while  the 
timid  and  modest  Salvation  Army  lass  toils  at  the  foot  of  a  steep  and  lofty 
mountain  of  difficulty.  But  we  are  on  the  eve  of  a  new  era.  Go-operation 
is  the  watchword  of  the  hour.  “Union  Is  Essential”  carried  with  it  the 
triumph  of  moral  triumph. 

The  good  citizen  will  use  his  political  power  to  overthrow  political  obsta¬ 
cles  to  reform;  as  head  of  the  family  he  will  make  the  domestic  circle  the 
nursery  of  all  virtue  and  charity  and  worship;  as  a  member  of  the  church 
he  will  seek  to  associate  his  labors  in  harmony  with  his  brethren  for  the 
common  welfare.  The  public  schools  will  enlist  his  interest  as  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  universal  intelligence,  and  through  all  his  individual  efforts  he 
will  sink  his  egotism,  his  conceit,  his  x->ride,  his  vanity,  his  ambition,  his 


564 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


partisanship,  his  sectarianism.  Above  all  will  be  the  banner  of  love,  whose 
symbol  is  the  cross — the  cross  itself — not  a  badge  of  a  party,  but  God’s  own 
sign  of  universal  salf -sacrificing  Fatherhood  and  Brotherhood. 


RELIGION  AND  LABOR. 

BEV.  JAMES  M.  CLEAEY,  PASTOR  OP  THE  CHURCH  OF  ST.  CHARLES 

BORROMEO,  MINNEAPOLIS,  MINN. 

At  this  moment  the  condition  of  the  working  population  is  the  question 
of  the  hour,  and  nothing  can  be  of  higher  interest  to  all  classes  of  the  State 
than  that  it  should  be  rightly  and  reasonably  decided.  But  it  will  be  easy 
for  Christian  workingmen  to  decide  it  aright  if  they  form  associations, 
choose  wise  guides,  and  follow  the  same  path  which,  with  so  much  advan¬ 
tage  to  themselves  and  the  commonwealth,  was  trodden  by  their  fathers 
before  them. 

Thus  speaks  Pope  Leo  XIII.  in  his  great  treatise  on  labor.  This  illus¬ 
trious  character,  whom  Divine  Providence  has  chosen  to  direct  the  des¬ 
tinies  of  the  Catholic  Church  during  these  closing  years  of  the  19th 
century,  clearly  comprehends  the  conditions  and  the  needs  of  this  active 
age  on  w^hich  he  will  have  deeply  impressed  the  influence  of  his  genius. 
The  head  of  the  Catholic  Church  throughout  the  world,  true  to  his  divine 
mission,  is  concerned  not  only  about  man’s  eternal  welfare  and  humanity’s 
home  beyond  the  grave,  but  his  luminous  mind  and  his  generous  heart  sur¬ 
render  their  best  and  most  devoted  energies  in  the  interest  of  human  hap¬ 
piness  while  this  temporal  life  may  last. 

The  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  in  the  world  to  continue,  till  time  shall 
be  no  more,  the  divine  work  which  Christ  Himself  began.  “  He  went  about 
doing  good.”  He  dried  the  tears  of  human  anguish.  He  healed  the  wounds 
of  breaking  hearts.  He  comforted  the  sorrowful,  cured  the  sick,  fed  the 
famishing  multitude,  and  forever  sanctified  human  toil  by  earning  His  daily 
food  at  manual  labor.  He  was  the  true  apostle  of  humanity.  He,  the 
humanitarian  whe  forgot  no  human  need  while  directing  the  aspirations  of 
immortal  souls  to  their  eternal  home. 

The  church  having  tnught  every  child  of  Adam  who  earned  his  bread 
by  laborious  toil  to  assert  his  own  dignity  and  to  understand  his  own 
worth,  and  having  hitherto  led  a  hopeless  multitude  from  the  dismal  gloom 
of  slavery  to  the  cheering  brightness  of  the  liberty  of  the  children  of  God, 
bravely  defended  the  rights  and  the  privileges  of  her  emancipated  children. 
“The  church  has  regarded  with  religious  care  the  inheritance  of  the  poor.” 
The  poor  are  the  special  charge  of  the  church.  Every  living  soul  is  in 
God’s  immediate  care,  the  rich  as  well  as  the  poor;  there  is  no  distinction 
of  class  or  privilege  with  Him.  Every  soul,  whether  refined  or  rude,  is  in 
His  keeping.  But  with  an  especial  care  He  watches  over  those  who  “eat 
bread  in  the  sweat  of  their  brow.”  None  need  the  Divine  Comforter  more 
than  the  weary  children  of  toil  and  none  need  and  have  received  the  sym¬ 
pathy  of  the  church  as  they  do. 

In  his  exhaustive  encyclical  on  the  condition  of  labor  Leo  XIII.  lays 
lown  the  principle  that  the  workman’s  wages  is  not  a  problem  to  be  solved 
oy  the  pitiless  arithmetic  of  avaricious  greed.  The  wage-earner  has  rights 
which  he  can  not  surrender,  and  which  no  man  can  take  from  him,  for  he 
is  an  intelligent,  responsible  being  owing  homage  to  God  and  duties  to 
human  society.  His  recompense,  then,  for  his  daily  toil  can  not  be  meas¬ 
ured  by  a  heartless  standard  of  supply  and  demand,  or  a  cruel  code  of 
inhuman  economics,  for  man  is  not  a  money-making  machine,  but  a  citizen 
of  earth  and  an  heir  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  He  has  a  right,  of  which 


RELIGION  AED  LABOR. 


565 


io  man  has  the  power  to  deprive  him,  “  to  the  pursuit  of  life,  liberty,  and 
happiness.  ’  Every  man  has  a  God-given  right  to  live  in  decency  and 
comfort. 

Labor  has  a  right  to  freedom;  labor  has  also  a  right  to  protect  its  own 
independence  and  liberty.  Hence  labor  unions  are  lawful,  and  have 
enjoyed  the  sanction  and  protection  of  the  church  in  all  ages.  Our  times 
have  witnessed  no  more  edifying  spectacle  than  the  noble,  unselfish  plead¬ 
ing  of  our  own  Cardinal  Gibbons  for  the  cause  of  organized  labor  at  the 
See  of  Peter.  In  organization  there  is  strength,  but  labor  must  use  its 
power  for  its  own  protection,  not  for  invading  the  rights  of  others.  The 
strike,  or  refusal  of  united  labor  to  work,  is  a  declaration  of  war,  for  it 
seriously  disturbs  many  human  activities.  It  is  justifiable  only  and  should 
be  resorted  to  only  when  all  other  means  have  failed,  when  every  other 
expedient  has  been  exhausted,  and  can  be  defended  only  on  the  plea  that 
the  workman  is  treated  unjustly  by  organized  capital. 

That  form  of  strike,  however,  by  which  labor  unions  use  unlawful 
means  to  prevent  willing  men  who  are  anxious  to  earn  a  livelihood  for  their 
families  from  engaging  in  honest  work,  can  in  no  way  be  defended,  and 
must  surely  fall  under  the  unqualified  censure  of  religion.  Labor  has  a 
right,  it  is  true,  to  prevent  its  own  degradation,  and  is  justified  in  insisting 
that  wages  shall  not  be  so  reduced  as  to  prevent  Christian  men  from  living 
like  civilized  beings,  but  religion,  which  is  the  guardian  angel  of  social 
order  and  just  law,  must  insist  that  when  such  evils  threaten  society  they 
are  remedied  by  legislation  and  not  by  appeals  to  force. 

Our  Christian  civilization  must  not  be  endangered  by  false  maxims  and 
narsh  methods  of  social  economy.  Our  civilization  is  a  failure  if  it  aims  only 
tot  the  protection  of  wealth  and  the  guardianship  of  property.  “  Ill  fares 
the  land  to  hastening  ills  a  prey  where  wealth  accumulates  and  men  decay.” 
Men  are  more  precious  than  money.  The  contented  Christian  homesof  an 
intelligent  people,  happy  in  the  opportunity  of  earning  a  decent  competence 
for  the  present  and  future  needs,  are  the  safest  and  most  hopeful  support 
of  a  nation  and  encouraging  evidences  of  a  national  prosperity. 

Religion’s  duty  is  to  teach  the  rich  the  responsibilities  of  wealth  and  the 
poor  respect  for  order  and  law.  The  security  of  capital  against  the  discon¬ 
tent  and  envy  of  labor,  is  the  best  security  also  for  the  workingman.  When 
capital  becomes  timid  and  shrinks  from  the  hazard  of  investment,  labor 
soon  feels  the  pangs  of  hunger  and  the  dread  specter  of  want  casts  its  dis¬ 
mal  shadow  over  many  a  humble  home. 

Religion  is  the  only  influence  that  has  been  able  to  subdue  the  pride 
toiid  the  passions  of  men,  to  refine  the  manners  and  guide  the  conduct  of 
human  society,  so  that  rich  and  poor  alike,  mindful  of  their  common 
destiny,  respect  each  other’s  rights,  their  mutual  dependence,  and  the  rights 
of  their  common  Father  in  heaven.  The  religious  teachers  and  guides  who 
apply  the  principles  of  the  “  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ”  to  the  everyday  affairs 
of  men,  and  lead  humanity  upward  to  a  better  and  nobler  realization  of 
God’s  compassion  for  the  weary  ones  of  earth,  will  merit  the  undying 
gratitude  of  men  and  heaven’s  choicest  rewards. 

Among  the  records  of  noble  men  and  deeds  of  unselfish  devotion, 
covering  the  second  half  of  this  19th  century,  emblazoned  in  brilliant 
characters  of  glorious  light,  there  will  be  found  by  grateful  generations  yet 
unborn  the  name  and  memory  of  him  who  might  have  taken  a  leader’s 
place  among  the  proudest  aristocracy  and  the  most  haughty  nobility  in  the 
world.  By  position  and  fortune,  by  education  and  social  environment,  he 
was  regarded  as  an  ornament  in  the  brilliant  assemblages  of  wealth  and 
exclusive  refinement.  His  cultured  mind  and  refined  nature  might  have 
found  peace,  honor,  congenial  friendship,  and  the  world’s  applause  in  his 
lofty  place  at  the  summit  of  idolized  wealth  and  power. 

But  with  burning  love  for  God,  his  great  soul  was  on  fire  with  an 


566 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


unquenchable  love  for  humanity.  He  sought  companionship  with  tha 
poor.  He  devoted  his  unrivaled  gifts  of  head  and  heart  to  the  uplifting  of 
the  weary  sons  of  toil.  With  magic  voice  and  tireless  pen  he  pleaded  th© 
cause  of  labor  inspired  by  the  loftiest  sentiments  of  religion.  When  shah 
we  see  his  like  again?  Can  toiling  humanity  ever  forget  him?  ReligioL 
reveres  his  memory.  Need  I  name  him? — Henry  Edward  Manning,  the 
immortal  Cardinal  Archbishop  of  Westminster. 

The  great  English  cardinal,  whose  sympathetic  heart  was  the  repository 
of  the  confidences  of  the  poor,  who  often  stood  a  peacemaker  between  excited, 
irritated  labor  and  cold,  unfeeling  capital,  to  save  the  city  of  London  from 
scenes  of  wreck  and  carnage,  was  a  tireless  and  consistent  advocate  of  arbi¬ 
tration  as  a  means  of  reconciling  the  differences  that  arise  between  employer 
and  employed.  The  world  has  outgrown,  let  us  hope,  the  barbarism  cf 
brute  force  as  a  means  of  deciding  disputes  between  men  and  nations. 

Mankind  has  only  recently  been  taught  a  lesson,  the  influence  of  whie 
must  be  felt  wherever  men  have  contests  over  their  rights  or  immunities. 
England  and  the  United  States  arbitrate  their  differences  over  the  seal 
fisheries  in  Bering  Sea  and  the  country  against  whose  interests  this  distin¬ 
guished  court  renders  its  decision  accepts  the  verdict  with  as  good  grace  as 
the  great  nation  that  is  the  fortune  winner  in  the  contest.  In  past  ages 
matters  of  far  less  moment  have  been  the  means  of  deluging  nations  in 
rivers  of  blood. 

Let  capital  and  labor  come  nearer  together  and,  in  close  contact  with 
their  common  humanity,  honestly  and  intelligently  harmonize  all  their  dif¬ 
ferences  on  a  basis  of  justice  to  all.  The  interest  of  labor  in  the  security  of 
capital  IS  equal  only  to  the  concern  of  labor  for  its  own  prosperity.  Con- 
•tented,  prosperous  labor  is  capital’s  most  secure  safeguard.  The  rich  and 
poor  have  a  common  destiny  and  common  hope;  both  are  hastening  onward 
through  a  “valley  of  tears,”  to  appear  before  a  common  Father,  who  in 
tender  love  will  show  justice  and  mercy  to  all  His  children. 

Ayssa,  by  v/hich  Sidi  Ben  Aissa  is  sometimes  known,  means  literally 
“Our  Lord  Jesus,”  and  it  has  been  surmised  by  some  that  the  sectaries 
are  a  remnant  of  the  Ophites,  who  were  once  scattered  through  Barbary. 


CHAPTEK  XII.  ' 


TWELFTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  22d. 


CIVIL  SOCIETY,  RELIGIOUS  DEBT,  FOREIGN 

MISSIONS. 

Strange  surprises  and  sharp  contrasts  rendered  the  22d  of 
September  a  day  of  variety  at  Columbus  Hall.  The  amphi¬ 
theater  was  thronged  with  people  within  a  few  minutes  after 
the  doors  were  opened.  At  the  afternoon  session  a  symposium 
on  foreign  missions  was  held,  and  eminent  professors,  of 
various  faiths,  took  part  in  the  discussion. 

Before  the  parliament  was  called  to  order  in  the  morning, 
Bev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones  introduced  the  archimandrite  of  the 
apostolic  and  patriarchal  throne  of  the  orthodox  church  in 
Syria — a  man  who  attracted  great  attention  owing  to  the 
peculiarity  of  his  garb  and  personal  appearance.  He  was 
always  bareheaded  and  wore  his  hair  in  flowing  locks,  which 
reached  half-way  down  his  back.  He  had  a  full,  dark  beard,  and 
a  look  in  his  eyes  as  if  in  constant  meditation.  In  presenting 

the  archimandrite  Mr.  Jones  said: 

He  is  a  man  with  whom  I  have  exhausted  all  the  Arabic  I  can  com¬ 
mand,  and  he  has  exhausted  all  the  English  he  can  command,  which  is  a 
little  more  than  I  can  of  Arabic,  in  getting  acquainted.  I  have  found  out 
this  much  about  him:  His  name  is  Christopher  Jebara.  He  comes  to  us 
from  the  far-off  church  of  Damascus.  He  is  the  archimandrite  of  the 
apostolic  and  patriarchal  throne  of  the  orthodox  church  in  Syria  and  the 
whole  East.  He  comes  to  us  with  a  pamphlet  which  a  friend,  a  graduate 
of  the  Syrian  Protestant  college  at  Beyrout,  has  Englished  out  of  the 
Arabic  in  which  it  was  first  written;  and,  more  than  that,  he  comes 
to  us  with  this  pamphlet  bearing  as  .its  title,  “Unity  in  Faith  and 
Harmony  in  Religion” — a  title  that  must  justify  your  enthusiasm  and 
respect.  Without  passing  any  judgment  on  the  contents  I  have  looked 
into  it  enough  to  find'myself  surprised  and  delighted  that  away  out  there 
on  the  classic  grounds  of  Damascus  there  is  working  the  same  spirit,  a 
groping  for  the  same  result,  as  that  which  lies  so  close  to  the  heart  of  this 

567 


568 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


congress.  I  may  say  further  that  I  know  the  archimandrite  commands 
the  respect  and  confidence  of  certain  members  of  this  parliament  who  are 
privileged  to  be  acquainted  with  him.  He  brings  GOO  copies  of  this 
pamphlet  and  wishes  you  to  possess  yourselves  of  coi)ies  and  write  him 
your  opinion  of  its  contents.  It  is  an  honest,  a  scholarly,  and  a  labored 
attempt  to  discover  the  fundamental  basis  that  underlies  the  three  great 
monotheistic  religions  of  the  world,  JiiCuism,  Christianity,  and  Moham¬ 
medanism,  and  to  find  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testament  and 
the  Koran  a  certain  fundamental  revel-ation,  which,  being  recognized, 
would  meet  largely  the  hunger  of  the  human  heart. 

The  exercises  of  the  morning  then  began  by  the  recital  of 
the  universal  prayer  by  Dr.  Philip  Schaff.  After  being  intro¬ 
duced  by  Dr.  Barrows  as  a  Christian  scholar,  honored  alike  in 
America  and  Europe,  Dr.  SchafP  took  the  floor  for  a  few 

moments  and  spoke  as  follows: 

This  is  rather  short  notice  to  sj^eak  to  one  wHo  has  just  risen  from  the 
dead.  A  little  more  than  a  year  ago  I  was  struck  down  by  apoplexy,  but 
I  have  recovered  by  the  mercy  of  God  and  I  am  a  miracle  to  myself.  I  was 
warned  by  physicians  and  friends  not  to  come  to  Chicago.  They  said  it 
would  kill  me.  Well,  let  it  kill  me.  I  was  determined  to  bear  my  last 
dying  testimony  to  the  cause  of  Christian  union  in  which  I  have  been 
interested  all  my  life.  But  I  think  the  Lord  will  give  me  strength  to  sur¬ 
vive  this  Parliament  of  Religions.  The  idea  of  this  parliament  will  survive 
all  criticism.  The  critics  will  die,  but  the  cause  will  remain.  And,  as  sure 
as  God  is  the  truth,  and  as  sure  as  Christ  is  the  way,  the  life,  and  the 
truth.  His  word  shall  be  fulfilled  and  there  shall  be  one  flock  and  the  one 
shepherd. 


RELIGION  AND  WEALTH. 

REV.  WASHINGTON  GLADDEN,  D.  D. 

Religion  and  wealth  are  two  great  interests  of  human  life.  Are  they 
hostile  or  friendly?  Are  they  mutuafiy  exclusive  or  can  they  dwell 
together  in  unity?  In  a  perfect  social  state  what  would  be  their  relations? 

What  is  religion?  Essentially  it  is  the  devout  recognition  of  a  supreme 
power.  It  is  belief  in  a  creator,  a  sovereign,  a  father  of  men,  with  some 
sense  of  dependence  upon  him  and  obligation  to  him.  The  religious  life  is 
the  life  according  to  God,  the  life  whose  keynote  is  harmony  with  the  divine 
nature  and  conformity  to  the  Divine  will.  What  will  the  man  who  is  living 
this  kind  of  a  life  chink  about  wealth?  How  will  his  religion  affect  his 
thoughts  about  wealth?  If  all  men  were  in  this  highest  sense  of  the  wwd 
religious,  should  we  have  wealth  among  us? 

To  answer  this  question  intelligently  we  must  first  define  wealth.  The 
economists  have  had  much  disputation  over  the  word,  but  for  our  purposes 
we  may  safely  define  wealth  as  consisting  in  exchangeable  goods.  All  prod¬ 
ucts,  commodities,  rights  which  men  desire  and  which  in  this  commercial 
age  can  be  exchanged  for  money  we  may  include  under  this  term.  But  the 
question  before  us  has  in  view  the  abundance,  the  profusion  of  exchangea¬ 
ble  goods  now  existing  in  all  civilized  nations.  There  is  vastly  more  in  the 
hands  of  the  men  of  Europe  and  America  to-day  than  suffices  to  supply 
their  immediate  physical  necessities.  Vast  stores  of  fuel,  of  clothing,  and 
ornament,  of  luxuries  of  all  sorts,  millions  of  costly  homes,  filled  with  all 


RELIGION  AND  WEALTH. 


5G9 


manner  of  comforts  and  adornments,  enormous  aggregations  of  machinery 
for  the  production  and  transportation  of  exchangeable  goods — these  are  a 
few  of  the  signs  of  that  abundance  toward  which  our  thought  is  now 
directed. 

Our  question  is  whether,  if  all  men  lived  according  to  God,  in  perfect 
harmony  with  His  thought,  in  perfect  conformity  with  His  will,  the  world 
would  contain  such  an  abundance  of  exchangeable  goods  as  that  which  we 
now  contemplate? 

This  is  a  question  which  the  devout  have  long  debated.  Through  long 
periods  and  over  wide  eras  the  prevalent  conception  of  religion  has  involved 
the  renunciation  of  riches.  The  life  of  the  pious  Brahman  culminates  in 
mendicancy;  he  reaches  perfection  only  when  he  rids  himself  of  all  the 
goods  of  this  world. 

Buddhism  does  not  demand  of  all  devotees  the  ascetic  life,  but  its  emi¬ 
nent  saints  adopt  this  life,  and  poverty  is  regarded  as  the  indispensable  con¬ 
dition  of  the  highest  sanctity.  The  sacred  order  founded  by  Gautama  was 
an  order  of  mendii-ants.  Three  garments  of  cotton  cloth,  made  from  cast¬ 
off  rags,  are  the  monk’s  whole  wardrobe,  and  the  only  additional  possessions 
allowed  him  are  a  girdle  for  the  loins,  an  alms-bowl,  a  razor,  a  needle,  and  a 
water-strainer.  The  monastic  rule  has  had  wide  vogue,  however,  in  Chris¬ 
tian  communions,  and  the  great  numbers  of  saintly  men  have  adopted  the 
rule  of  poverty.  Many  of  the  early  Christian  fathers  use  very  strong  lan¬ 
guage  in  denouncing  the  possession  of  wealth  as  essentially  irreligious. 

The  corner-stone  of  monasticism  is  the  sanctity  of  poverty.  It  is  not  too 
much  to  say  that  for  ages  the  ideal  of  saintliness  involved  the  renunciation 
of  wealth.  Nor  is  this  notion  confined  to  the  monastic  ages  or  the  monastic 
communities.  There  are  many  good  Protestants,  even  in  these  days,  who 
feel  that  there  is  an  essential  incompatibility  between  the  posse.ssion  of 
wealth  and  the  attainment  of  a  high  degree  of  sjjirituality. 

Doubtless  the  ascetic  doctrine  respecting  wealth  finds  support  in  certain 
texts  in  the  New  Testament.  “  Ye  can  not  serve  God  and  Mammon.”  IIow 
hardly  shall  they  that  have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.”  “  Who¬ 
soever  he  be  of  you  that  renounceth  not  all  that  he  hath  he  can  not  be  my 
disciple.” 

It  will  not  be  difficult  for  the  student  to  find  other  words  of  Jesus  relat¬ 
ing  to  the  possession  and  use  of  the  good  thing.s  of  this  world  in  which  the 
subject  is  placed  in  a  different  light.  The  fact  that  several  rich  men  are 
mentioned  as  friends  of  Jesus  must  also  be  taken  into  consideration.  The 
ascetic  doctrine  with  regard  to  wealth  can  not,  I  think,  be  clearly  drawn 
from  the  New  Testament.  Nevertheless  this  doctrine  has  greatly  influenced 
the  thought,  not  the  life,  of  the  Christian  church. 

This  feeling  has  been  strengthened  also  by  the  abundances  of  wealth. 
How  grave  these  abuses  have  always  been  I  need  not  try  to  tell;  it  is  the 
most  threadbare  of  truisms.  Love  of  money,  in  Paul’s  words,  has  been  “  a 
root  of  all  kinds  of  evil.”  The  desire  of  wealth  is  the  parent  of  pride  and 
extortion  and  cruelty  and  oppression;  it  is  the  minister  of  treason  and 
corruption  and  bribery  in  the  commonwealth;  it  is  the  purveyer  of  lust  and 
debauchery;  it  is  the  instigator  of  countless  crimes. 

It  is  in  these  abuses  of  wealth,  doubtless,  that  devout  men  have  found 
the  chief  reason  for  their  skepticism  concerning  it  and  their  renunciation 
of  it.  It  is  often  difficult  for  ardent  and  strenuous  souls  to  distinguish 
between  use  and  abuse.  What  is  the  truth  in  this  case?  Do  the  author¬ 
ities  rightly  interpret  the  will  of  God?  Is  their  manner  of  life  the  perfect 
life?  Would  God  be  better  pleased  with  men  if  they  had  no  i^ossessions 
beyond  the  supply  of  the  actual  needs  of  the  hour? 

The  earth’s  riches  are  simply  the  development  of  the  earth’s  resources. 
It  is  plain  that  these  material  resources  of  the  earth  readily  submit  them¬ 
selves  to  this  proce.-s  of  development  under  the  hand  of  man.  Is  it  not 


570 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OE  RELIGIONS. 


equally  plain  that  these  processes  of  development  have  followed,  for  the 
most  part,  natural  laws  ;  that  these  grains,  and  fruits,  and  roots,  and  living 
creatures  have  simply  been  aided  by  man  in  fulfilling  the  laws  of  their  own 
life? 

In  order  that  men  may  reach  intellectual  and  spiritual  perfection  there 
must  be  opportunity  for  study,  for  meditation,  for  communion  with  nature. 
There  must  be  time  and  facilities  for  travel,  that  the  products  and  thoughts 
of  all  climes  may  be  studied  and  compared  ;  that  human  experience  may  be 
enlarged  and  human  sympathies  broadened  and  deepened.  It  is  no  more 
possible  that  humanity  should  attain  its  ideal  perfection  in  poverty  than 
that  maize  should  flourish  in  Greenland. 

If,  then,  the  material  wealth  of  the  world  consists  simply  in  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  powers  with  which  nature  has  been  stocked  by  the  Creator,  and  if 
this  development  is  the  necessary  condition  of  the  perfection  of  man,  who  is 
made  in  the  image  of  God,  it  is  certain  that  in  the  production  of  wealth,  in 
the  multiplication  of  exchangeable  utilities,  man  is  a  co-worker  with  God. 

So  much  has  religion  to  say  concerning  the  production  of  wealth.  I  am 
sure  that  the  verdict  of  the  religious  consciousness  on  this  part  of  the 
question  must  be  clear  and  unfaltering. 

But  there  is  another  important  iuquiry.  That  wealth  should  exist  is 
plainly  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God — but  in  whose  hands?  Religion 
justifies  the  production  of  wealth;  what  has  religion  to  say  about  its  dis¬ 
tribution?  The  religious  man  must  seek  to  be  a  co-worker  with  God,  not 
only  in  the  production,  but  also  in  the  distribution  of  wealth.  Can  we 
discover  God’s  plan  for  this  distribution? 

It  is  pretty  clear  that  the  world  has  not  as  yet  discovered  God’s  plan. 
The  existing  distribution  is  far  from  being  ideal.  While  tens  of  thousands 
are  rioting  in  superfluity,  hundreds  of  thousands  are  suffering  for  the  lack 
of  the  necessaries  of  life ;  some  are  even  starving.  That  the  suffering  is 
often  due  to  indolence  and  improvidence  and  vice — a  natural  penalty  which 
ought  not  to  be  set  aside — may  be  freely  admitted,  but  when  that  is  all 
taken  acount  of  there  is  a  great  deal  of  penury  left  which  it  is  hard  to 
justify  in  view  of  the  opulence  everywhere  visible. 

What  is  the  rule  by  which  the  wealth  of  the  world  is  now  distributed? 
Fundamentally,  I  think,  it  is  the  rule  of  the  strongest.  The  rule  has  been 
greatly  modified  in  the  progress  of  civilization;  a  great  many  kinds  of 
violence  are  now  prohibited;  in  many  ways  the  weak  are  protected  by  law 
against  the  encroachments  of  the  strong;  human  rapacity  is  confined  within 
certain  metes  and  bounds;  nevertheless  the  wealth  of  the  world  is  still,  in 
the  main,  the  prize  of  strength  and  skill.  Our  laws  furnish  the  rules  of  the 
game,  but  the  game  is  essentially  as  Rob  Roy  describes  it;  To  everyone 
according  to  his  power  is  the  underlying  principle  of  the  present  system  of 
distribution.  It  is  evident  that  under  such  a  system,  in  spite  of  legal 
restraints,  the  strong  will  trample  upon  the  weak.  We  can  not  believe  that 
such  a  system  can  be  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  a  Father  to  whom  the 
poor  and  needy  are  the  especial  objects  of  care. 

A  striking  illustration  of  the  fact  that  this  is  the  fundamental  principle 
of  the  existing  industrial  order  is  seen  in  the  recent  occupation  of  the 
Cherokee  lands.  Our  government  had  a  little  property  to  distribute.  And 
on  what  principle  was  the  distribution  made?  Was  the  land  divided  among 
the  neediest,  or  the  worthiest,  or  the  most  learned,  or  the  most  patriotic? 
No;  it  was  offered  to  the  strongest.  Only  those  of  the  toughest  muscle  and 
greatest  powers  of  endurance  had  any  chance  in  the  melee.  The  govern¬ 
ment  stood  by  to  prevent  the  competitors,  so  far  as  possible,  from  killing  or 
maiming  one  another  in  the  scramble;  it  tried  to  enforce  the  rules  of  the 
game;  but  the  game  was  essentially  a  contest  of  strength. 

What  other  rule  of  distribution  can  religion  suggest?  Let  us  quote  a 
few  comprehensive  words  from  Dr.  Newman  Smyth:  “Three  socialistic 


RELIGION  AND  WEALTH, 


571 


principles  have  been  proposed;  to  everyone  alike;  to  e*  eryone  according  to 
his  needs;  to  everyone  according  to  his  work.  But  would  either  be  a  suf- 
ticient  ethical  distribution?  What,  under  perfect  economic  conditions, 
would  be  an  ideal  distribution  of  goods?  The  first  principle  of  distribu¬ 
tion,  to  all  alike,  would  itself  occasion  an  unequal  distribution,  because  all 
have  not  equal  needs,  or  the  same  capacity  for  reception  or  ability  to  use 
what  is  received;  heaven  can  do  no  communism;  every  cup  will  be  filled,  and 
but  there  may  be  differences  in  the  sizes  of  the  cups.  The  second  principle 
may  be  charitable  but  it  is  not  just,  as  needs  are  no  standard  either  of 
service  rendered  or  true  desert.  The  third  may  be  just,  but  it  is  not  merci¬ 
ful.  In  a  perfect  distribution  of  good,  justice,  mercy,  and  regard  for  pos¬ 
sible  use  may  be  combined.” 

These  words  bring  clearly  before  us  the  problem  of  distribution.  I 
think  that  we  can  see  that  none  of  these  methods,  taken  by  itself,  would 
furnish  a  rule  in  perfect  harmony  with  divine  justice  and  benignity.  The 
communistic  rule  is  clearly  unjust  and  impracticable.  To  give  to  all  an 
equal  portion  would  be  wasteful  in  the  extreme,  for  some  could  by  no  pos¬ 
sibility  use  their  portion;  much  of  it  would  be  squandered  and  lost.  Some 
could  use  productively  and  beneficently  ten  times  or  even  a  thousand  times 
more  than  others.  The  divine  wisdom  must  follow  somewhat  closely  the 
rule  of  the  man  in  the  parable  who  distributed  his  goods  among  his  serv¬ 
ants,  giving  “to  every  man  according  to  his  several  ability.”  But  ability 
here  is  not  ability  to  take,  but  ability  to  use  beneficently  and  productively, 
which  is  a  very  different  matter. 

The  ability  of  men  productively  and  beneficently  to  use  wealth  is  by  no 
means  equal;  often  those  who  have  most  power  in  getting  it  show  little 
wisdom  in  using  it.  One  man  could  handle  with  benefit  to  himself  and  fel¬ 
lows  $100,000  a  year;  another  could  not  handle  $1,000  a  year  without  doing 
both  to  himself  and  his  fellows  great  injury.  If  the  function  of  wealth 
inder  the  divine  order  is  the  development  of  manhood,  then  it  is  plain  that 
vf.n  equal  distribution  of  it  would  be  altogether  inadmissible;  for  under 
such  a  distribution  some  would  obtain  far  less  than  they  could  use  with 
benefit  and  others  far  more. 

The  socialistic  maxims,  “  To  each  according  to  his  needs  ”  and  “  To 
each  according  to  his  worth,”  are  evidently  ambiguous.  What  needs?  The 
needs  of  the  body  or  of  the  spirit?  And  how  can  we  assure  ourselves  that 
by  any  distribution  which  we  could  effect  real  needs  would  be  supplied? 
Any  distribution  according  to  supposed  needs  would  be  constantly  per¬ 
verted.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  ascertain  and  measure  the  real  needs 

men. 

“To  each  according  to  his  works”  is  equally  uncertain.  What  works? 
iVorks  of  greed  or  works  of  love?  Works  whose  aim  is  sordid  or  works 
whose  aim  is  social?  According  to  the  divine  plan  the  function  of  wealth, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  the  perfection  of  character  and  the  promotion  of  social 
welfare.  The  divine  plan  must,  therefore,  be  that  wealth  shall  be  so  dis¬ 
tributed  as  to  secure  the  greatest  results.  And  religion  which  seeks  to 
discern  and  follow  the  divine  plan  must  teach  that  the  wealth  of  the  world 
will  be  rightly  distributed  only  when  every  man  shall  have  as  much  as  he 
can  wisely  use  to  make  himself  a  better  man,  and  the  community  in  which 
he  lives  a  better  community — so  much  and  no  more. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  divine  plan  is  yet  far  from  realization.  Other  and 
far  less  ideal  methods  of  distribution  are  recognized  by  our  laws,  and  it 
would  be  folly  greatly  to  change  the  laws  until  radical  changes  have  taken 
place  in  human  nature. 


572 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


WHAT  THE  BIBLE  HAS  WROUGHT. 

REV.  JOSEPH  COOK  OF  BOSTON. 

The  trustworthiness  of  the  scriptures  in  revealing  the  way  of  peace  for 
the  soul  has  well  been  called  religious  infallibility.  The  worth  of  the  Bible 
results  also  from  the  fact  that  it  contains  a  revelation  of  religious  truth  not 
elsewhere  communicated  to  man.  The  worth  of  the  Bible  results  also  from 
the  fact  that  it  is  the  most  powerful  agency  known  to  history  in  promoting 
the  social,  industrial,  and  political  reformation  of  the  world  by  securing  the 
religious  regeneration  of  individual  lives.  It  is  certain  that  men  and  nations 
are  sick,  and  that  the  Bible,  open  and  obeyed,  heals  them.  All  this  is  true, 
wholly  irrespective  of  any  question  as  to  the  method  of  inspiration.  The 
worth  of  the  Bible  results,  in  the  next  place,  from  its  containing,  as  a 
whole,  the  highest  religious  and  ethical  ideals  known  to  man.  There  is  the 
Bible,  taken  as  a  whole  and  without  a  forced  interpretation,  a  coherent 
system  of  ethics  and  theology,  and  an  implied  philosophy  dazzling  any  other 
system  known  to  any  age  of  the  world.  In  asserting  the  religious  infalli¬ 
bility  of  the  scriptures  I  assume  only  two  things:  1.  The  literal  infallibility 
of  the  strictly  self-evident  truths  of  scripture.  2.  The  veracity  of  Christ. 

It  is  a  fact,  and  a  verifiable,  organizing,  redemptive  fact,  that  the  script¬ 
ures  teach  monotheism,  not  polytheism,  not  pantheism,  not  atheism,  not 
agnosticism.  This  pillar  was  set  up  early.  It  has  been  maintained. in  its 
commanding  position  at  the  cost  of  innumerable  struggles  with  false  relig¬ 
ions  and  false  philosophies.  It  has  resisted  all  attack  and  dominates  the 
enlightened  part  of  the  world  to-day.  Man’s  creation  in  the  image  of  God 
is  the  next  columnar  truth.  This  means  God’s  fatherhood  and  man’s  son- 
ship.  It  means  God’s  sovereignty  and  man’s  debt  of  loyalty.  It  means  the 
unity  of  the  race.  Men  can  have  communion  with  each  other  only 
through  their  common  union  with  God.  It  means  susceptibility  to  relig¬ 
ious  inspiration.  It  means  free  will  with  its  responsibilities.  The  family 
is  the  next  column  which  we  meet  in  the  majestic  nave.  Here  is  the  germ 
of  all  human  government.  The  ideal  of  the  family  set  up  in  scripture  is 
monogamy.  This  ideal  has  been  subjected  for  ages  to  the  severest  attack. 
It  is  an  unshaken  columnar  truth,  however,  and  dominates  the  eniighteneii 
portions  of  humanity  at  this  hour. 

The  Sabbath  is  the  next  pillar,  a  column  set  up  early  and  seen  far  and 
wide  across  the  landscapes  of  time,  and  dominating  their  most  fruitful 
fields.  The  cuneiform  tablets  now  in  the  hands  of  Assyriologists  show  that 
centuries  before  Abraham  left  Chaldea,  one  day  in  seven  was  spoken  of  as 
the  day  of  cessation  from  labor,  and  the  day  of  rest  for  the  heart. 

A  severe  view  of  sin  is  the  next  pillar.  Ethical  monotheism  appears  on 
the  first  page  of  the  Bible.  The  free  soul  of  man  is  there  represented  as 
under  probation  without  grace.  Freedom  is  abused;  disorder  springs  up 
among  the  human  faculties;  there  is  a  fall  from  the  -divine  order.  This 
severe  view  of  sin  is  found  nowhere  outside  the  scriptures.  This  fall  from 
the  divine  order  is  a  fact  of  man’s  experience  to  the  present  hour. 

Hope  of  redemption  through  undeserved  mercy,  or  the  divine  grace,  is 
the  next  pillar.  This  column  is  set  up  early  in  the  Biblical  cathedral,  and 
the  top  of  it  yet  reaches  to  the  heavens  themselves.  Man  is  represented  in 
the  most  ancient  page  of  the  scriptures  as  at  first  under  probation  without 
grace.  He  fell  from  the  divine  order  and  is  then  represented  as  under  pro¬ 
bation  with  grace.  “The  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent’s 
head.”  These  words  are  the  germ  of  the  gospel  itself. 

The  Decalogue  is  the  next  pillar — a  clustered  column — wholly  erect  after 
ages  of  earthquakes.  This  marvelous  pillar  is  the  central  portion  or  the 
earliest  scriptures.  All  the  laws  in  the  books  in  which  the  Decalogue  is 
found,  cluster  around  it.  Even  if  it  were  known  where  and  how  and  whe/ 


WHAT  THE  BIBLE  HAS  WROUGHT. 


573 


the  Decalogue  originated,  the  prodigious  fact  yet  remains  that  it  works  well. 
Who  knows  where  the  multiplication  table  originated?  It  works  well.  Who 
can  tell  who  invented  the  system  of  Arabic  notation,  giving  a  different 
value  to  a  figure  according  to  its  position?  The  books  do  not  inform  us. 
This  system  is  based  on  a  very  refined  knowledge  of  numbers,  and  is  proba¬ 
bly  a  spark  from  the  old  Sanskrit  anvil;  but  the  Hindu  writers  ascribe  it 
to  supernatural  revelation.  No  matter  where  the  scheme  originated,  it  is 
certain  that  it  works  well. 

The  Psalms  are  the  next  pillar  in  the  divine  cathedral  of  the  scriptures, 
or  rather  a  whole  transept  of  pillars.  Three  thousand  years  they  have  been 
the  highest  manual  of  devotion  known  among  men.  Nothing  like  them,  as 
a  collection,  can  be  found  in  all  antiquity.  Greece  has  spoken,  Rome  has 
had  the  ear  of  ages,  modern  time  has  uttered  all  its  voices,  but  the  Psalms 
remain,  wholly  unsurpassed.  They  express,  as  nothing  outside  the  Holy 
Scriptures  does,  not  only  the  unity,  the  righteousness,  the  power,  and 
the  majesty  of  God,  but  also  His  mercy.  His  condescension,  His  pity.  His 
tenderness.  His  love.  They  are  the  blossoming  of  the  religious  spirit  of 
the  law. 

The  great  prophecies  are  the  next  pillar,  or  rather  we  must  call  these, 
like  the  Psalms,  a  whole  transept  of  pillars.  A  chosen  man  called  out  of 
Ur  of  the  Chaldees  was  to  become  a  chosen  family,  and  that  family  was 
to  become  a  chosen  nation,  and  that  nation  gave  birth  to  a  chosen 
religious  leader,  who  was  to  found  a  chosen  church  to  fill  the  earth. 
This  prediction  existed  ages  before  Christianity  appeared  in  the  world. 
Not  even  the  wildest  claim  made  by  negative  criticism  invalidates  the  fact 
that  this  prophecy  spans  hundreds  of  years  as  an  immeasurably  majestic 
bow  of  the  divine  promise.  This  was  to  be  the  course  of  religious  history, 
and  it  has  been.  The  Jews  were  to  be  scattered  among  all  nations  and  yet 
preserved  as  a  separate  people,  and  they  have  been. 

The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  the  next  pillar,  and  it  stands  where  nave 
and  transept  of  the  Biblical  cathedral  open  into  the  choir.  “  The  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,”  Daniel  Webster  wrote  on  his  tombstone,  “  can  not  be 
merely  human  production.  This  belief  enters  into  the  depth  of  my  con¬ 
science.  The  whole  history  of  man  proves  it.”  There  stands  the  clustered 
column,  there  it  has  stood  for  ages,  and  there  it  will  stand  forever. 

The  Lord’s  Prayer  is  the  next  column.  It  has  its  foundation  in  thepro- 
foundest  wants  of  man;  its  capital  in  the  boundless  canopy  of  the  father¬ 
hood  of  God.  Neither  the  foundation  nor  the  capital  will  crumble,  nor  the 
column  fall  while  man’s  nature  and  God’s  nature  remain  unchanged. 

The  character  of  Christ  is  the  holy  of  holies  of  the  cathedral  of  the 
scriptures.  The  gospels,  and  especially  the  fourth  gospel,  are  the  inmost 
sanctuary  of  the  whole  divine  temple.  “  I  know  men,”  said  Napoleon, 
“  and  I  tell  you  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  a  mere  man.”  Mrs.  Browning 
wrote  these  words  on  the  leaf  of  her  New  Testament  and  Robert  Browning 
quoted  them  from  that  sacred  place  to  a  friend  at  the  point  of  death. 
“  The  sinlessness  of  Christ,”  said  Horace  Bushnell,  “  forbids  His  possible 
classification  with  men.” 

The  identification  of  Christ  with  the  Logos,  or  the  eternal  wisdom  and 
reason,  and  of  Christ’s  spirit  with  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  supreme  truth 
rising  from  the  side  of  the  sanctuary  in  the  holy  of  holies  of  the  Biblical 
cathedral. 

The  verifiable  promise  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  every  soul  self- 
surrendered  to  God  in  conscience  is  the  next  pillar. 

The  founding  of  the  Christian  church,  which  is  with  us  to  this  day,  is 
the  next.  The  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  instituted  by 
our  Lord  Himself,  are  His  continuous  autograph,  written  across  the  pages 
of  centuries. 

The  fruits  of  Christianity  are  the  fipal  cluster  of  pillars  rising  to  the 


574 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


eastern  window  that  looks  on  better  ages  to  come,  and  is  perpetuaii;y 
hooded  with  a  divine  illumination.  Goethe  represented  the  Philistine  as 
failing  to  admire  cathedral  windows  because  he  sees  them  from  the  outside, 
while  they  are  all  glorious  if  seen  from  within  the  temple.  All  this  is  true 
of  the  majestic  windows  in  the  biblical  cathedral,  including  the  most 
sacred  spiritual  history  of  the  church,  age  after  age. 

The  foundation  stones  beneath  all  the  pillars  and  beneath  the  altar  in 
the  Cathedral  of  Revelation  are  the  strictly  self-evident  truths  of  the 
eternal  reason  or  the  divine  Logos,  who  is  the  essential  Christ.  God  is  one, 
and  so  the  system  of  nature  and  of  revelation  must  be  one.  The  universe 
is  called  such  because  it  is  a  unit.  It  reveals  God  as  unity,  reason,  and 
love.  And  all  the  strength  of  the  foundation  stones  belongs  to  the  pillar 
and  pinnacle  of  the  cathedral  of  the  holy  word.  And  the  form  of  the 
whole  cathedral  is  that  of  the  cross.  The  unity  of  the  scriptural  archi¬ 
tecture,  built  age  after  age,  is  one  of  the  supreme  miracles  of  history.  It 
is  a  self-revelation  of  the  hand  that  lifted  the  biblical  pillars  one  by  one 
according  to  a  plan  known  unto  God  from  the  beginning.  And  the  cath¬ 
edral  itself  is  full  of  a  cloud  of  souls.  There  is  a  goodly  company  of  the 
martyrs,  and  the  apostles,  and  the  prophets.  There  is  the  Lord  and  the 
Giver  of  Life.  And  with  this  company  we  join  in  the  perpetual  anthem: 
“  Forever,  O  Lord,  thy  word  is  settled  in  heaven.”  “  Oh,  how  love  I  thy 
law;  sweeter  is  it  to  me  than  honey  and  the  honeycomb!  ’’ 

It  is  true  there  are  things  in  the  Old  Testament  we  do  not  now  imitate, 
but  they  were  trees  that  were  trimmed  from  the  start.  But  take  the 
scriptures  as  a  whole  and  from  them  you  can  gather  an  inspiration  such  as 
comes  from  no  other  book.  I  believe  it  and  you  believe  it.  I  take  up  the 
books  of  Plato,  which  I  think  are  nearest  to  those  of  the  Bible,  and  press 
those  clusters  of  grapes  and  there  is  an  odious  stench  of  polygamy  and 
slavery  in  the  resulting  juices.  I  will  say  nothing  of  the  other  sacred 
books.  There  are  adulterated  elements  in  all  of  them  however  good  some 
of  the  elements  may  be.  Now  it  is  nothing  to  me  if  Professor  Brooks  can 
show  that  some  fly  has  lighted  here  or  there  on  one  or  two  of  those  golden 
clusters  of  grapes  and  speckled  it.  Now,  don’t  misunderstand  me,  for  I 
think  that  parts  of  the  Bible  were  absolutely  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
I  believe  the  Lord’s  Prayer  is  exactly  as  God  gave  it.  Was  Christ  inspired  ? 
If  anybody  ever  was  he  was. 


RELIGION  IN  HAWAIIAN  LANDS. 

EEV.  EDWAED  P.  BAKEE  OF  HAWAII. 

Little  Hawaii  is  the  smallest  of  nations.  Its  population  is  90,000, 
scarcely  the  equal  of  a  fourth-rate  American  city.  But  this  small  nation 
has  at  the  same  time  more  religion  in  it  than  any  I  know  of,  considering  its 
size.  In  one  Hawaiian  town  alone  are  a  Catholic  church,  four  Protestant 
churches,  speaking  as  many  languages — Hawaiian,  English,  Japanese, 
Portuguese,  and  Chinese — a  Chinese  temple,  Confucian,  and  a  Japanese 
temple.  Buddhistic.  There  was  in  that  place  some  months  ago  a  sort  of 
survival  of  the  Tower  of  Babel  and  the  day  of  Pentecost  combined,  in  the 
shape  of  a  polyglot  religious  meeting,  in  which  there  was  prayer  and  dis¬ 
course  in  five  languages — Hawaiian,  Portuguese,  Japanese,  Chinese,  and 
English — and  the  different  nations  of  which  that  meeting  was  composed 
heard  every  man  speak  in  his  own  tongue.  So  that  I  feel  at  home  in  this 
parliament,  for  votary  of  Christianity  as  I  am,  I  have  repeatedly  held  par¬ 
liaments,  conferences,  or  inquiry  meetings  with  the  priests  of  Buddhism  to 
learn  from  them  their  method  O'f  solving  the  problem  of  existence,  and  have 
listened  to  their  preaching  in  their  own  temples,  as  they  inculcated  our 


RELIGION  IN  HAWAIIAN  LANDS. 


575 


ordinary  19th-century  morality.  Nor  should  I  omit  to  say  that  Buddhism 
is  (as  I  am  able  to  state  of  my  own  personal  knowledge)  a  missionary  relig¬ 
ion,  the  Buddhistic  temple  located  in  the  place  of  my  residence  having 
been  erected  in  part  by  funds  sent  thither  from  Japan  by  the  Lincheu  sect 
of  that  religious  faith. 

Hawaiians  here  recently  asked  to  be  taken  under  the  wing  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  eagle,  but  the  United  States  (so  I  have  just  seen  in  the  papers)  does 
not  want  Hawaii.  Very  well.  If  Uncle  Sam  doesn’t  want  her,  John  Bull 
does.  And  Hawaii  will  then  be  something,  when  at  length  shall  be  estab¬ 
lished  that  finest  of  all  routes  for  the  circumnavigation  of  the  globe,  the 
chief  points  of  which  are  Liverpool,  Halifax,  the  Canadian  Pacific,  Van¬ 
couver,  the  Hawaiian  islands,  Australia,  India,  the  Suez  canal,  and  Gibral¬ 
tar.  The  Atlantic  Ocean  is  the  present  Mediterranean  of  the  world  ;  but 
the  future  Mediterranean  of  the  world  will  be  the  Pacific  Ocean.  The  pos¬ 
sessor  of  the  Hawaiian  islands  will  hereafter  dominate  the  Pacific  Ocean. 
Has  Uncle  Sam  made  up  his  mind  that  the  North  Pacific  is  to  be  a  closed 
British  sea  ?  But  Mr.  Phelps’  seal  fishery  argument  at  Paris  doesn’t  look 
in  this  way.  Uncle  Sam  should  not  be  too  afraid  of  wetting  his  feet.  Abra¬ 
ham  Lincoln  used  to  speak  of  Uncle  Sam’s  web  feet. 

A  small  request,  truly,  Hawaii  makes  of  Columbia  for  just  barely  help¬ 
ing  us  to  secure  civilized  government.  Hawaii  is  too  small  to  take  care  of 
herself.  I  submit,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  90,000  is  not  population 
enough  to  constitute  a  sovereign,  independent  nation,  levying  war  aud  con¬ 
cluding  peace.  It  is  all  very  well  to  say  that  Hawaii  must  be  autonomous 
and  free  ;  but  so  saying  is  as  if  the  good  Samaritan  had  said  to  the  wounded 
man  at  the  roadside  :  “  I  will  not  help  you  myself,  nor  let  anybody  else.  I 
am  going  to  stand  guard  over  you  to  see  that  you  are  kept  in  a  condition  in 
which  you  are  perfectly  free  to  do  as  you  please.” 

That  land  where  the  hurricanes  even  are  as  gentle  zephyrs;  that  land  of 
fire,  and  which  contains  the  two  greatest  volcanoes  on  the  face  of  the  earth 
(we  Hawaiians  are  the  true  fire  worshipers);  that  land  which  God  has  not 
yet  finished  creating  (and  new  land  was  actually  formed  as  late  as  1887); 
that  land  of  the  bread  fruit,  magnolia,  and  palm;  this  land,  I  say,  though 
small,  sends  its  greeting  to  the  whole  world  in  parliament  assembled  and 
expresses  the  hope  that  with  all  of  the  civilized  world  Dr.  John  Henry  Bar- 
rows  will  organize  a  second  great  Parliament  of  Religions  to  meet  in  the  city 
of  Paris  in  the  year  1900,  in  the  20th-century  world’s  exposition. 


CRIME  AND  THE  REMEDY, 

KEY.  OLYMPIA  BEOWN. 

It  is  a  significant  and  encouraging  sign  that  in  this  great  Parliament  of 
Religions  so  much  time  is  given  to  practical  questions,  such  as  are  sug¬ 
gested  by  intemperance,  crime,  the  subordination  of  woman,  and  other  sub¬ 
jects  of  a  similar  character.  The  practical  applications  of  religion  are  to-day 
of  more  importance  than  philosophical  speculation.  All  the  religions  of  the 
world  are  here,  not  to  wrangle  over  the  theological  differences,  or  forms,  or 
modes  of  worship,  but  to  join  hands  in  one  grand  heroic  effort  for  the  uplift¬ 
ing  of  humanity. 

We  live  in  an  humanitarian  age  when  religionists  and  theologians  are 
asking,  not  so  much,  how  best  to  secure  an  interest  in  the  real  estate  of  the 
eternal  city,  as  how  they  may  make  this  earth  habitable  for  God’s  chil¬ 
dren.  Not  how  they  may  appease  the  wrath  of  an  offended  deity  and 
purchase  their  own  personal  salvation  hereafter,  but  how  they  can  bless 
their  fellowmen,  here  and  now.  “  If  ye  love  not  your  brother  whom  ye 
have  seen,  how  can  ye  love  God  whom  ye  have  not  seen?  ” 


57G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  cause  and  cure  of  crime  is  one  of  the  most  important  questions  that 
can  engage  the  attention  of  theologian,  philanthropist,  or  statesman.  In 
the  complex  society  of  modern  times,  crimes  are  multiplied,  appearing  in 
new  forms  and  disguised  and  concealed  by  the  methods  which  our  larger 
knowledge  and  many  inventions  make  possible. 

In  our  country,  where  are  gathered  a  great  variety  of  people  represent¬ 
ing  all  nations,  customs,  and  languages,  society  is  necessarily  heterogeneous, 
and  in  the  conflict  of  interests  the  greed  of  gain  is  awakened  and  angry 
passions  are  aroused;  in  the  mad  rush  for  the  wealth  of  the  world  every 
man  is  striving  to  be  foremost;  rivalry  and  selflshness  prompt  to  crime; 
opportunities  for  escape  are  many,  and  consequently  violations  of  law  are 
frequent,  and,  therefore,  there  is  pressing  need  that  we  should  consider 
what  can  be  done  to  remedy  these  evils,  lessen  crime,  and  out  of  these 
varied  elements  to  present  at  last  the  x^erfected,  well-rounded  human  char¬ 
acter  which  shall  combine  all  the  best  qualities  of  the  various  nations  and 
X)eople  congregated  here,  while  at  the  same  time  eliminating  the  vices  and 
weakness  of  each  one. 

The  causes  usually  given  for  crime  are  many,  such  as  poverty,  evil  asso¬ 
ciations,  intemperance,  etc.  But  these  are  rather  the  occasions  tlj,an  the 
causes  of  criminal  conduct.  The  true  philosopher  looks  behind  all  these 
and  finds  in  inherited  tendencies  one  of  the  most  fruitful  causes  of  crime. 
“  The  fathers  and  the  mothers,  too,  have  eaten  sour  grapes  and  the  chil¬ 
dren’s  teeth  are  on  edge.” 

It  is  not  the  intoxicating  cup  but  the  weak  will  which  causes  drunken¬ 
ness,  not  the  gold  within  easy  reach  but  the  avaricious  mind  which  prompts 
to  robbery,  it  is  not  the  weakness  of  the  victim  but  the  angry  passions  of 
the  murderer  which  makes  the  blood  flow.  A  careful  study  of  the  subject 
by  means  of  statistics  has  shown  that  evil  deeds,  in  a  very  large  proportion 
of  cases,  can  be  traced  back  to  the  evil  passions  cherished  by  the  immediate 
ancestors  of  the  wrongdoer  and  our  means  of  tracing  such  connections 
are  so  limited  that  we  really  know  but  a  small  part  of  the  whole  truth. 

A  few  years  ago  public  attention  was  called  to  a  widely  circulated 
pamphlet  which  gave  a  history  of  the  Jukes  family,  which  for  generations 
had  been  characterized  by  acts  of  lawlessness  and  crime:  the  taint  seemed 
to  extend  to  every  ramification  of  the  family,  the  awful  record  showing 
that  out  of  many  hundreds,  only  one  or  two  had  escaped  idiocy  or  crim¬ 
inality. 

The  story  of  Margaret,  the  mother  of  criminals,  is  familiar  to  all. 
Margaret  was  a  poor,  neglected,  ignorant  inmate  of  the  almshouse  in  one 
of  the  counties  in  New  York  State,  her  progeny  were  found  in  the  poor- 
houses  and  jails  of  that  region  for  generations. 

In  a  recent  report  of  one  of  our  great  reformatories,  the  superintendent 
says:  “The  investigations  and  experience  of  the  past  year  have  served  to 
strengthen  the  opinion  that  physical  degeneracy  is  a  common  cause  of 
criminal  conduct.”  which  statement  confirms  the  theory  that  in  the  majority 
of  cases  the  criminal  is  a  man  badly  born.  So  true  ^is  it  that  in  all  the 
relations  of  life  men  are  dependent  upon  other  men,  and  each  one  is  inter¬ 
ested  to  have  everybody  else  do  right,  especially  his  own  ancestors. 

Dipsomania  is  now  almost  universally  recognized  as  an  inheritance 
from  the  drinking  habits  of  the  past,  and  all  the  evil  passions  of  men  bear 
fruitage  in  after  generations  in  various  forms  of  crime. 

Recently  a  man  escaped  from  one  of  our  State  prisons  by  killing  two  of 
his  guards;  he  had  been  charged  with  matricide  and  was  convicted  of 
murder  committed  in  the  most  cruel  and  brutal  manner,  and  without  any 
apparent  motive.  The  crime  attracted  much  attention  from  the  fact  that 
'  he  had  been  reared  with  great  care  and  tenderness  by  v/ise  and  good 
parents.  At  the  time  of  his  trial  it  was  shown  that  the  woman  he  had 
killed  was  not,  as  he  had  supposed,  his  own  mother,  but  that  his  reputed 


CRIME  AND  THE  REMEDY, 


577 


parents  had  adopted  him  as  an  infant  in  a  distant  part  of  the  country,  and 
had  reared  and  educated  him  as  their  own  child.  Little  was  learned  con¬ 
cerning  his  parentage  except  that  his  father  was  a  murderer.  Thus,  in 
spite  of  education  and  circumstances,  the  inherent  tendency  to  murder 
asserted  itself,  and  the  crime  of  the  father  was  repeated  again  in  the  son. 

This  is  but  one  instance,  but  it  is  the  type  of  many  that  are  familiar  to 
students  of  this  subject,  all  showing  that  the  criminal  is  often  the  victim  of 
the  mistakes,  the  evil  passions,  the  crimes  of  those  who  went  before.  As  the 
drinking  habit  results,  in  after  generations,  in  epilepsy,  insanity,  and  various 
forms  of  nervous  disease,  so  other  evil  passions  reappear  in  different  guises, 
and  give  birth  to  a  great  variety  of  crimes.  V/hat  can  we  do  to  check  this 
great  tide  of  criminality  which  perpetuates  itself  thus  from  generation  to 
generation,  gathering  ever  new  strength  and  force  with  time.  How  stop 
this  supply  of  criminals? 

There  is  but  one  answer,  men  must  be  better  born,  and  that  means  that 
they  must  have  better  mothers.  We  are  learning  that  not  only  the  sins  of 
the  fathers,  but  the  mistakes  and  unfortunate  conditions  of  the  mothers 
bear  terrible  fruitage,  even  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation.  God  has 
intrus^d  the  mother  wdh  the  awful  responsibility  of  giving  the  first 
direction  to  human  character. 

In  the  long  months  which  precede  the  birth  of  the  young  spirit  what 
communion  of  angels  may  elevate  and  inspire  her  soul,  thus  giving  the 
promise  of  the  advent  of  a  heavenly  messenger  who  should  proclaim  peace 
on  earth,  good  will  to  men!  Or  what  demons  of  pride,  avarice,  jealousy  may 
preside  over  the  development  of  a  new  life  sending  forth  upon  earth  an 
avenger,  to  lift  his  hand  against  every  man,  to  blast  the  joys  of  life,  and  to 
weigh  like  an  incubus  upon  society.  Woman  becomes  thus  an  architect  of 
human  life  with  all  its  possibilities  of  joy  or  sorrow,  of  virtue  or  vice,  of 
victory  or  defeat,  and  it  was  because  of  this  momentous  mission  that  she 
was  not  only  given  joint  dominion  with  man  over  the  earth,  but  was  made 
to  be  supreme  in  the  nome  and  in  the  marriage  relation. 

Old  and  New  Testament  scriptures  alike  announce  the  divine  fiat  that 
man  is  to  leave  all  things,  his  father  and  his  mother,  if  need  be,  and  cleave 
unto  his  wife.  His  personal  preferences,  his  ambitions,  his  business  of  the 
world,  his  early  affections,  all  must  be  subordinate  to  this  one  great  object 
of  the  marriage  relation,  the  formation  of  noble  human  characters,  and  in 
this  creative  realm  woman  is  to  rule  supreme,  she  must  be  the  arbiter  of 
the  home,  that  in  her  divine  work  of  moulding  character  she  may  surround 
herself  with  such  conditions  and  win  to  herself  such  heavenly  communions 
that  her  children  shall  indeed  be  heirs  of  God,  bearing  upon  their  fore¬ 
heads  the  stamp  of  the  divine. 

When  in  some  of  our  marriage  ceremonies  she  is  required  to  promise 
implicit  obedience  to  her  lord  and  master,  and  in  so-called  Christian  States 
she  is  bound  by  law  to  work  all  her  life-time  for  board  and  clothes,  it  is 
evident  that  we  are  not  fulfilling  the  scriptural  law.  No  wonder  the  world 
is  cursed  with  cowards,  idiots  and  criminals  when  the  mothers  of  the  race 
are  in  bondage.  Only  in  an  atmosphere  of  freedom  can  woman  accomplish 
her  grand  destiny.  Napoleon,  on  being  asked  what  France  most  needed, 
replied,  good  mothers.  What  France,  America^and  all  lands  need  is  a  free 
motherhood.  Helen  Gardner  well  says:  “Moral  ididts,  like  Jesse  Pom¬ 
eroy  and  Reginald  Burchall,,in  life,  Pecksniffs,  Betty  Sharps,  and  Fred 
Harmons,  in  fiction,  will  continue  to  cumber  the  earth  as  long  as  conditions 
continue  to  breed  them.”  The  race  is  stamped  by  its  mothers,  the  fountain 
will  not  rise  higher  than  its  source,  men  will  be  no  better  than  the  mothers 
that  bear  them,  and  as  woman  is  elevated,  her  mental  vision  enlarged  and 
her  true  dignity  established,  will  her  sons  go  forth  armed  with  a  native 
power  to  uphold  the  right,  trample  out  iniquity,  and  overcome  the  world. 

The  battle  for  womanhood  is  the  battle  for  the  race;  upon  her  dignity 


578 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  character  and  position  depends  the  future  of  humanity.  We  shall  have 
taken  the  first  and  all-important  step  in  doing  away  with  crime  and  lessen¬ 
ing  the  number  of  criminals  when  we  have  emancipated  motherhood.  The 
emancipation  of  women  means  society  redeemed  and  numanity  saved. 
With  the  elevation  of  women  education  will  become  more  effective.  Not 
only  will  children  be  better  born,  but  there  will  be  higher  ideals,  new 
incentives,  and  the  whole  scope  of  education  and  reform  will  be  enlarged. 

The  Universalist  Church,  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent,  stands  for 
the  humanitarian  element  in  religion.  It  recognizes  the  fatherhood  of  God 
and  the  brotherhood  of  man.  We  believe  in  a  God  who  has  made  all 
things  good  and  beautiful  in  their  time,  and  whose  supreme  and  beneficent 
law  will  work  out  the  final  victory  of  the  good.  We  believe  that  even  the 
poorest,  most  ill-born,  most  misdirected  human  being  possesses  capabilities 
of  goodness  which  are  in  their  nature  divine  and  indestructible,  and  which 
must  at  last  enable  him,  by  God’s  grace,  to  rise  above  weakness  and  folly 
and  sin,  and  to  share  in  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life.  We  believe  that 
love  IS  the  potent  influence  which  shall  at  last  win  all  souls  to  holiness  and 
to  God;  love,  exemplified  and  made  effective  through  the  life,  the  labors, 
the  teachings,  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  cai^e  to  be 
a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 

And,  so  believing,  our  church  stands  for  those  humane  methods  of  deal¬ 
ing  with  the  criminal,  which,  while  protecting  society,  shall  at  the  same 
time  seek  the  reformation  of  the  erring  one. 

Regarding  human  life  as  too  sacred  a  gift  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of 
human  courts,  we  oppose  capital  punishment  and  we  make  unceasing  war 
upon  such  kinds  of  prison  discipline  as  tend  to  harden  and  brutalize  the 
‘criminal. 

But  while  so  few  people  believe  in  the  possible  salvation  of  the  erring, 
while  the  spirit  of  true  Christian  love  is  still  so  rare  and  its  intelligent  appli¬ 
cation  to  the  work  of  the  world  so  little  sought,  how  can  officers  be  found  to 
fitly  manage  such  institutions  and  conduct  them  in  the  interest  of  the 
highest  humanity?  While  our  legislatures  are  still  so  much  imbued  by 
the  material  and  utilitarian  spirit  of  previous  ages  of  selfishness,  how 
secure  such  laws  as  shall  represent  the  philanthropy  and  sympathy  of  a 
truly  Christian  people?  We  need,  in  dealing  with  these  humanitarian 
questions,  the  mother’s  sympathy  with  her  little  ones.  Mothers,  who  alone 
know  at  what  great  cost  a  human  life  has  been  given  to  the  world,  should 
help  to  make  the  laws  which  affect  the  condition  and  decide  the  early  des¬ 
tiny  of  their  children. 

Our  legislators  have  been  so  much  occupied  with  questions  of  tariff  and 
taxes,  of  silver  and  coinage,  and  other  pecuniary  interests  that  they  have, 
in  a  measure,  neglected  the  higher  objects  of  legislation,  namely,  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  a  redeemed  and  perfected  humanity.  When  the  mothers  sit  in 
council  those  subjects  which  affect  the  improvement  of  society,  the  protec¬ 
tion  of  the  weak,  the  reformation  of  the  wicked,  the  education  of  the  youth, 
the  elimination  of  the  unfortunate  and  dangerous  classes,  will  be  made 
prominent. 

As  in  the  sick  room  it  is  the  mother’s  tender  touch  that  soothes  the 
child’s  pain  and  calls  back  the  glow  of  health,  so  in  this  sin-sick  world  it 
must  be  the  loving  sympathy  of  mothers  that  shall  win  back  the  erring  and 
restore  them  to  mental  health  and  moral  beauty.  It  is  the  glory  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  that  it  has  recognized  and  enthroned  womanhood. 

The  great  master  first  revealed  himself  as  the  Messiah  to  a  woman.  He 
wrought  his  first  miracle  at  the  command  of  a  woman,  and,  as  a  recognition 
of  the  supremacy  of  motherhood,  he  revealed  the  great  truths  that  he  came 
to  bring  to  woman,  and  he  sent  woman  forth  to  proclaim  the  risen  Lord, 
and  so  to-day  he  commands  woman  to  go  abroad  publishing  the  gospel  of  a 
world’s  salvation.  And  shall  men,  churches,  or  governments  dare  longer  to 


ETHICS  OF  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE. 


579 


rrohibit  women  from  obeying  the  command  and  fulfilling  the  divine 
decree?  All  reforms  wait  for  woman’s  freedom.  The  only  effectual  remedy 
for  crime  is  the  enlightenment,  independence,  and  freedom  of  motherhood. 


ETHICS  OF  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE. 

The  next  paper  was  written  to  show  that  God  is  infinite  and 
supreme,  the  only  mind  and  spirit  and  the  only  law  or  intelli¬ 
gence  of  the  universe.  After  some  preliminary  observations, 
the  author  proceeded  to  define  Christian  Science,  which,  it  was 
claimed,  had  materially  benefited  mankind.  Countless  num¬ 
bers  had  been  restored  to  physical  and  mental  health  through 
its  practice,  and  thousands  more  put  on  the  right  road  to  spirit¬ 
ual  blessings.  It  was  contended  also  that  Christian  Science 
elucidates  all  cause  and  effect  from  a  mental  instead  of  a  phys¬ 
ical  standpoint.  Moreover,  it  was  believed  to  reveal  the  scien¬ 
tific  relationship  between  God  and  man.  In  practice  it  was 
the  power  of  truth  over  error.  Mind,  according  to  the  writer, 
is  the  center  and  circumference  of  all  being,  and  is  divine  and 
not  human.  Continuing  in  this  strain  it  was  contended  that  if 
drugs  and  medicines  were  the  proper  remedial  agents,  Jesus 
would  have  used  them  and  taught  their  proper  use  to  His  disci¬ 
ples.  It  was  mind  and  not  matter  that  determined  the  nature 
of  disease.  If  material  laws  were  designed  for  the  government 
of  mankind,  those  laws  would  not  have  been  disregarded  by 
the  Savior.  Christian  Science  cured  by  its  influence  on  the 
mind,  which  was  the  real  seat  of  pain  and  suffering.  Matter 
not  having  prescience  or  faculty  could  not  suffer.  It  was  the 
mind  and  the  mind  only  which  was  afflicted  by  disease,  and 
mind  alone,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Christ-like  spirit,  could 
alone  act  on  mind  for  the  eradication  of  disease  as  well  as  the 
spiritual  improvement  of  the  race. 

This  great  truth  was  gradually  dawning  on  the  scientific 
world.  Ttiere  was  more  and  more  a  disinclination  to  rely  upon 
medicine,  and  an  increased  tendency  to  follow  the  law  of  health 
suggested  by  the  pure  in  mind  and  spirit.  Corporal  sense 
might  hide  truth,  health,  harmony,  and  holiness,  but  divine 


5^4 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGION^. 


science  revealed  truth  and  forever  destroyed  error.  The  tenets 
of  the  followers  of  Christian  Science  embraced  their  taking  the 
Scriptures  for  a  guide  to  eternal  life.  They  believed  in  and 
adored  one  Supreme  God,  and  acknowledged  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  man  as  the  divine  image  and  likeness.  They 
acknowledge  also,  the  forgiveness  of  sin  and  the  present  and 
future  punishment  of  sinners. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  INDIANS. 

ALICE  C.  FLETCHER. 

The  North  American  continent,  extending  from  the  tropics  to  the  polar 
seas,  presents  wide  diversity  of  physical  aspects,and  many  distinctive  environ¬ 
ments  which  have  left  their  impress  upon  the  arts  and  cults  of  its  peo¬ 
ples.  Within  this  extended  area  there  are  two  races,  the  Eskimo,  which 
will  not  come  under  our  consideration  to-day,  and  the  American  race 
proper. 

This  race,  like  our  own,  is  composed  of  many  peoples  speaking  different 
languages,  languages  belonging  to  widely  different  stocks.  In  our  race 
these  stocks  are  few  in  number,  but  here,  in  North  America,  there  are 
more  than  two  score,  each  varying  from  all  the  others  as  widely  as  the 
Semitic  from  the  Aryan. 

Among  so  many  linguistic  stocks  one  would  expect  to  find  tribes  of 
various  mental  capacities,  and  we  do  find  them.  There  are  tome  possess¬ 
ing  a  richer  imagination,  greater  vitality  of  ideas,  and  greater  power  of 
organization,  and  these  people  have  impressed  themselves  upon  others 
less  capable  of  organization  and  power  of  growth.  Thus  it  has  happened 
here,  as  elsewhere,  that  one  people  has  been  permeated  by  the  ideas  of 
another  while  preserving  its  ovv^n  language  intact,  as  with  us,  who  speak  an 
Aryan  tongue,  but  have  become  imbued  with  the  religious  thought  of  the 
Semites. 

The  people  we  are  considering  are  very  ancient  people.  There  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  their  ancestors  were  the  men  whose  implements  and 
weapons  have  been  found  associated  with  the  remains  of  extinct  specimens 
of  animals.  This  evidence  of  antiquity  is  re-enforced  by  the  recent  dis¬ 
covery  of  an  eminent  Mexican  archaeologist,  who  has  found  the  key  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  ancient  Mexican  calendar,  thereby  revealing  a  system 
of  time  measurements  based  upon  the  recurrence  of  a  certain  relative  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  sun  and  moon,  which  required  for  the  completion  of  its  grand 
cycle  1,924  years.  By  the  lowest  calculation  this  calendar  was  in  use  2,300 
years  B.  C. 

Thus  4,000  years  ago  the  Mexicans  were  using  a  highly  artificial  calendar, 
one  that,  so  far  as  is  known  to-day,  could  not  have  been  borrowed  from 
any  other  people,  since  nothing  like  it  has  been  discovered  in  any  other 
part  of  the  world.  How  many  years  must  have  been  spent  in  the  observa¬ 
tions  which  led  to  its  construction  who  can  say?  But  we  know  that  from 
the  completion  of  this  system  the  Mexican  people  had  fixed  religious  rites 
and  that  their  elaborate  worship  was  regulated  by  cycles  within  the  great 
cycle  of  their  wonderful  calendar. 

Startling  as  is  the  fact  that  in  this  so-called  new  world  we  are  able  to 
study  a  culture  more  than  4,000  years  old,  stranger  facts  may  come  to  light 
in  the  near  future.  The  point  to  be  emphasized  is,  that  here  in  North 


RELIGION  OF  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  INDIANS.  585 


America  exists  a  race  of  great  antiquity  that  has  conserved  social  and  relig¬ 
ious  forms  which,  speaking  broadly,  antedate  those  of  the  historic  periods 
of  the  East.  Here  we  can  study  not  only  the  slow  growth  of  society,  but 
the  equally  slow  and  unequal  development  of  man’s  mental  and  spiritual 
nature. 

A  comprehensive  sketch  of  the  religion  of  the  North  American  Indian 
can  not  be  given  within  the  limits  of  this  paper,  much  less  a  definite  pict¬ 
ure.  Only  the  indication  of  a  few  salient  points  is  possible,  and  even  these 
will  not  be  easy  to  make  clear  because  of  our  own  complex  methods  of 
thought.  Anything  approaching  a  consensus  of  Indian  beliefs  can  be 
obtained  only  from  a  careful  study  of  the  myths  of  the  people,  of  their  cere¬ 
monies,  their  superstitions,  and  their  various  customs,  and  by  searching 
through  all  these  for  the  underlying  principle,  the  governing  thoughts  and 
motives.  Nowhere  among  the  tribes  can  be  found  any  formulated  state¬ 
ment  or  belief;  in  no  ceremony  or  ritual  does  there  appear  anything  resem¬ 
bling  a  creed.  This  paper  is  therefore  predicated  upon  points  of  general 
unity.  The  vagueness  of  the  Indian’s  metaphysics  must  never  be  lost  sight 
of,  and  to  eliminate  any  scheme  comprehensible  tons  from  his  mass  of  poet¬ 
ical  and  often  seemingly  inconsequential  thought  is  an  exceedingly  deli¬ 
cate  and  difficult  task.  One  runs  the  risk  of  formulating  something,  which 
although  true  in  the  premises,  might  be  unrecognizable  by  the  Indian 
himself. 

The  aboriginal  American’s  feeling  concerning  God  seems  to  indicate  a 
power,  mysterious,  unknowable,  unnamable,  that  animates  all  nature. 
From  this  power,  in  some  unexplained  way,  proceeded  in  the  past  ages  cer¬ 
tain  generic  types,  prototypes  of  everything  in  the  world,  and  these  still 
exist,  but  they  are  invisible  to  man  in  his  natural  state,  being  spirit  types, 
although  he  can  behold  them  and  hear  them  speak  in  his  supernatural  vis¬ 
ions.  Through  these  generic  types,  as  through  so  many  conduits,  flows  the 
life  coming  from  the  great  mysterious  source  of  all  life  into  the  concrete 
forms  which  make  up  this  world,  as  the  sun,  moon,  and  the  wind,  the  water, 
the  earth,  and  the  thunder,  the  birds,  the  animals,  and  the  fruits  of  the 
earth. 

Among  these  prototypes  there  seems  -to  have  been  none  of  man  him¬ 
self,  but  in  some  vaguely  imagined  way  he  has  been  generated  by  them, 
and  his  physical  as  well  as  his  spiritual  nature  is  nourished  and  augmented 
through  them.  His  physical  dependence  upon  these  sources  of  power  is 
illustrated  in  his  ceremonies.  Thus,  when  the  tribe  was  about  to  set  out 
upon  the  hunt  as  in  the  buffalo  country,  the  leaders,  who  represented  the 
people,  gathered  together  in  a  solemn  ceremony.  They  sat  crouched  about 
a  central  fire,  each  wrapped  in  the  skin  of  a  buffalo,  their  attitude  and 
their  manner  of  partaking  the  food  for  the  occasion  were  in  imitation  of 
this  animal.  They  became  as  buffalo  putting  themselves  in  the  line  of  - 
transmission,  so  to  speak,  appealing  to  the  generic  or  typical  buffalo  that 
the  life  flowing  from  this  particular  projection  of  the  creative  power  into 
the  specific  buffalo  might  be  transmitted  to  them  that  when  they  killed 
and  ate  of  the  creature  they  might  be  imbued  with  its  strength. 

This  is  all  very  simple  to  the  Indian;  nothing  is  mysterious  where  all 
is  mystery.  Ignorant  of  the  processes  of  nature,  everything  is  simply 
alive  to  him  and  all  life  is  the  same  life,  continually  passing  over  from  one 
form  to  another.  He  takes  the  life  of  the  corn  when  he  eats  it  and  its  life 
passes  into  and  re-enforces  his  own  equally  with  the  life  of  the  animal 
which  goes  out  under  his  hand.  So  he  hunted,  fished,  and  planted,  having 
first  appealed  to  the  prototype  for  physical  strength  through  a  ceremony 
which  always  included  the  partaking  of  food. 

But  the  Indian  recognized  other  needs  than  those  of  the  body,  his 
spirit  demanded  strengthening  and,  to  satisfy  its  needs,  he  reversed  his 
manner  of  appeal.  Instead  of  gathering  together  with  his  fellows,  he  went 


686 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


apart  and  remained  in  solitude  upon  the  mountain  or  in  the  recesses  of  the 
forest,  instead  of  eating  in  companionship,  he  fasted  and  mortified  his 
body,  sought  to  ignore  it,  denied  its  cravings,  that  some  spirit  prototype 
might  approach  him  and  re-enforce  his  spirit  with  life  drawn  from  the 
great  uanamable  power.  Whatever  was  the  prototype  which  appeared  to 
him,  whether  of  bird  or  beast,  or  of  one  of  the  elements,  it  breathed  upon 
him  and  left  a  song  with  him  which  should  become  the  viewless  messenger 
speeding  from  the  heart  and  lips  of  the  man,  to  the  prototype  of  his  vision, 
to  bring  him  help  in  the  hour  of  his  need. 

When  the  man  had  received  his  vision,  before  it  could  avail  him,  he  had 
to  procure  something  from  the  creature  whose  type  he  had  seen,  a  tuft  of 
hair,  or  a  feather,  or  he  had  to  fashion  its  semblance  or  emblem.  This  he 
carried  ever  after  near  him  as  a  token  of  remembrance,  but  he  did  not  wor¬ 
ship  it.  His  aspiration  does  not  appear  to  have  rested  upon  the  prototype, 
although  his  imagination  seems  to  have  carried  him  no  farther,  but  in  some 
vague  way  each  man  had  thus  his  mode  of  individual  approach  to  the 
unnamable  source  of  life. 

The  belief  that  everything  was  alive  and  active  to  help  or  hinder  man 
not  only  led  to  numberless  observances  in  order  to  placate  and  win  favor, 
but  it  also  prevented  the  development  of  individual  responsibility.  Success 
or  failure  was  not  caused  solely  by  a  man’s  own  actions  or  shortcomings, 
but  because  he  was  helped  or  hindered  by  some  one  of  these  occult  powers. 
Self-torture  was  an  appeal  to  the  more  potent  of  these  forces  and  was  a 
propitiation,  rather  than  a  sacrifice,  arising  from  a  consciousness  of  evil  in 
himself,  for  the  Indian  seldom  thought  of  himself  as  being  in  the  wrong,  his 
peculiar  belief  concerning  his  position  in  nature  having  engendered  in  him 
a  species  of  self-righteousness.  Time  forbids  any  illustration  of  this  intri¬ 
cate  belief,  the  numerous  ramifications  of  which  underlie  every  public  and 
private  act  of  the  race. 

Personal  immortality  was  universally  recognized.  The  next  world  resem¬ 
bled  this  with  the  element  of  suffering  eliminated.  There  was  no  place  of 
future  punishment;  all  alike  started  at  death  upon  the  journey  to  the  other 
world,  but  the  quarrelsome  and  unjust  never  reached  it;  they  endlessly 
wandered. 

Religious  ceremonials  had  both  open  and  esoteric  forms  and  teachings. 
They  were  comprised  in  the  observances  of  secret  societies,  and  the  elabo¬ 
rate  dramatization  of  myths,  with  its  masks,  costumes,  rituals  of  song, 
rhythmic  movements  of  the  body,  and  the  preparation  and  use  of  symbols. 

As  the  ceremonials  of  the  Indians  from  Alaska  to  Mexico  rise  before  me, 
it  is  difficult  to  dismiss  them  without  a  word,  for  they  are  impressive  and 
instructive,  and  although  their  grotesque  features,  and  in  some  instances 
their  horrible  realism,  overlies  and  seems  to  crush  out  the  purpose  of  the 
portrayal,  yet  they  all  contain  evidences  of  the  mind  struggling  to  find 
an  answer  to  the  ever-pressing  question  of  man’s  origin  and  destiny. 

The  ethics  of  the  race  were  simple. 

With  the  Indian,  truth  was  literal  rather  than  comprehensive.  This 
conception  led  to  great  punctiliousness  in  the  observance  of  all  forms  and 
ceremonies,  although  it  did  not  prevent  the  use  of  artifice  in  war  or  in  the 
struggle  for  power,  but  nothing  excused  a  man  who  broke  his  word. 

Justice  was  also  literal  and  inexorable.  Retributive  justice  was  in 
exact  proportion  to  the  offense.  There  was  no  extenuation,  there  was  no 
free  forgiveness.  A  penalty  must  be  enacted  for  every  misdeed.  Justice, 
therefore,  often  failed  of  its  end,  not  having  in  it  the  element  of  mercy. 

To  be  valorous,  to  meet  hardships  and  suffering  uncomplainingly,  to 
flinch  from  no  pain  or  danger  when  action  was  demanded,  was  the  ideal 
set  before  every  Indian.  A  Ponca  Indian  who  paused  an  instant  in  battle 
to  dip  up  a  handful  of  water  to  slake  his  burning  thirst  brought  upon 
himself  such  ignominy  that  he  sought  death  to  hide  his  shame. 


CHURCHES  AND  CITY  PROBLEMS, 


587 


Hospitality  was  a  marked  virtue  in  the  race.  The  lodge  was  never 
closed,  or  the  last  morsel  of  food  ever  refused  to  the  needy.  The  richest 
man  was  not  he  who  possessed  the  most,  but  he  who  had  given  away  the 
most.  This  deeply  rooted  principle  of  giving  is  a  great  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  civilizing  the  Indians,  as  civilization  depends  so  largely  upon  the  accumu¬ 
lation  of  property. 

In  every  home  the  importance  of  peace  was  taught  and  the  quarrelsome 
person  pointed  out  as  one  not  to  be  trusted,  since  success  would  never 
attend  his  undertakings,  whom  neither  the  visible  nor  invisible  power 
would  befriend. 

This  virtue  of  peace  was  inculcated  in  more  than  one  religious  ritual, 
and  it  was  the  special  theme  and  sole  object  of  a  peculiar  ceremony  which 
once  widely  obtained  over  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi — the  calumet  or 
the  sacred  pipe  ceremony.  The  symbols  used  point  back  to  myths  which 
form  the  groundwork  of  other  ceremonies  hoary  with  age.  In  the  presence 
of  these  symbolic  pipes  there  could  be  no  strife.  Marquette,  in  1672,  wrote: 
“The  calumet  is  the  most  mysterious  thing  in  the  world.  The  scepters  of 
our  kings  are  not  so  much  respected,  for  the  Indians  have  such  a  reverence 
for  it,  that  we  may  call  it  the  god  of  peace  and  war,  and  the  arbiter  of 
life  and  death.  *  *  *  One  with  this  calumet  may  venture  among  his 
enemies  and  in  the  hottest  battles  they  lay  down  their  arms  before  this 
sacred  pipe.” 

The  ceremony  of  these  pipes  could  only  take  place  between  men  of  dif¬ 
ferent  gentes  or  of  different  tribes.  Through  it  they  were  made  as  one 
family,  the  affection,  the  harmony,  and  the  good  will  of  the  family  being 
extended  far  beyond  the  ties  of  blood.  Under  this  benign  influence  of  the 
pipes  strangers  were  made  brothers  and  enemies  became  friends.  In  the 
beautiful  symbolism  and  ritual  of  these  fellowship  pipes  the  initiated  were 
told  in  the  presence  of  a  little  child  who  typified  teachableness  that  hap¬ 
piness  came  to  him  who  lived  in  peace  and  walked  in  the  straight  path 
which  was  symbolized  on  the  pipes  as  glowing  with  sunlight.  In  these 
teachings,  which  transcended  all  others,  we  discern  the  dawn  of  the  nobler 
and  gentler  virtues,  of  mercy  and  its  kindred  graces. 

We  are  recognizing  to-day  that  God’s  family  is  a  large  one  and  that 
human  sympathy  is  strong.  Upon  this  platform  have  been  gathered  men 
from  every  race  of  the  Eastern  world,  but  the  race  that  for  centuries  was 
the  sole  possessor  of  this  Western  continent  has  not  been  represented.  No 
American  Indian  has  told  us  how  his  people  have  sought  after  God  through 
the  dim  ages  of  the  past.  He  is  not  here,  but  can  not  his  sacred  symbol 
serve  its  ancient  office  once  more  and  bring  him  and  us  together  in  the 
bonds  of  peace  and  brotherhood? 


CHURCHES  AND  CITY  PROBLEMS. 

PROF.  A.  W.  SMALL,  PH.  D.,  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO. 

This  paper  consists  of  thirty-three  theses,  with  comments  upon  those 
which  are  not  self-evident.  The  first  four  theses  refer  to  the  standpoint 
and  standards  of  judgment  adopted  by  the  writer,  the  following  twelve  to 
the  peculiarities  of  city  problems,  the  next  seven  to  the  present  relation  of 
the  churches  to  the  people  nearest  to  these  problems,  and  the  remaining 
ten  to  suggestions  toward  a  programme  of  church  action. 

1.  The  standpoint  of  this  paper  is  not  that  of  theology,  but  of  positive 
sociology. 

It  can  not  be  too  early  understood  that  positive  sociology  is  not  a  secret 
ally  of  one  theology  against  another.  The  coming  regime  of  positive 


588 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


sociology  will  compel  revision,  change  of  emphasis,  correction  of  perspective 
by  every  theology  in  the  world.  When  all  this  has  taken  place,  however,  the 
varieties  of  metaphysical  conception,  from  which  principles  of  theological 
difference  are  derived,  will  still  remain.  The  regime  of  positive  sociology 
must  surely  change  the  ratio  of  influence  exerted  by  the  known  and  the 
unknown,  the  positive  and  the  speculative.  But  after  every  last  item  of 
positive  knowledge  shall  have  been  discovered  and  scientiflcally  correlated, 
the  mental  necessity  of  forming  ultimate  judgments  will  be  unchanged. 
This  genius  of  the  mind  will  still  divide  men  into  metaphysical  and  theo¬ 
logical  schools,  long  after  they  are  agreed  upon  physical  and  social  facts 
and  sociological  policies. 

The  occupation  of  the  metaphysician  and  theologian  will  not  be  termi¬ 
nated  by  sociology,  but  the  absolutism  of  metaphysics  and  theology  can 
never  return.  Sociology  alone  will  not  cause  any  man  to  abjure  Papacy, 
or  Episcopacy,  or  Presbyterianism,  or  Independency.  Sociology  will  not 
confute  Augustinianism,  or  Armenianism,  or  Socinianism.  The  regime  of 
sociology  will  not  abolish  ecclesiastical  and  philosophical  diversity.  It  will 
assist  in  the  organization  of  that  diversity  into  unit.  The  guardians  of 
church  polity  and  doctrine  have  no  cause  of  offense  against  sociology. 

Human  life  does  not  consist  in  ecclesiastical  order  nor  in  theological 
formula  any  more  than  it  consists  in  the  abundance  of  the  things  pos¬ 
sessed.  Sociology  is  actively  concerned  with  these  manifestations  of  life 
only  in  so  far  as  either  of  them  is  disproportionate  to  the  whole  of  life. 
That  condition  exists  whenever  formal  elements  of  ecclesiastical  order  or 
doctrine  conventionally  bind  the  word  of  God.  The  demand  of  sociology 
upon  theology  is  not  that  it  shall  justify  itself  against  the  attacks  of 
counter-theology,  but  that  it  shall  somehow  guarantee  a  permanent  policy 
of  endeavor  to  reproduce  Christlikeness  in  every  relation  of  human  life. 

2.  The  positive  evidence  thus  far  available  is  sufficient  to  justify  sociolo¬ 
gists;  whether  in  sympathy  with  any  theology  or  not,  in  adopting  the 
working  hypothesis  that  the  principles  of  ultimate  social  science  will  be 
reiterations  of  essential  Christianity. 

Positive  sociology  is,  therefore,  in  natural  and  necessary  accord  with  the 
churches,  in  proportion  as  the  latter  are  intelligently  devoted  to  the  essen¬ 
tials  rather  than  the  accidents  of  religion. 

3.  Christianity  and  the  churches  are  as  distinct  as  gravitation  and  water 
wheels,  or  steam  and  cylinders.  The  present  discussion  deals  not  with  the 
force,  but  with  the  machinery. 

This  paper  assumes  that  every  movement  of  genuine  human  welfare, 
however  gained,  is  a  realization  of  the  eternal  purpose  which  Christianity 
declares.  We  assume,  also,  that  the  predestination  of  mankind  to  increas¬ 
ing  excellence  and  welfare  will  be  demonstrated  and  progressively  fulfllled 
through  the  agency  of  spiritual  forces  which  no  organization  nor  class  nor 
condition  of  men  can  monopolize  or  control.  Our  problem  is,  therefore, 
not,  “  Will  progress  in  genuine  humanity  be  made  among  the  inhabitants 
of  cities  ?  ”  but,  “  Will  the  churches  be  able  to  lead  the  progress  ?  ” 

No  one  can  grasp  the  conditions  of  the  problem  until  he  can  realize  that 
the  churches  are  legitimate  objects  of  criticism  as  much  as  families  or 
schools  or  states.  Churches  are  venerable  just  in  proportion  as  they  are 
useful.  Churches  are  divine  institutions  in  just  so  far  as  they  fulfill  a 
divine  mission.  There  is  no  more  necessity  for  assuming  that  churches,  as 
now  constituted  and  motived,  are  the  last  resort  for  the  establishment  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God  than  there  was  for  the  like  assumption  in  favor  of  the 
Hebrew  theocracy. 

Theology  will  always  and  Christ  will  never  be  debatable.  This  indis¬ 
putable  element  is  the  life  of  the  church  and  the  hope  of  the  world.  The 
problem  of  the  churches  in  the  cities  is  fundamentally  the  same  as  the 
problem  of  Christianity  everywhere  ;  the  problem  named,  not  of  reducing 


CHURCHES  AND  CITY  PROBLEMS. 


589 


all  phases  of  life  to  forms  of  church  life,  but  of  transforming  all  secular 
life  into  phases  of  Christian  life.  The  Christ,  greater  than  the  creeds,  and 
greater  than  the  churches,  is  the  gift  with  which  any  church  that  retains 
the  New  Testament  may  bless  society. 

What  then  distinguishes  the  religious  problems  of  cities?  We  answer: 

5.  Life  in  modern  cities  presents  human  wants  in  their  most  importu¬ 
nate  and  complex  forms.  In  cities  motives  to  concrete  good  and  evil  are 
intensified  to  their  maximum. 

6.  In  city  life  the  highest  premiums  are  placed  on  selfishment  of  every 
sort,  from  the  grossest  to  the  most  refined. 

7.  In  cities  the  relative  importance  of  economic  advantage  is  put  at  the 
highest  appraisal. 

8.  ^  The  relations  which  occasion  the  greatest  number  of  social  contacts 
in  cities  are  those  which  involve  collision  of  economic  interests. 

9.  In  cities  the  importance  of  personality  tends  toward  the  minimum. 

In  the  great  throng  individuals  are  rated  less  and  less  as  persons  and 

more  and  more  as  larger  or  smaller  factors  in  the  calculation  of  selfish  gain. 
Those  individuals  who  have  no  special  prominent  representative  character 
or  function  tend  to  lose  the  prestige  of  their  dignity  as  persons.  They 
count  as  so  many  impersonal  atoms  of  a  mass,  or  as  so  many  forms  in  the 
various  political  and  economic  grounds  which  each  plays  in  his  own 
interest. 

The  greatest  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  cities  come  in  contact  with 
their  fellows  most  frequently  in  transactions  in  which  each  party  is  strongly 
tempted  to  seek  a  maximum  of  selfish  advantage,  while  each  is  under  min¬ 
imum  restrained  from  those  fraternal  sympathies  which  contest  the  domin¬ 
ion  of  economic  motive. 

We  encounter  each  other  as  landlord  eager  for  the  highest  rate  of  rent, 
and  as  tenant  equally  eager  to  get  the  best  housing  for  the  least  money. 
We  collide  as  employers  bent  on  getting  the  most  labor  for  the  smallest  pay, 
and  as  employes  sharp  on  the  scent  of  the  lightest  work  for  the  highest 
wages.  We  face  each  other  from  the  opposite  sides  of  the  counter,  the  one 
party  to  dispose  of  goods  at  a  profit,  the  other  to  buy,  if  possible,  without 
allowing  a  profit.  We  know  the  majority  of  immediate  associates  only  in 
their  economic  relations.  We  do  not  know  landlord  or  tenant,  employer 
or  workman,  dealer  or  customer,  as  a  man.  We  get  accustomed  to  hasty 
dealings  with  each  other  on  the  economic  basis  only,  and  the  constant  tend¬ 
ency  is  to  think  of  each  other  as  impersonally  as  we  think  of  the  goods  at 
the  bankrupt  sale. 

We  do  not  associate  the  majority  of  the  people  who  directly  concern  us 
economically  with  domestic  relations  and  sentiments;  with  trials  and  mis¬ 
fortunes  and  sorrows;  with  social  hopes  and  ambitions;  with  intellectual  or 
spiritual  aspirations.  What  they  have  in  common  with  us  is  hidden.  The 
elements  of  our  opposition  are  plain. 

In  a  civilization  of  small  communities,  in  each  of  which  the  life  of  every 
family  is  more  or  less  familiar  to  every  other,  the  conditions  of  social  prob 
lems  are  in  wide  contrast  with  all  this.  The  industrial  revolution  of  this 
century,  consequent  upon  the  introduction  of  machinery,  and  further,  the 
congestion  of  one-third  of  our  American  population  in  the  cities,  has  unso¬ 
cialized  the  life  of  the  great  majority  of  urban  populations.  Acquaintance¬ 
ship  with  the  members  of  the  community  has  given  place  to  unsympathetic 
economic  intercourse,  in  which  the  greater  number  of  conscious  relations 
of  man  to  man  are  contacts  of  contest,  not  of  co-operation. 

Let  me  not  be  understood  to  assert  that  the  decisive  factors  of  city  life 
are  disjunctive,  rather  than  conjunctive.  The  contrary  is  the  fact;  all 
anarchy  would  have  ruined  every  great  city  long  ago.  I  am  speaking  of 
certain  negative  effects  of  city  life  upon  the  social  instincts  of  the  people, 
not  as  precluding  a  rejoinder  on  behalf  of  the  cities,  but  as  constituting  a 
distinctive  municipal  condition. 


590 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


10.  Essential  values  thus  tend  most  strongly  to  reversal  in  cities.  Instead 
of  appraising  goods  by  their  service  to  manhood,  men  in  cities  are  under  the 
severest  temptation  to  value  manhood  according  to  its  productivity  of  goods. 
Men  are  measured  by  the  same  standards  as  draught  horses  and  steam 
engines. 

11.  The  social  isolation  of  the  majority  in  great  cities  increases  with  the 
growth  of  population. 

Men  do  not  know  by  sight  or  manner  the  people  whose  business  is  under 
the  same  roof.  Men  living  in  the  same  block  are  as  complete  strangers  to 
each  other  as  though  their  homes  were  on  opposite  continents.  In  a  walk 
of  live  minutes,  nme-teiiths  of  the  people  of  a  great  city  can  enter  districts 
where  they  are  practically  as  utter  strangers  as  though  they  had  traveled  a 
thousand  miles. 

12.  Under  these  circumstances  personal  responsibility  develops. 

The  esteem  of  friends  is  among  the  mos';  efficient  builders  and  preservers 
of  character.  Conduct  is  the  consequence  as  well  as  the  cause  of  reputa¬ 
tion.  Our  acts  are  often  restrained  from  descent  to  the  level  of  our  charac¬ 
ter  by  the  force  of  our  friends’  expectations.  When,  on  the  other  hand, 
men  feel  themselves  lost  in  a  great  human  mass,  in  which  the  individual  is 
held  accountable  only  for  satisfaction  of  the  average  mass  standard,  the 
tendency  is  to  interpret  that  standard  in  the  most  unsocial  terms,  and  to 
apply  it  with  the  highest  license. 

13.  The  foreign  conditions  contain  the  principles  of  difference  bet\9^een 
the  relations  of  men  in  cities  and  in  smaller  communities.  To  these  condi¬ 
tions  we  may  trace  most  of  the  evils  or  degrees  of  evil  peculiar  to  cities. 

Full  account  of  these  conditions  must  be  taken  in  dealing  with  oar 
problem.  They  afford  the  largest  scope  in  modern  society  for  fierce  and 
heartless  selfishness.  They  incessantly  threaten  to  break  down  the  safe¬ 
guards  of  civilization  against  reversion  to  physical  struggle  for  the  survival 
of  the  fittest.  The  mirror  held  up  to  city  life  reflects  contrasts  and  para¬ 
doxes  which  socialists  describe  as  an  orgy  or  egoism — the  egoism  of  class 
against  class,  the  egoism  of  property  against  egoism  of  poverty,  the  egoism 
of  opportunity  against  the  egoism  of  necessity. 

14.  Chief  among  the  symptoms  of  these  conditions,  by  no  means  wholly 
due  to  the  circumstances  of  cities,  and  by  no  means  confined  to  cities,  but 
aggravated  and  accumulated  in  urban  populations,  are: 

1.  Poverty  and  crime. 

2.  Insecurity  of  labor. 

3.  Minimizing  of  wages. 

4.  Inhuman  surroundings  of  labor  in  certain  Industries. 

5.  Unsanitary  housing. 

6.  Under-nutrition;  not  alone  from  low  wages,  but  from  ignorance  or  neglect 
of  domestic  economy. 

7.  The  drink  curse. 

8.  The  saloon  curse  (from  evils,  but  distinct  in  many  causes  and  conse¬ 
quences,  thus  constituting  two  separate  social  problems). 

9.  The  luck  superstition;  betrayed  in  speculation,  betting,  gambling,  lot¬ 
teries,  preposterous  endowment,  and  insurance  gift  enterprises  and  the  thou¬ 
sand  and  one  similar  something  for  nothing  schemes. 

10.  Showy  and  extravagant  business  customs,  especially  of  agents  spending 
employers’  money;  consequent  extravagance  and  ostentation  in  personal  habits 
and  temp^^tion  to  peopie  of  lower  income. 

11.  Suustitution  of  boarding-house,  apartment-house,  or  hotel  for  the  homo. 

12.  Bread-winning  by  mothers. 

13.  Child  labor. 

14.  Scaling  of  wages  by  sex  instead  of  by  work. 

15.  Degradation  of  women;  by  which  I  refer  to  the  whole  hive  of  curses, 
physical,  economic,  domestic,  political,  and  moral,  that  swarm  about  the  institu¬ 
tion  of  prostitution,  a  group  of  phenomena  a  hundred-fold  more  significant  than 
public  opinion  has  ever  suspected. 

16.  Propagation  of  “  defectives.” 

17.  Political  betrayals  of  the  ignorant  and  weak. 

18  Progressive  widening  of  social  distances  between  class  along  with  recip¬ 
rocal  misunderstanding  and  distrust. 

19.  Organization  and  distinctive  warfare  of  mutually  dependent  industrial 
classes. 


CHURCHES  AND  CITY  PROBLEMS. 


591 


20.  Abnormal  materializing  of  the  life  of  all  classes;  viewed  from  another 
standpoint. 

21.  Alienation  of  the  intelligent  and  responsible,  as  well  as  the  less  prominent 
from  practical  spiritualizing  agencies. 

22.  Governmental  control  by  ballots  instead  of  by  brains, 

15.  The  life  of  the  great  majority  of  residents  in  cities  is  practically 
bounded  _  by  some  or  all  of  these  facts.  Within  these  limitations  the 
masses  live  and  move  and  have  their  being.  To  the  masses,  therefore, 
doctrines  of  humanity  and  duties  and  religion  that  do  not  deal  directly 
with  these  realities  are  simply  mythologies  and  riddles. 

16.  The  conditions  thus  specified  are  already  schools  of  broader 
brotherhood  than  has  been  possible  in  any  previous  century.  They  consti¬ 
tute  unique  opportunity  for  the  churches.  Our  question  is:  How  must 
the  churches  improve  the  opportunity? 

We  turn  then  to  the  present  relations  of  the  churches  to  conditions  in 
question. 

11.  The  churches,  as  such,  do  not  think  the  thoughts  nor  talk  the  lan¬ 
guage,  nor  share  the  burdens  which  for  the  masses  in  cities  contain  the 
real  problems  in  life. 

In  the  cant  phrase  of  the  day,  God  and  immortality,  as  represented  by 
the  churches,  cut  almost  no  figure  at  all  among  the  practical  calculations 
of  the  majority.  The  typical  man  to-day  is  a  practical  positivist. 

Whether  he  believes  in  God  or  not  he  believes  in  principles  of  fairness 
that  ought  to  rule  among  men,  especially  among  his  competitors. 
Whether  he  believes  in  heaven  or  not,  he  believes  that  this  world  can  be 
made  to  contain  vastly  more  happiness  than  has  ever  been  realized,  and  he 
has  little  use  for  a  religion  that  shows  less  interest  than  he  feels  in  means 
of  securing  present  welfare.  Never  has  it  been  so  necessary  as  to-day  for 
religion  to  commend  itself  by  direct  championship  of  a  just  and  generous 
brotherhood,  which  immediately  diminishes  the  aggravations  of  unhappi¬ 
ness  and  increases  the  aggregate  of  comfort.  Never  have  the  masses  been 
so  suspicious  and  contemptuous  of  every  religion  which  fails  to  justify 
itself  by  manifest  usefulness  of  this  description, 

18.  City  churches  are  only  partially  conscious  of  the  tendencies  which 
threaten  to  reduce  them  to  the  status  of  class  institutions.  The  proposi¬ 
tion  does  not  refer  directly  to  those  tendencies  toward  social  distinctions 
which  have  embarrassed  the  work  of  city  evangelization.  The  reference  is 
to  those  tendencies  toward  separation  which  arise  from  the  contrast  between 
ecclesiastical  and  positive  ideals  of  religion. 

Let  an  ordinary  man  who  has  not  enjoyed  special  religious  training,  but 
who  has  been  busy  all  his  life  in  the  struggle  for  existence  in  a  great  city, 
wander  next  Sunday  into  the  nearest  church.  He  will  find  not  only  a  pas¬ 
tor,  but  a  congregation  decently  attentive  to  the  contemplation  of  life  as 
they  see  it  when  composed  for  religious  observance.  But  life  as  they  see  it 
under  those  circumstances  has  few  points  of  contact  with  life  as  the  stranger 
sees  it.  The  conceptions  which  control  the  whole  service  are  as  remote 
from  the  life  which  the  visitor  encounters  as  biological  hypothesis  of  hered¬ 
ity  would  be  to  the  average  stock-breeder  or  as  doctrines  of  ultimate  atoms 
would  be  to  the  boiler-maker  or  plumber.  The  ideas  throughout  the  serv¬ 
ice  are  related  to  the  thought  world  of  the  stranger  somewhat  as  the 
allegories  of  Spenser’s  “Fairy  Queen”  to  the  commonplaces  of  Will  Carle- 
ton’s  Ballads. 

Probably  neither  the  stranger,  nor  the  church  which  casually  welcomes 
him,  satisfactorily  explains  why  the  service  fails  to  inspire  and  attract.  Let 
us  not  callous  ourselves  any  longer  in  self-exculpating  attempts  which 
defame  humanity  by  discussing  such  cases  as  simply  exhibitions  of  the 
“enmity  of  the  natural  heart  to  God.”  Men’s  sins  have  no  more  community 
with  God  than  the  demons  had  with  Christ;  but  man’s  nature  always  does 
and  always  will  yearn  after  God,  as  the  heart  of  the  child  for  its  mother. 


592 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


There  is  as  stubborn  enmity  to  God  in  the  refusal  of  the  church  to  conform 
its  methods  to  the  world’s  needs  as  there  is  in  the  refusal  of  the  world  to 
conform  its  needs  to  church ly  methods. 

Other  elements  enter  into  the  case,  of  course,  but  it  must  be  admitted 
that  ill-balanced  loyality  to  the  transcendental  fraction  of  their  mission 
has  weakened  the  influence  of  the  churches  upon  men  as  men,  and  might 
still  further  degrade  the  churches  into  mere  clubs  of  peculiar  people,  with 
peculiar  opinions. 

The  plan  of  campaign  common  among  the  churches:  First,  remould  men’s 
conceptions  in  accordance  with  our  own  philosophical  and  theological 
generalizations;  second,  with  these  new  intellectual  conceptions  as  prem¬ 
ises  and  fulcra,  apply  religious  forces  for  regeneration  and  reformation. 
The  fallacy  and  miscalculation  in  this  policy,  so  far  as  it  is  directed  toward 
men  who  were  not  to  the  manner  born,  is  precisely  that  implied  in  the  x>lans 
to  catch  sparrows  after  putting  salt  on  their  tails.  The  type  of  person 
developed  by  our  busy,  nervous,  utilitarian  city  life  will  not  subject  himself 
to  a  tedious  discipline  for  the  sake  of  giving  people  against  whom  he  is 
strongly  prejudiced  a  chance  to  prove  that  he  is  wrong  and  they  are  right. 

These  city  people  have  no  patience  and  they  see  no  inducement  to  work 
over  their  experiences  and  emotions  and  opinions  from  contact  with  the 
world  in  the  symbolical  phrase  and  systematic  formula.  To  gain  the  ear 
of  men  as  men,  rather  than  as  hereditary  Catholics,  or  Lutherans,  or  Cal¬ 
vinists,  the  churches  must  reverse  the  requirement.  The  churches  must 
learn  to  translate  their  message  and  their  ideal  into  literal  language  and  the 
prosaic  endeavor  of  ordinary  life.  The  churches  must  learn  to  apply  their 
systems  to  the  visible  improvement  of  concrete  conditions.  If  men  are 
indifferent  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  they  are  capable  of  interest  in  the 
monarchy  of  Satan  in  their  own  city  hall,  and  in  that  condition  they  will 
hardly  care  to  dispute  the  existence  of  a  personal  devil.  If  men  will  not 
believe  in  hell  let  the  churches  show  them  the  sweatshops. 

If  the  churches  make  slow  progress  in  saving  genteel  and  moral  sinners 
from  damnation  in  the  next  world,  let  them  diminish  the  damnation  of  this 
world  by  rescuing  and  purifying  the  victims  of  gambling  hell  and  saloon 
and  brothel.  If  divine  retribution  seems  to  men  only  a  phrase,  let  the 
churches  inspire  human  retribution  against  the  responsible  authors  of  the 
miseries  which  our  cities  conceal.  If  the  churches  can  not  rally  men  for  a 
revival  of  religion,  let  them  band  together  to  cleanse  the  whole  Augean 
stable  of  modern  selfishness  in  vice  and  injustice  and  inhumanity.  This 
manifestation  of  the  human  element  of  religion  will  presently  introduce 
the  complementary  Godward  factor  of  religion.  In  his  last  book  Dr.  Strong 
has  wisely  said: 

Christ  fed  the  multitude  and  healed  their  diseases  because  He  loved  men. 
and  that,  in  most  cases,  was  the  natural  and  most  convincing  way  to  show  His 
'ove.  Men  must  be  reached  on  the  plane  onwliich  they  live.  The  lives  of  the 
multitude  are  chiefly  physical.  Though  spiritual  needs  are  the  deepest  they  rise 
into  conscious  wants  only  occasionally,  while  physical  needs  make  themselves 
felt  daily  and  hourly.  Hunger,  and  cold,  and  pain  are  far  more  real  to  the  many 
than  the  sense  of  sin  or  high  spiritual  aspiration.  If,  then,  Christ  was  to  con¬ 
vince  men  of  His  love,  He  must  do  it  by  meeting  needs  which  they  actually  felt. 

And  Christ’s  example  is  a  good  one  for  His  church  to  follow.  If  she  is  to 
reach  the  masses  she  must  do  it  on  the  plane  where  the  masses  live.  If  she 
would  convince  them  of  her  love  (of  which  they  surely  need  to  be  convinced), 
she  must  do  it  in  ways  that  appeal  to  them.  She  must  deal  with  things  which 
they  regard  as  real.  And  having  laid  hold  of  men  on  their  physical  plane  she 
can  then  lead  them  up  to  the  spiritual.  —T/<.e  New  Era,  p.  225. 

19.  The  churches  have  no  explicit  policy  toward  city  problems;  they 
lack  intelligent  interest  in  them;  they  are  even  susxjicious  of  every 
endeavor  to  commit  the  churches  to  co-operation  in  solutions. 

Recent  papal  deliverances  upon  the  attitude  of  the  Roman  Church 
toward  labor  problems  are  probably  the  nearest  approach  to  a  settlement 
of  denominational  policy  with  reference  to  any  of  the  problems  under 


CHURCHES  AND  CITY  PROBLEMS. 


593 


discussion.  The  doctrines  which  are  the  working  equipment  for  the  major¬ 
ity  of  our  churches  were  formulated  centuries  before  present  conditions 
existed.  The  churches  that  have  not  brought  their  equipment  down  to 
date,  and  still  venture  to  deal  with  modern  social  problems,  are  Tony  Well¬ 
ers,  trying  to  till  the  office  of  train  dispatcher.  Most  of  the  churches  are 
non-committal  upon  these  subjects,  or  else  so  general  in  their  declarations 
that  their  influence  has  no  visible  effect. 

We  offer  a  single  illustration  of  the  difference  of  churches  to  solutions 
of  these  problems.  In  January  of  the  present  year,  a  certain  instructor  in 
social  science  mailed  to  the  pastors  or  clerks  of  487  different  churches  a 
printed  blank  asking  for  certain  specific  information,  as  a  contribution 
to  knowledge  of  the  social  conditions  in  the  populations  to  which  these 
churches  ministered.  With  each  blank  was  a  stamped  and  addressed 
envelope.  Of  the  487  churches  questioned,  108  replied.  Discounting  blanks 
returned  to  sender  because  addresses  were  not  found,  less  than  25  per  cent 
of  the  churches  addressed  had  interest  enough  in  the  solution  of  their  own 
social  problems  to  furnish  the  particulars  requested.  This  was  not  in  a 
frontier  State,  nor  in  a  city  whose  churches  are  supposed  to  have  withdrawn 
from  contact  with  actual  life.  It  was  in  the  city  which  contains  more 
perplexing  social  relations  than  any  other  in  America:  the  most  practical 
and  public-spirited  city  in  the  world,  in  which  we  are  holding  our  con¬ 
vention! 

It  may  be  worth  mention  that  the  only  group  of  churches  in  the  whole 
number,  every  one  of  which  furnished  the  desired  information,  was  the 
group  classified  in  the  directory  as  undenominational. 

With  reference  to  the  proposition  that  the  churches  are  suspicious  of 
attempts  to  commit  religion  to  the  solution  of  concrete  social  problems,  it 
will  be  sufficient  to  say  that  in  the  large,  and  not  least  influential  division 
of  Christians  known  as  evangelical,  it  is  doubtful  if  a  pulpit  discourse  is 
ever  delivered  upon  any  of  the  practical  problems  in  question,  without  an 
apology  somewhere  in  the  address  to  prove  that  consideration  of  such  sub¬ 
jects  is  actually  religious. 

20.  The  churches  owe  it  to  themselves  to  settle  the  primary  question 
of  religious  aim,  viz..  Has  or  has  not  the  church,  besides  its  mission  con¬ 
cerning  man  in  his  relations  to  God  and  eternity,  a  co-ordinate  mission 
concerning  man  in  his  relations  to  his  fellows  and  the  present  time? 

By  “co-ordinate”  I  mean  no  more  and  no  less  than  Jesus  meant  when 
he  said  the  command  to  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  is  “like”  the  com¬ 
mand  to  love  God,  and  that  no  other  commandment  is  greater  than  these. 
(Mark  xii.,  28-31;  John  xiii.,  34.) 

The  most  serious  charge  now  hanging  over  the  Christian  church  is  that 
it  has  abolished  the  parity  of  these  commands.  Belief  that  the  charge  is 
just  accounts  for  this  respect  and  distrust  of  the  church  in  large  sections 
of  society.  It  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  this  paper  to  discuss  the 
co-ordinate  importance  of  love  to  God  and  love  to  man  in  the  structure  of 
Christianity.  It  is  sufficient  to  point  out  that,  until  the  present  temper  of 
men  is  revolutionized,  a  predominantly  transcendental  religion,  chiefly  con¬ 
cerned  with  the  infinite  and  the  eternal,  and  only  accidentally  and  sub- 
ordinately  interested  in  the  finite  and  the  temporal,  may  as  well  abandon 
hope  of  commanding  social  influence.  The  churches  that  practically 
repudiate  the  co-ordinate  and  paramount  authority  of  the  Sinaitic  com¬ 
mand  to  love  God,  and  the“  new  ”  Christian  command  to  love  each  other 
(John  xiii.,  34),  place  themselves  in  opposition  both  to  the  Founder  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  to  every  respectable  ethical  standard. 

All  the  ecclesiastical  dignity  in  the  world  can  not  impose  upon  this  gen¬ 
erational  religion  that  belittles  the  present  interest  of  average  men.  In 
other  words,  the  question  whether  the  churches  of  our  time  shall  lead  in 
the  solution  of  the  problems  of  cities  must  wait  for  the  decision  of  the 


594 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


churches  whether  they  will  recognize  both  heinisjjheres  of  their  Christian 
mission.  In  the  language  of  the  writer  just  now  quoted: 

If  the  church  is  willing  to  teach  by  her  example  that  Christianity  is  divorced 
from  philanthropy,  and  reform,  and  social  science,  and  the  progress  of  civiliza¬ 
tion,  or  that  these  are  bro<ider  than  Christianity,  she  must  be  content  with  a  little 
place,  and  never  dream  of  conquering  the  world  for  Christ.  But  if  she  aims  at 
universal  conquest,  she  must  show  a  universal  interest  in  human  affairs.— 
the  New  Era,  p.  24:0. 

21.  As  already  claimed,  the  ultimate  solution  of  these  problems  will  be 
Christian,  but  it  remains  to  be  seen  how  generally  the  Christian  churches 
will  be  agents  of  the  solution. 

22.  The  churches  have  two  alternatives,  viz.,  first,  they  may  confine 
themselves  to  the  functions  of  spiritual  edification,  of  indoctrinating  the 
children  of  their  members,  of  defending  their  denominational  orthodoxy, 
and  of  evangelizing  at  home  and  abroad. 

(If  this  alternative  be  chosen,  the  function  thus  reserved  by  the  churches 
is  logically  fundamental,  but  it  is  practically  partial  and  self -limited  for 
reasons  already  noticed.  We  may  estimate  this  work  as  first  in  dignity 
among  social  forces,  yet  it  is  only  one  among  many  concurrent  agencies.  If 
the  churches  should  thus  restrict  themselves  it  would  be  a  refusal  to  exe¬ 
cute  their  whole  commissions  as  ministers  plenipotentiary  of  Christianity.) 

Second,  the  churches  may  accept  the  full  responsibility  of  revealers 
and  realizers  of  right  relations  of  men  to  each  other  as  well  as  of  men  to  God. 

In  this  case  every  situation  in  which  a  human  being  confronts  an  actual 
life  problem  is  an  occasion  for  the  church  to  signalize  both  the  spiritual 
and  the  social  elements  of  religion. 

23.  The  choice  of  these  alternatives  does  not  turn  upon  denominational 
standards  of  theology. 

There  is  not  a  sect  represented  in  this  parliament  which  can  consistently 
ignore  either  the  spiritual  or  the  social  hemisphere  of  religion,  its  own 
principles  being  the  criterion.  Every  religion  here  represented  is  a  relation 
to  God,  under  some  name  or  form.  On  the  other  hand,  and  still  more  to 
our  immediate  purpose,  this  World’s  Congress  of  Religions  has  once  for  all 
estopped  Christians  from  claiming  for  their  religion  a  monopoly  of  the  ideal 
and  the  policy  of  universal  brotherhood.  Christian  churches  may  profess  a 
zeal  for  God  which  reduces  fraternity  to  an  inoperative  sentiment,  but 
transfer  of  assets  to  a  preferred  creditor  is  prima-facie  fraud  in  religion  not 
less  than  in  business. 

Assuming  that  the  churches  acknowledge  responsibility  in  connection 
with  the  social  problems  of  cities,  the  remaining  theses  contain  hints  toward 
solution. 

24.  The  conditions  and  symptomatic  evils  considered  can  be  modified 
only  by  systematic  application  of  appropriate  means  to  concrete  ends. 

25.  The  churches  are  not  solving  the  problems  of  cities  when  they  are 
hearing  their  ministers  argue  that  something  is  wrong  if  men  who  are 
able  and  willing  to  earn  their  living  can  get  no  chance  to  work.  The  min¬ 
ister  may  be  doing  his  part  in  the  argument,  but  where  the  minister’s  duty 
ends  the  business  of  the  church  begins. 

The  means  must  be  employed  in  actual  contact  with  the  evils  to  be 
remedied. 

The  work  of  the  social  church  can  not  be  confined  to  the  church  head¬ 
quarters.  The  demonstration  which  Mr.  Moody  has  given  for  one  phase  of 
religious  work  is  in  progress  at  Toynbee  Hall,  and  Hull  House  for  another. 

26.  The  tasks  imposed  by  the  needs  of  city  populations  requires  the 
multiplication  of  church  workers. 

The  responsibilities  of  social  religion  can  not  be  discharged  for  the 
church  by  a  few  salaried  proxies.  The  pastor  and  church  officers  should 
be  the  organizers  and  leaders  of  experts  in  as  many  special  applications  of 
religious  energy  as  there  are  special  evils  to  be  remedied. 


CHURCHES  AND  CITY  PROBLEMS. 


595 


27.  Wise  discipline  and  disposal  of  social  force  requires  precise  knowl¬ 
edge  of  sound  facts  and  mature  judgments  of  social  tendencies. 

Social  science  is  as  necessary  to  the  leader  in  social  religion  as  military 
science  to  the  leader  in  war,  or  political  science  to  the  leader  in  legislature. 
Neither  piety  nor  theology  insures  fitness  to  solve  social  problems  any  more 
than  to  bake  bread  or  practice  medicine. 

28.  No  single  church,  not  even  the  largest,  can  effectively  proceed  alone 
against  each  of  the  conditions  or  symptoms  involving  degradation  of  city 
life. 

Each  of  the  tasks  which  we  are  confronting  could  employ  a  corps  of 
workers  as  numerous  as  the  police  or  fire  department. 

29.  On  the  other  hand  the  task  can  not  be  accomplished  by  distribu¬ 
tion  among  churches. 

The*problems  are  general.  No  one  of  them  can  be  isolated  and  concen¬ 
trated  within  the  reach  of  a  single  church. 

30.  Co-operation  and  methodical  division  of  labor  among  the  churches 
would  most  effectively  apply  present  resources,  and  would  take  the  largest 
number  of  possible  religious  workers  from  the  retired  list  into  active 
service. 

The  association  of  charities  is  an  example,  and  may  the  day  soon  come 
when  every  city  in  the  world  will  have  reached  this  latest  and  most  benev¬ 
olent  stage  of  philanthropic  development.  The  churches,  as  churches, 
should  be  represented  and  united  by  similar  organizations  in  the  endeavor 
to  remove  every  condition  and  overcome  every  evil  that  is  oppressing  our 
fellowmen. 

31.  Social  co-operation  between  churches  does  not  involve  artificial 
denominational  union. 

There  will  always  be  in  the  world  a  quota  of  people  who  think.  A 
respectable  portion  of  the  number  will  be  Christians.  No  more  grateful 
service  can  be  rendered  to  a  thinker  than  dissent  from  his  opinion  and  exhi¬ 
bition  of  reasons  for  the  difference.  In  so  far  as  denominational  diversity 
stands  for  actual  variety  of  belief  and  judgment,  it  is  a  medium  of  religious 
and  social  progress.  They  are  not  the  profoundest  who  clamor  for  religious 
union  based  on  confessional  compromise. 

32.  On  the  other  hand,  social  co-operation  of  churches  is  the  only  cred¬ 
ible  evidence  of  their  belief  that  effective  fraternity  is  a  religious  obligation 
more  imperative  than  protection  of  denominational  prestige. 

Others  besides  politicians  serve  the  public  only  when  the  service  can  be 
coined  into  party  capital. 

33.  The  basis  of  social  co-operation  should  be  common  recognition  of 
the  obligation  of  brotherhood. 

If  the  Samaritan  and  the  hotel-keeper  on  the  Jericho  road  had  post¬ 
poned  the  co-operation  until  they  settled  their  doctrinal  differences,  the 
stranger  would  have  perished  as  thousands  are  perishing  in  our  cities 
to-day,  from  the  inhumanity  of  religion. 

It  is  difficult  for  the  theorist  to  anticipate  the  practical  ingenuity  of 
any  Chicago  workers.  Since  this  parliament  convened,  the  problem 
of  the  unemployed  in  Chicago  has  evoked  spontaneous  union  for  solution 
of  the  problem  between  representatives  of  Baptists,  Congregationalists, 
Episcopalians,  Jews,  and  the  Salvation  Army.  The  churches  are  suffering 
in  their  own  spiritual  life  for  more  such  co-operation.  In  our  sectarian 
isolation  we  are  like  men  holding  a  single  cup  of  the  battery.  We  must 
join  hands  with  men  at  the  other  pole  to  feel  the  galvanic  current. 

Let  us  record  the  hope  and  the  prediction  that  this  Parliament  of 
Religions  will  promote  municipal  co-operation  of  all  men  who  love  their 
fellows ;  each  respecting  the  other’s  right  to  worship  God  according  to 
the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  each  pledging  to  the  other  his  loyal 
fellowship  toward  helping  every  brother  man  to  achieve  life  in  more  and 
more  abundance. 


596 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


WORLD’S  RELIGIOUS  DEBT  TO  ASIA. 

P.  C.  MOZOOMDAR. 

All  the  addresses  delivered  by  P.  C.  Mozoomdar,  the  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  at  the  Parliament  of  Religions, 
were  particularly  pleasing  to  his  audience  of  Western  admirers, 
but  none  were  more  so  than  that  read  on  ‘‘The  World’s 
Religious  Debt  to  Asia.” 

The  first  gift  conferred  by  Asia  on  the  religious  world  is  insight  into 
nature.  The  Oriental  discovers,  contemplates,  and  communes  with  the 
spirit  of  God,  who,  in  his  view,  fills  all  creation.  Nature  is  not  a  mere 
stimulus  to  mild  poetry;  nature  is  God’s  abode.  He  did  not  create  it  and 
then  leave  it  to  itself,  but  He  lives  in  every  particle  of  its  great  struct¬ 
ure.  Nature  is  not  for  man’s  bodily  benefit,  but  for  his  spiritual  emanci¬ 
pation  also.  It  is  not  enough  to  say  the  heavens  are  God’s  handiwork,  but 
the  heaven  is  His  throne,  the  earth  is  His  footstool.  Our  Nanak  said: 
“  Behold,  the  sun  and  moon  are  His  altar  lights,  and  the  sky  is  the  sacred 
vessel  of  sacrifice  to  Him.”  In  the  vast  temple  of  nature  Asia  beholds  the 
Supreme  Spirit  reigning,  and  worshixjs  Him  through  the  great  objects  His 
hand  has  made.  Nay,  more,  the  Oriental  beholds  in  nature  the  image  of 
God.  “  I  offer  my  salutations  unto  the  bountiful  Lord,”  says  Yogavasista, 
“  who  is  the  inner  soul  of  all  things,  reveals  Himself  in  heaven,  in  earthy  in 
the  firmament,  in  my  own  heart,  and  in  all  around  me.” 

To  the  Asiatic  the  Immanent  Spirit  embodies  himself  in  nature’s  beauty 
and  sweetness,  to  be  immersed  in  which  is  to  be  nursed  in  God  Himself. 
We  receive,  from  every  object  ,we  see,  a  suggestion  of  something  unseen, 
something  higher,  inner,  something  divine  and  immortal.  “  Whatever  is 
on  earth,”  the  Persian  poet  Sadi  says,  “  is  the  resemblance  and  shadow  of 
something  that  is  in  the  spheres;  again,  that  light  is  the  shadow  of  some¬ 
thing  more  resplendent,  and  so  up  to  the  light  of  lights.”  When  no  audi¬ 
ble  speech  was  heard  what  meant  the  royal  psalmist  by  saying  “the  heavens 
declare  the  glory  of  God,  day  uttereth  speech  unto  day  and  rfight  showeth 
knowledge  unto  night.”  It  was  the  law  of  the  Lord,  His  statutes.  His  x>re- 
ceptsthat  filled  David’s  heart,  and  he  heard  the  celestial  music  of  his  con¬ 
templation  re-echoed  in  all  the  universe.  “  When,”  says  the  Bhagavadgita, 
“  Arjuna,  the  faithful  warrior,  looked  up  to  the  divine  form  he  saw  there 
the  glory  of  the  mountains,  the  sweep  of  the  rivers,  the  bloom  of  the  flow¬ 
ers,  and  the  animated  beauty  of  mankind.”  This  does  not  mean  that  nature 
and  God  are  one,  but  nature  is  the  .primary  form  and  image  of  God’s 
spirit. 

The  book  of  creation  is  in  God’s  handwriting — it  is  His  language;  nature 
is  His  revelation.  The  roar  of  the  hurricane  is  a  feeble  echo  of  His  eternal 
voice.  The  thunders  of  the  sea  breaking  in  fury  over  the  immovable  rocks 
are  the  faint  utterances  of  His  might.  The  midnight  firmament,  with  its 
mighty  arches  of  light,  shows  His  vast  bosom  bending  over  the  repose  of 
the  good  and  the  bad  alike. 

The  forces  of  nature  strike  the  Asiatic  not  as  blind  or  fantastic,  but  as 
the  manifestations  of  a  personal  will.  The  life  of  nature  is  the  life  of  God. 
Our  own  personality,  which  originates  so  many  activities,  unfolds  a  person 
who  originates  and  preserves  the  universal  power  of  all  things.  In  Asia, 
therefore,  nature  is  not  a  mere  design,  or  mere  law,  or  uniformity,  but  the 
arena  of  God’s  personal  activity. 

But  personal  activity  means  providence.  When  the  Spirit  fills  all  things, 
is  imaged  in  all  things,  is  revealed  by  all  things,  and,  as  a  person  presides 


WORLD^S  RELIGIOUS  DEBT  TO  ASIA. 


597 


over  all  activities,  the  whole  world  is  full  of  His  providence.  It  is  for  this 
reason  that  Vedic  sages  beheld  in  every  force  and  phenomenon  of  nature 
an  inworking  light  of  the  Divinity.  There  was  God  in  the  sun,  God  in  the 
Himalayas,  God  in  the  all-investing  sky,  God  in  the  expanse  of  the  round, 
blue  sea,  but  all  these  gods  merged  into  one  supreme  Brahma,  the  meaning 
of  which  word  is  “God  is  great,  and  makes  everything  great.”  Thus  the 
senses  and  the  soul  form  a  vast  organ,  on  which  the  contemplation  of  nature 
plays  her  august  harmony,  and  through  which  insight  makes  her  super¬ 
natural,  yet  most  natural,  revelations. 

How,  then,  can  we  tire  of  our  mountains  and  rivers,  or  the  sacred  soli¬ 
tude  of  the  forests?  Mount  Sinai  is  neither  cold  nor  dumb;  but  there  is 
no  Moses  to  hear  the  commandments,  or  bare  his  feet  to  the  burning  bush. 
The  roses  of  Sharon  are  still  in  bloom,  the  nightingale’s  song  still  tills  the 
midnight  silence,  but  there  is  no  Hafez  to  realize  that  the  Great  Beloved 
dwells  in  the  garden  and  welcomes  his  faithful  devotees.  The  fountain 
Zemzem  Hows  on  by  the  side  of  Mecca,  but  the  Prophet  is  forever  gone, 
and  the  pilgrim  hordes  spread  infection  and  uncleanness-  Nature  is  spirit 
ual  still,  but  man  has  become  material,  and  Asia  calls  upon  the  world  to 
once  more  enthrone  God  in  His  creation.  .Reconciled  with  nature,  at  one 
with  the  creation,  inspired  by  the  soul  of  beauty  in  all  things,  Asia  is  at 
one  with  God. 

The  second  lesson  which  Asia  teaches  is  introspection.  This  means 
beholding  the  spirit  of  God  within  your  own  heart;  it  is  spirituality. 
Nature  inspires  the  Old  Testament,  Job,  David,  Jiaia,  the  Rig  Vedas,  the 
A  vesta;  the  spirit  makes  the  New  Testament,  the  Upamshads,  the  religion 
of  Sadi-Rowland  Roum.  Is  there  any  light  of  beauty  or  intelligence,  or 
harmony  in  outward  things  which  has  not  its  original  seat  in  the  minds  of 
the  observer?  From  observation  to  introspection  the  step  is  easy  and 
natural.  On  the  framework  of  your  own  soul  the  warp  and  woof  of  all  the 
worlds  are  woven,  the  universe  of  light  and  order  is  to  be  seen  within. 
There  is  no  glory  without  which  the  soul  does  not  put  there  from  within 
itself.  This  marvelous  creation  is  sometimes  described  as  an  objective 
dream,  a  medium  of  communion  between  the  human  and  the  divine,  the 
self- manifestation  of  the  spirit  who  appeals  through  our  senses  to  the  kin¬ 
dred  spirit  within. 

Neither  in  scripture  nor  in  nature,  nor  in  church,  nor  in  prophet,  is  the 
spirit  of  God  realized  in  His  fullness,  but  in  man’s  soul,  and  there  alone  is 
the  purpose  of  God  fully  revealed.  He  who  has  found  Him  there  has  found 
the  secret  of  the  sonship  of  man. 

Believe  me  the  hour  cometh  when  ye  shall  neither  in  this  mountain  nor  yet  in 
Jerusalem  worship  the  Father.  But  the  hour  cometh  and  now  is  when  tlie 
true  worshiper  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth;  for  the  Father 
seeketh  such  worship.  God  is  a  spirit,  and  they  that  worship  Him  must  worship 
Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

Until,  therefore,  we  behold  God  as  the  spirit  in  the  only  spirit  realm  we 
have  access  to,  namely,  our  own  souls,  how  is  true  worship  possible?  The 
Taitirya  Upamshad  says:  “When  the  devotee  is  established  within  the 
unseen,  formless,  unspeakable  spirit  of  God  in  Himself,  only  then  is  he 
perfectly  fearless.”  This  sense  of  the  supreme  fact  of  the  spirit’s  dwelling 
glows  into  attitudes  of  blessedness  which  intensifies  every  other  faculty  of 
the  soul.  All  mental  powers  turn  themselves  into  channels  through  which 
the  abundance  of  divine  manifestation  pours  within.  The  sentiments,  the 
imagination,  the  powers  of  intelligence,  the  resolutions  of  the  will,  are  all 
kindled  into  that  spirit  of  prophetic  fire  which  glows  in  the  inspiration  of 
the  Orient. 

And  thus  Asiatic  philosophy,  whether  Hindu,  or  Gnostic,  or  Sufi,  is  the 
philosophy  of  the  spirit,  the  philosophy  of  the  supreme  substance,  not  of 
phenomena  only.  All  Asiatic  poetry  breathes  the  aroma  of  the  sacred  man¬ 
sions,  glows  with  the  light  of  the  dawning  heavens.  The  deepest  music  is 


598 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


spiritual  music,  the  noblest  architecture  is  raised  by  the  hand  of  faith. 
When  the  spirit  of  God  indwells  the  spirit  of  man,  literature,  science,  the 
arts,  nay,  all  ideals  and  all  achievements  find  their  national  source,  the 
whole  world  is  spiritualized  into  a  vision  of  the  eternal. 

Has  the  spiritual  nature  an  end  to  its  possibilities  ?  The  Oriental  mind 
does  not  really  deny  the  being  of  the  outward  world,  but,  seeing  God  within 
its  own  being,  the  outer  becomes  only  a  phase  of  the  inner  spirit.  It  is  not 
logic  nor  observation,  nor  even  the  scripture  that  reveals  God  to  the  rapt 
Oriental  mind ;  it  is  through  his  own  instincts  that  he  has  the  deepest  view 
of  the  unity  and  perfection  of  the  godhead  No  dialectic  subtlety  or  analytic 
skill  is  unknown  in  the  East,  but  there  the  philosopher  is  the  seer  also. 
Asia  has  the  seeing  of  God  within  her  spirit,  and  what  is  seen  can  not  be 
disproved  by  what  is  said.  The  progress  of  true  religion  is  not  in  the  con¬ 
version  of  the  so-called  heathen,  but  in  the  conception,  the  inspiration,  and 
realization  of  the  ideal  of  the  man  of  spirit. 

The  Supreme  Spirit  manifests  Himself  in  the  soul  as  reason,  as  love,  as 
righteousness,  as  joy.  The  product  of  reason  is  wisdom,  and  true  wisdom  is 
universal.  “  In  the  beginning  was  the  word,  and  the  word  was  with  God, 
and  the  word  was  God.”  What  is  true  in  Asia  is  true  in  Europe,  what  is 
true  before  Christ  is  true  after  Christ,  because  Christ  is  the  spirit  of  truth. 
Whoever  conceives  the  unmixed  truth  in  science  or  in  faith,  in  art  or  in 
literature,  conceives  the  imperishable  and  the  eternal. 

In  the  high  realms  of  that  undying  wisdom  the  Hebrew,  the  Hindu,  the 
Mongolian,  the  Christian,  are  ever  as  one,  for  that  wisdom  is  no  part  of 
themselves,  but  the  self-revelation  of  God.  The  Hindu  books  have  not 
plagiarized  the  Bible,  Christianity  has  not  plundered  Buddhism,  but  uni¬ 
versal  wisdom  is  like  unto  itself  everywhere.  Similarly,  love,  when  it  is 
unselfish  and  incarnal,  has  its  counterpart  in  all  lands  and  at  all  times. 
The  deepest  poetry,  whether  in  Dante,  Shakespeare  or  Kalidasa,  is  uni¬ 
versal.  The  love  of  God  repeats  itself  century  after  century  in  the  pious  of 
every  race;  the  love  of  man  makes  all  mankind  its  kindred.  True  holiness  is 
the  universal  ideal,  however  much  personal  prejudices  or  passions  stand  in 
the  way  of  the  light.  Hence  Asia,  seeking  the  universal  God  in  her  soul, 
has  discovered  God  to  all  the  world. 

This  process  of  seeking  and  finding  God  within  is  an  intense  spiritual 
culture  known  by  various  names  in  various  countries;  in  India  we  call  it 
Yoga.  The  self- consecrated  devotee  finds  an  immersion  in  the  depths  of 
the  indwelling  deity.  God’s  reason  becomes  man’s  reason,  God’s  love 
becomes  man’s  love.  God  and  man  become  one.  Introspection  finds  the 
universal  soul — the  over-soul  of  your  Emerson — beating  in  all  humanity, 
and  a  human  and  divine  are  thus  reconciled. 

Asia  has  taught  the  world  to  worship.  Asia  is  the  land  of  impulse. 
Religion  there  has  meant  always  sentiment,  joyousness,  exaltation,  excite¬ 
ment  in  the  love  of  God  and  man.  All  this  impulse  the  Asiatic  throws  into  his 
worship.  With  us  Orientals  worship  is  not  a  mere  duty;  it  is  an  instinct,  a 
longing,  a  passion.  There  is  a  force'that  draws  every  drop  of  dew  into  the 
sea,  a  spark  into  the  confiagration,  a  planet  to  the  sun.  They  feel  in  the 
East  a  similar  force  of  impulse  draws  them  into  the  depths  of  God.  That 
is  worship.  “  As  the  hart  panteth  for  the  brook  of  living  water,  so  my  soul 
panteth  for  God.”  Routines  and  rituals  are,  indeed,  known  in  the  East; 
they  are  to  keep  the  undevout  in  the  practice  of  religion;  but  for  the  spirit¬ 
ual  the  impulse  toward  God  is  irresistible.  The  love  of  God  is  a  growing 
passion,  a  wine  that  inebriates,  a  madness  of  the  spirit. 

The  holy  festival  in  the  East,  whether  it  is  song  or  ceremony,  or  praise 
or  prayer,  is  an  intense  excitement.  This  longing  for  the  companionship 
of  the  spirit  is  half  human,  half  divine.  It  is  man  calling  after  God,  and 
God  seeking  after  man.  No  devotional  act  is  complete  which  is  not  an  act 
of  advance  on  the  part  of  God  and  man;  no  prayer  is  true  which  does  not 


WORLD'S  RELIGIOUS  DEBT  TO  ASIA. 


599 


bring  with  it  a  blessed  consciousness  of  acceptance;  but  worship  is  then 
worthy  of  heaven  when  it  is  uttered  in  tearful  and  fervid  love.  When  the 
devotee  feels  conscious  that  he  is  accepted,  an  ecstasy  of  trust  fills  him, 
the  rapture  of  his  love  overpowers  him.  He  cries,  he  laughs,  he  sings,  he 
dances,  he  falls  into  a  trance.  Such  phenomena  are  not  confined  to  one 
religion  or  one  country.  The  Hebrew  Miriam  danced  and  the  congregation 
played  upon  clamorous  instruments  of  music.  Mohammed  fell  into  fits  of 
unconsciousness.  Hafez  was  reputed  as  a  madman.  The  Vaishnavas  of 
India  dance  and  violently  sing  in  their  devotional  excitement.  The  vagrant, 
Puran,thus  describes  the  condition  of  the  devout  worshiper: 

He  sings  the  names  of  the  dearest  one.  his  heart  is  melted  with  holy  love,  he 
laughs  loudly,  or  he  cries  or  ceaselessly  prays,  and  at  last,  overcome  by  common 
impulses,  dances  like  a  man  beside  himself. 

This  kind  of  excitement  can  not  be  agreeable  or  suitable  to  all  men,  but 
it  shows  the  extreme  to  which  devotional  impulses  run  in  Asia. 

The  uttered  worship  of  the  East  none  can  limit.  Can  anyone  number 
the  songs  of  praise,  the  invocations,  the  entreaties  which  rise  night  and  day 
like  a  ceaseless  noise  of  many  waters  to  the  throne  of  heaven?  The  universe 
itself  is  to  the  Oriental  like  a  vast  devotee  which  uttereth  ceaselessly  the 
words  of  adoration,  and  we,  each  one  of  us,  feebly  respond  to  these  utter¬ 
ances;  blessed  is  he  who  responds  from  his  deepest  heart.  But  at  last 
speech  becomes  inadequate  and  devotion  lapses  into  silence.  Our  worship 
is  then  profoundest  when  we  find  no  language  adequate  to  express  our  love 
and  trust.  The  East,  therefore,  cultivates  the  habit  of  devotional  silence. 
But  silence  also  becomes  too  oppressive,  and  takes  shape  in  the  offerings  and 
acts  of  worship.  Flowers,  incenses,  sacrificial  fires,  sacramental  food,  sym¬ 
bolic  postures,  bathings,  fastings,  and  vigils  are  oftentimes  more  eloquent 
than  words.  There  is  no  spirit  without  form.  Ceremonies  without  spirit 
are  indeed  dangerous,  but  when  words  fail  before  God  symbols  become 
indispensable. 

All  true  worship  is  two-fold  in  its  direction,  it  is  godward,  and  it  is  man- 
ward.  The  honor  and  love  of  God  are  sure  to  lead  to  the  honor  and  love  of 
man.  In  Asia  we  almost  worship  our  spiritual  guides;  we  almost  idolize 
the  objects  we  love.  The  man  of  God  stands  next  to  God.  We  do  not 
understand  spiritual  democracy;  we  look  out  for  towering  personalities, 
nay,  even  in  loving  our  equals.  We  are  fired  by  a  divine  enthusiasm. 
Opposite  moods  are  reconciled  in  the  character  of  the  spiritual  man.  Ten¬ 
derness  and  sternness,  rebuke  and  forgiveness  mingle  into  a  strange  dig¬ 
nity.  Meekness,  penitence,  gentleness,  forgiveness,  affectionateness,  lofty 
indignation,  weeping,  compassion,  are  attitudes  of  the  love  of  man.  The 
devotee  is  not  only  kind  to  man  but  kind  and  compassionate  also  to  all  liv¬ 
ing  things.  The  beatitudes  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  sweet  human¬ 
ities  of  Buddha,  thus  become  realities  of  the  true  instinct  of  worship. 

Adoration  fails,  the  flower  fades,  the  fire  quenches,  the  incense  becomes 
•  dust,  but  when  the  spirit  abides  in  the  rapture  of  joy  and  love  within  the 
depths  of  God,  it  forgets  the  world’s  distractions,  and  when  similarly  the 
love  of  man  becomes  to  it  a  passion,  it  becomes  one  with  mankind.  One¬ 
ness  with  God  and  man  therefore  in  perfect  love  is  the  ideal  of  Eastern 
worship. 

What  lesson  do  the  hermitages,  the  monasteries,  the  cave  temples,  the 
disciplines  and  austerities  of  the  religious  East  teach  the  world?  Renuncia¬ 
tion.  The  Asiatic  apostle  will  ever  remain  an  ascetic,  a  celibate,  a  home¬ 
less  Akinchana,  a  Fakir.  Orientals — we  are  all  the  descendants  of  John 
the  Baptist.  Anyone  who  has  taken  pains  at  spiritual  culture  must 
admit  that  the  great  enemy  to  a  devout  concentration  of  mind  is  the  force 
of  bodily  and  worldly  desire.  Communion  with  God  is  impossible  so  long  as 
the  flesh  and  its  lusts  are  not  subdued.  Hence  renunciation  has  always 
been  recognized  as  a  law  of  spiritual  progress  in  Asia.  It  is  not  mere 


GOO 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


temperance,  but  positive  asceticism;  not  mere  self-restraint,  but  self-morti- 
lication;  not  mere  self-sacrifice,  but  self -extinction:  not  mere  morality,  but 
absolute  holiness.  The  passion  for  holiness  conquers  the  passion  for  self- 
indulgence  and  leads  to  much  voluntary  suffering.  Poverty,  homelessness, 
simplicity  have  characterized  the  East.  The  Brahmans  do  not  charge  a 
fee  for  teaching  sacred  knowledge,  the  missionaries  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj 
never  take  a  salary. 

The  foxes  had  holes,  the  birds  had  nests,  but  the  Son  of  Man  had  not 
where  to  lay  His  head.  To  the  gates  of  Kapilvastu,  where  he  was  to  be 
lord  and  king,  Buddha  went  as  a  wandering  mendicant,  with  his  alms-bowl 
in  his  hand,  begging  from  house  to  house.  The  sight  was  too  painful  for 
the  feelings  of  the  aged  king,  his  father,  so  that  he  entreated  the  illustrious 
mendicant  would  go  to  beg  elsewhere,  and  not  bring  shame  to  the  royal 
house  he  had  forsaken.  Buddha  calmly  replied:  “You,  O  King,  are  faithful 
to  your  ancestors,  who  were  kings,  but  I  am  equally  faithful  to  my  ances¬ 
tors,  who  were  all  mendicants.”  Mohammed  lived  in  a  cave  and  found 
enough  nourishment  in  a  few  dates.  The  Fakir  in  Moslem  countries 
and  the  Sadhu  in  India  are  regarded  with  universal  awe.  Those  orders  of 
Christians  who,  like  the  Roman  Catholics,  have  adopted  this  principle  of 
renunciation,  have  made  the  greatest  impression  upon  Asiatic  communi¬ 
ties.  It  is  a  sign  of  the  times  that  even  Protestant  orders  are  reverting  to 
the  monastic  principle  of  Asia.  This  has  its  danger,  but  it  is  still  more 
dangerous  to  allow  carnality  and  worldliness  to  mix  in  a  spiritual  life. 
Jesus  presided  at  the  marriage  feast,  Sakya  Muni  shocked  his  early  dis¬ 
ciples  by  eating  hearty  meals;  Mohammed  married  wives;  Nanak,  the 
founder  of  the  Sikhs,  kept  a  shop;  St.  Paul  stood  upon  his  political  rights 
as  a  Roman  citizen,  not  because  of  worldly-mindedness,  but  in  the  faithful 
discharge  of  their  holy  duties.  Their  hearts  were  austere  and  unselfish  as 
ever. 

Once  upon  a  time,  so  goes  the  Indian  legend,  the  saintly  ascetic  Suk- 
deva  visited  the  palace  of  the  royal  devotee,  the  Rajah  Janak.  The  man  of 
au  sterity  was  struck  at  the  wealth  and.magnificence  of  his  host.  The  throne 
on  which  he  sat,  his  wives,  his  attendants,  his  robes,  his  chariots  disgusted 
Sukdeva,  The  Rajah  Janak,  by  insight,  knew  the  thoughts  of  his  simple- 
minded  guest.  To  disabuse  him  Janak  suddenly  set  on  fire  his  palace  by 
the  1)0 wer  of  magic.  There  was  a  fearful  uproar,  everybody  hurrying  to 
save  what  was  most  precious  to  himself.  Even  Sukdeva  rushSd  to  snatch 
away  from  the  fire  a  narrow  strip  of  rag,  worn  round  his  loins,  his  only 
belonging,  which  he  had  hung  up  to  dry.  Only  Rajah  Janak  sat  calmly, 
smiling,  free  from  care.  The  fire  was  as  soon  put  out  as  it  had  been  set  up, 
and  the  royal  devotee,  addressing  the  ascetic  saint,  said: 

“Thou,  O  Sukdeva,  lost  thy  peace  when  thy  rag  was  threatened,  but  I 
could  look  calmly  on  while  all  my  palace  with  its  wealth  was  burning  to 
ashes.  Renunciation  is  not  to  abstain  from  much  and  be  over-fond  of 
the  little,  but  to  retain  our  peace  at  the  loss  of  everything  we  have,  be  it 
little  or  great.” 

Self-conquest  or  renunciation  is  but  one  part  of  the  part  of  the  culture 
of  the  will  into  spirituality.  The  other  is  obedience,  self-consecration, 
merging  oneself  into  the  supreme  self  of  God  and  the  sublime  service  of 
humanity.  Self-discipline  is  only  a  means  to  the  higher  end  of  reconcilia¬ 
tion  and  oneness  with  the  will  of  God.  The  grain  of  wheat  falls  and  dies 
in  the  earth,  that  it  may  produce  a  hundred-fold,  and  he  who  spends  his  life 
for  God  keeps  it  unto  immortality.  Death  has  been,  and  always  will  be, 
the  price  of  the  attainment  of  God;  and  the  service  of  man,  death  of  all 
service  and  finality.  Who  can  say,  who  did  say,  “  Not  my  will  but  thine  be 
done?”  He  who  struggled  with  the  last  cup  of  agony,  and  who  looked  up 
to  serve  God  and  man  while  the  murderer  was  at  the  gate.  Call  it  renun¬ 
ciation,  call  it  stoicism,  call  it  death,  the  fact  is  <  here  that  he  who  dies  to 


WORLD^S  RELIGIOUS  DEBT  TO  ASIA, 


601 


himself  can  only  find  rest  in  God  or  reconciliation  with  man.  This  great 
law  of  self-effacement,  poverty,  suffering,  death,  is  symbolized  in  the  mystic 
cross  so  dear  to  you  and  dear  to  me.  Christians,  shall  you  ever  repudiate 
Calvary?  Oneness  of  will  and  character  is  the  sublimest  and  most  difficult 
unity  with  God.  And  that  lesson  of  unity  Asia  has  repeatedly  tanght  the 
world. 

Thus  by  insight  into  the  immanence  of  God’s  spirit  in  nature,  thus  by 
introspection  into  the  fullness  of  the  divine  presence  in  the  heart,  thus  by 
rapturous  and  loving  worship,  and  thus  by  renunciation  and  self -surrender, 
Asia  has  learned  and  taught  wisdom,  practiced  and  preached  contempla¬ 
tion,  laid  down  the  rules  of  worship,  and  glorified  the  righteousness  of  God. 

But  how  can  I,  within  a  brief  half-hour,  describe  the  mystic  spirituality 
of  a  great  continent,  from  which  all  religions,  all  prophets,  all  founders,  all 
devotions,  and  all  laws  of  righteous  life  have  come?  I  have  uttered  only 
one  word  and  leave  the  rest  to  your  spiritual  discernment.  I  know  Asia 
has  to  learn  a  great  deal  from  the  West.  I  know  that  even  such  qualities 
of  the  Asiatic  as  I  have  described  require  to  be  assimilated  in  a  new  dis¬ 
pensation  of  God,  the  future  religion  of  mankind.  But  Europe  has  gone 
out  to  the  East  and  the  new  religion  has  dawned  in  the  Brahmo-Somaj. 

In  the  West  you  observe,  watch,  act,  and  speculate.  In  the  East  we 
contemplate,  commune,  and  suffer  ourselves  to  be  carried  away  by  the 
spirit  of  the  universe.  In  the  West  you  wrest  from  nature  her  secrets,  you 
conquer  her,  she  makes  you  wealthy  and  prosperous,  you  look  upon  her  as 
your  slave,  and  sometimes  fail  to  realize  her  sacredness.  In  the  East  nature 
is  our  eternal  sanctuary,  the  soul  is  our  everlasting  temple,  and  the  sacred¬ 
ness  of  God’s  creation  is  only  next  to  the  sacredness  of  God  Himself.  In 
the  West  you  love  equality,  you  respect  man,  you  seek  justice.  In  the 
East  love  is  the  fulfillment  of  the  law;  we  have  hero  worship — we  behold 
God.  In  the  West  you  establish  the  moral  law,  you  insist  upon  propriety 
of  conduct,  you  are  governed  by  public  opinion.  In  the  East  we  aspire, 
perhaps  vainly  aspire,  after  absolute  self-conquest  and  the  holiness  which 
makes  God  its  model.  In  the  West  you  work  incessantly,  and  your  work 
is  your  worship.  In  the  East  we  meditate  and  worship  for  long  hours,  and 
worship  in  our  work.  Perhaps  one  day,  after  this  parliament  has  achieved 
its  success,  the  Western  and  Eastern  man  shall  combine  to  support  each 
other’s  strength  and  supply  each  other’s  deficiencies.  And  then  that 
biassed  synthesis  of  human  nature  shall  be  established  which  all  prophets 
have  foretold,  and  all  the  devout  souls  have  sighed  for. 

Some  years  ago,  when  I  saw  Professor  Tyndall  after  his  great  Belfast 
address,  he  spoke  to  me  thus:  “  The  sympathies  of  such  men  as  you  are 
the  crumbs  of  comfort  left  me  in  my  unpopularity.  Because  I  will  not 
accept  religion  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have  it  not  they  revile  me.  I 
complain  hot.  True  religion  once  came  from  the  East,  and  from  the  East 
it  shall  come  again.” 

This,  perhaps,  was  too  great  a  compliment ;  at  least,  I  regarded  it  as  such. 
But  looking  back  into  the  past  it  can  not  be  denied  that  the  world’s  relig¬ 
ious  debt  to  Asia  is  very  great.  In  the  East  we  are  a  subject  race;  we  are 
talked  of  with  contumely;  the  Asiatic  is  looked  upon  as  the  incarnation  of 
every  meanness  and  untruth.  Perhaps  we  partly  deserve  it.  Perhaps  in 
being  allowed  to  associate  with  you,  free  and  noble  children  of  the  West, 
we  shall  learn  what  we  have  failed  to  learn  hitherto.  Yet  in  the  midst  of 
the  sadness,  the  loneliness,  the  prostration  of  the  present,  it  has  been  some 
consolation  to  think  that  we  still  retain  some  of  our  spiritual  ground;  to 
reflect  on  the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel:  “  Behold,  the  glory  of  the  Lord  cometh 
from  the  way  of  the  East.” 


C02 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  NEGRO  RACE. 

REV.  J.  R.  SLATTERY  OF  ST.  JOSEPH’S  SEMINARY, 

BALTIMORE,  MD. 

In  the  eyes  of  the  Catholic  Church  the  negro  is  a  man.  Her  teaching 
io  that  through  Christ  there  is  established  a  brotherly  bond  between  man 
and  man,  people  and  people. 

Just  as  in  the  order  of  nature  we  have  a  common  origin,  so  in  the  order 
of  grace  we  have  a  like  source  and  the  same  channels  of  salvation.  The 
same  divine  banquet  is  offered  to  black  and  white.  The  same  divine  bless¬ 
ings  of  grace  and  eternal  life  belong  to  both.  As  St.  Paul  tells  us:  “For 
you  are  all  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  for  as  many  of  you  as 
have  been  baptized  in  Christ  have  put  on  Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew 
nor  Greek ;  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free ;  there  is  neither  male  nor 
female.” 

From  these  Christian  principles  it  follows  that  there  can  be  no  slave, 
save  him  who  is  in  bondage  to  sin,  for  as  Leo  X.  declared,  “  Not  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion  only  but  nature  itself  cries  out  against  slavery.” 

Our  Christian  advantages  flow  from  our  spiritual  birth  and  adoption  into 
the  family  of  God.  It  is  from  truth  that  comes  our  dignity,  not  from  color 
or  blood. 

From  the  beginning  the  church  has  labored  to  carry  out  these  principles. 
In  writing  to  Philemon,  St.  Paul  insists  that  they  who  have  an  intercom¬ 
munion  of  faith  should  have  also  an  intercommunion  of  charity.  Chris¬ 
tians  vied  with  each  other  in  manumitting  their  slaves,  the  church  itself 
having  ordered  it  to  be  proposed  to  Christians  as  a  proper  legacy  in  their 
wills 

Bishops,  even — Ambrose,  Augustine,  Hilary,  and  countless  others — 
melted  down  the  consecrated  gold  and  silver,  alienated  the  gifts  and  orna¬ 
ments  of  their  basilicas,  in  order  to  redeem  slaves.  Two  orders  were  estab¬ 
lished  in  the  church  for  the  redemption  of  slaves— the  Orders  of  the  Most 
Holy  Trinity  and  of  Our  Lady  of  Mercy. 

Furthermore,  by  restoring  free  labor,  which  had  died  out  under  Roman 
C^esarism  and  Roman  slavery,  the  church  raised  the  dignity  of  the  work¬ 
man  and  struck  at  the  same  time  the  death-knell  of  slavery.  After  the 
rise  of  negro  slavery  in  the  15th  and  16th  centuries  the  Caiholic  Church 
applied  her  great  principles  of  the  natural  unity  of  the  human  race  and  the 
same  supernatural  destiny  to  that  infamous  traffic.  Urban  VIII.,  Ben¬ 
edict  XIV.,  and  Gregory  XVI.  condemned  it. 

Wherever  the  Catholic  Church  has  influence  there  is  no  negro  question. 
Brazil  by  a  stroke  of  the  pen  emancipated  her  slaves,  while  the  United 
States  waded  through  oceans  of  blood  to  emancipate  them.  Whatever 
misery  afflicts  Spanish  America,  the  Catholic  instinct  of  human  equality 
has  delivered  it  from  race  antagonisms.  There  is  no  negro  problem  in 
Catholic  South  America. 

The  Catholic  Church  forever  restricts  bondage  to  bodily  service,  the 
bondman  being  in  her  eyes  a  man,  a  moral  being  with  a  conscience  of  his 
own,  which  no  master  under  any  cloak  may  invade.  For  she  has  the  one 
law  for  master  and  slave,  one  code  of  morality  binds  both;  each  is  account¬ 
able  for  his  own  deeds  before  the  just  Judge.  “God,”  says  St.  Augustine, 
“gave  man  dominion  over  the  irrational  creatures  but  not  over  the  rational.” 
The  church,  moreover,  always  insisted  on  the  Christian  marriage  of  the 
slave,  thereby  holding  that  he  is  a  person  and  not  a  chattel. 

For  she  teaches  that  marriage  is  a  free  contract,  into  which  none  but 
persons  can  enter.  Catholic  theologians  also  hold  that  the  ministers  of 
marriage  are  the  contracting  parties;  now  none  but  persons  can  be 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  NEGRO  RACE.  603 


ministers  of  the  sacrament.  Hence  in  blessing  the  marriage  of  the  negro 
slaves,  the  holy  church  recognized  their  manhood  and  external  liberty. 

It  may  be  well,  however,  to  emphasize  the  position  of  the  Catholic 
Church  still  more.  She  asserts  the  unity  of  the  race.  The  negro,  then,  is 
of  the  race  of  Adam,  created  by  the  same  God,  redeemed  by  the  same 
Savior,  and  destined  to  the  same  heaven  as  the  white  man.  In  matters  of 
morality  she  makes  no  difference.  The  Decalogue  of  Moses  obliges  blacks 
as  well  as  whites;  the  precepts  of  Sunday  worship,  of  Friday  abstinence,  of 
Lenten  fast  bind  the  blacks  as  strictly  as  they  do  the  whites.  For  both 
races  have  the  same  baptismal,  marriage,  and  burial  services,  the  same 
doctrine,  the  same  sacraments,  the  same  worship,  the  same  communion, 
the  same  promises,  the  same  privileges,  the  same  hopes. 

A  pen  picture  may  describe  the  negroes  as  numbering  eight  to  nine 
million;  living  in  one  section  of  our  land,  and  that  the  least  Catholic;  just 
emerged  from  slavery;  enjoying  the  franchise;  learning  how  to  read  and 
write;  two-thirds  of  them  living  on  plantations;  one  and  all  made  to  feel  a 
frightful  ostracism  which  descends  so  deep  as  to  exclude  them,  in  some 
places,  from  public  conveyances;  a  people  one-half  of  whom  have  no 
religion,  and  the  other  half  are  professing  only  a  shade  of  sentimental 
belief.  Yet  there  is  a  cheerful  view  to  be  taken.  They  are  not  rebels 
against  public  authority.  They  are  law-abiding  citizens.  They  love  the 
worship  of  God;  in  their  childish  way  they  desire  to  love  God;  they  long 
for  and  relish  the  supernatural;  they  willingly  listen  to  the  word  of  God; 
their  hearts  burn  for  the  better  gifts.  They  are  hard-working;  patiently, 
and  forgivingly  do  they  bear  their  wrongs. 

It  is  related  of  Michael  Angelo  that,  going  along  the  streets  of  Rome,  he 
espied  a  rough,  unhewn  block  of  marble.  “There  is  an  angel  hidden 
there,”  he  said,  pointing  to  the  stone.  Having  had  it  brought  to  his  studio, 
the  immortal  artist  soon  began  to  chip  at  it,  and  to  back  at  it,  and  to  shape 
it,  till  finally  there  came  forth  from  it  the  faultless  angel  in  marble  which 
his  prophet  eyes  had  seen  in  it. 

A  similar  block  of  marble  is  the  negro  ;  far  harder  to  work  uj  on  than 
the  Carrara  lump  of  Michael  Angelo,  because  the  chisel  must  be  applied  to 
the  human  heart.  And  has  the  negro  a  human  heart?  Is  he  a  man?  Yes, 
thank  God  ;  he  is  a  man,  with  all  the  affections  and  longings,  all  the 
faculties  and  qualities  of  human  kind.  Behold,  then,  it  is  his  manhood  that 
is  the  first  ground  of  our  hope. 

The  future  of  the  negro  appears,  therefore,  hopeful,  fcr  it  rests  prin¬ 
cipally  on  the  great  truth  that  the  human  race  is  one.  There  is  one  Lord, 
one  God,  one  Father  of  all.  From  this  we  rise  to  the  supernatural  destiny 
of  our  common  humanity  :  One  Jesus  Christ,  one  church,  one  life  of  pro¬ 
bation,  one  heaven,  one  hell.  The  negro  has  everything  that  makes  a  man, 
everything  that  makes  a  Christian.  As  the  negro  passed  out  of  slavery,  it 
was  the  Catholic  Church  which  could  say  to  him,  with  the  apostle,  in  his 
new  relation :  “  For  ye  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  bondage  again  to 

fear,  but  ye  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry: 
“Abba!  Father!” 

Yes,  the  human  race  predestinated  to  Christian  grace  and  so  admirably 
recognized  by  the  church  is  the  foundation  of  our  hopes.  The  negro’s 
heart,  like  the  white  man’s,  is  essentially  good.  Here  we  have  a  foothold. 
Grace,  we  know,  builds  upon  nature. 

The  manhood  of  the  negro  race,  moreover,  is  a  truth  of  religion,  and 
one  which  Leo  XIII.  has  well  insisted  upon  in  his  letter  to  the  Bishops  of 
Brazil  at  the  time  of  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  that  country.  “  It 
was  sin,”  he  writes,  “  which  deserved  the  name  of  slavery;  it  was  not  nat¬ 
ural.  From  the  first  sin  came  all  evils,  and  especially  this  perversity  that 
that  there  were  men,  who,  forgetful  of  the  original  brotherhood  of  the  race, 
instead  of  seeking,  as  they  should  naturally  have  done,  to  promote  mutual 


G04 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIOE  J. 


kindness,  and  mutual  respect,  following  their  evil  desires,  began  to  think  of 
other  men  as  their  inferiors  and  to  hold  them  as  cattle  born  to  the  yoke.” 
And  the  argument  which  we  hear  so  often  in  political  agitation  and  read  so 
much  in  the  public  press,  viz.,  that  by  nature  the  black  man  is  inferior,  Leo 
XIII.  declares  an  outrage  on  our  common  humanity. 

If,  then,  the  negro  may  be  called  a  man  among  men  and  an  heir  to  all 
the  glorious  privileges  of  humanity  and  also  of  Christianity,  what,  we  may 
ask,  are  the  means  t  j  be  employed  to  place  him  in  possession  of  this  divine 
heritage?  There  is,  I  believe,  one  true  means  for  his  advancement,  and 
that  is  the  negro  himself,  guided  and  led  by  Christianity.  The  first 
element  in  the  elevation  of  the  human  race  is  the  black  man  himself.  To 
attempt  anything  for  the  blacks  without  making  the  black  man  himself 
the  chief  instrument  for  good  would  be  to  attempt  the  play  of  “  Hamlet  ” 
with  the  part  of  Hamlet  left  out. 

His  future  demands  the  building  of  his  character,  and  this  is  best  done 
by  the  mingled  efforts  of  brotherly  white  men  and  worthy  black  men.  His 
temperance,  his  passions  and  other  inherent  qualities,  in  great  measure, 
also  his  industrial  and  social  environments,  are  beyond  his  control,  and  he 
needs  the  aid  of  the  best  men  of  his  own  race,  but  associated  with  and  not 
divorced  from  the  co-operation  of  the  best  of  the  white  race. 

In  the  formation  of  his  character,  which  is  his  weak  spot,  chief  stress 
should  be  laid  on  moral  training  and  education.  External  influences,  con¬ 
trolled  by  noble  men  and  women  of  both  races,  will  count  for  more  with 
him  than  with  us.  We  can  hardly  appreciate  how  much  the  negro  has  to 
contend  with  while  making  his  moral  growth,  for  neither  the  antecedents 
nor  surroundings  of  our  black  countrymen  are  calculated  to  draw  out  the 
noblest  side  of  human  nature.  That  personal  encouragement  to  well  doing, 
to  ambition  to  rise  above  degrading  circumstances,  so  necessary  to  all  of 
us,  so  indispensably  so  to  him,  the  black  man  rarely  receives.  Neither  by 
nature  nor  by  traditional  training  can  the  colored  peoj^le,  taken  as  a  body, 
stand  as  yet  upon  the  same  footing  of  moral  independence  as  their  whife 
brethren.  The  careful,  patient,  and  Christian  intervention  of  the  whites 
and  the  best  of  the  blacks,  working  together  in  using  all  the  means 
demanded  for  the  formation  of  manhood  and  womanhood,  is  their  right  as 
well  as  their  need  in  the  present  hour. 

They  must  be  given  the  ample  charity  of  Christ  in  their  development, 
just  as  they  have  been  given  the  full  equality  of  citizenship.  And  in  all 
this  Catholics  will  lead  the  way.  The  influence  of  Catholics  will  be 
extended  to  foster  and  develop  in  the  colored  race  those  traits  which  tend 
to  impart  a  sterling,  self-reliant  character. 

Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  among  whites  of  every  kind  there  is  an  immense 
amount  of  partly  Christian  and  partly  natural  tradition,  which  is  weak 
among  the  blacks  by  no  fault  of  their  own.  There  is  the  home,  the  domes¬ 
tic  fireside,  the  respect  for  Sunday,  the  sense  of  respectability,  the  weight 
of  the  responsibdities  of  life,  the  consciousness  of  duty,  the  love  of  hon¬ 
esty,  which  is  regarded  as  true  policy,  the  honor  of  the  family  name,  the 
fear  of  disgrace,  together  with  the  aspirations  for  a  share  in  the  blessings 
and  privileges  which  our  country  and  civilization  afford.  And  while  very 
many  of  our  white  countrymen  are  not  Catholics,  are  even  but  nominal 
Christians,  still  these  weighty  influences  wield  a  potent  charm  for  good  over 
their  lives. 

In  regard  to  the  negro  race,  however,  these  hardly  exist;  at  best  they 
may  be  found  in  isolated  cases,  though  it  is  true  that  very  encouraging 
signs  of  them  are  seen  occasionally.  Yet  a  vital  part  in  the  natural  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  negro  will  be  secured  by  these  elements  in  the  sense  of  responsi¬ 
bility,  the  dignity,  as  well  as  duty  of  labor,  and  lastly,  self-denial  and  thrift. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  NEGRO. 


605 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  NEGRO. 

BISHOP  BENJAMIN  W.  ARNETT,  D.  D.,  OF  THE  AFRICAN  METHODIST 

EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

We  have  gathered  from  the  East,  from  the  West,  from  the  North,  from 
the  South  this  day  to  celebrate  the  triumph  of  human  freedom  on  the 
American  continent.  For  there  is  not  one  slave  within  all  of  our  borders. 
There  is  no  master.  From  Huron’s  lordly  flood  to  where  the  venturesome 
Magellan  passed  from  sea  to  sea  in  the  South,  every  man  is  free,  owning  no 
master  save  his  own  free  will  on  earth  and  his  God  in  heaven. 

The  greatest  of  all  things  created,  visible  or  invisible,  that  we  know  of, 
is  man.  He  is  the  greatest  mystery  of  creation.  The  world  was  made  for 
him.  The  ultimate  design  of  God  can  not  be  fully  apprehended  until  we 
see  the  dust  standing  erect  in  the  form  of  man,  with  body,  soul  and  spirit; 
a  compound  of  matter  and  mind,  material  and  immaterial,  and  a  mortal 
and  an  immortal  being;  the  master  of  the  realm  of  thought. 

I  congratulate  the  representatives  of  all  nations  of  the  earth  who  have 
assembled  in  this  hall  this  day— a  day  around  which  clusters  so  much  his¬ 
tory,  so  much  hope  and  so  much  liberty.  We  have  met  for  the  first  time 
since  the  children  of  Noah  were  scattered  on  the  plains  of  Shinar.  The  par¬ 
liament  at  Shinar  plotted  treason  against  the  divine  command  and  provi¬ 
dence;  inaugurated  a  rebellion  against  heaven;  their  tongues  were  con¬ 
fused  and  they  were  banished  until  this  day;  in  fact,  this  is  the  adjourned 
meeting,  from  Shinar  to  Chicago.  They  met  to  show  their  disloyalty  to 
God;  we  have  met  to  discuss  the  subjects  which  are  ultimately  connected 
with  our  present  happiness  and  the  future  prosperity  of  our  race  and 
country. 

The  evolution  in  the  religious  thought  of  the  world  has  enabled  us  to 
assemble  in  one  place  and  of  one  accord  to  compare  notes,  to  examine  the 
truth,  in  order  that  our  faith  might  be  strengthened  and  our  hopes  bright¬ 
ened  and  our  love  increased  toward  the  fundamental  truths  of  each  of  our 
religions.  We  are  to  make  a  report  of  the  battles  fought,  of  the  victories 
won,  in  search  after  truth.  Also  to  report  the  discoveries  made  in  the 
investigation  of  the  material  world  and  in  the  realms  of  mind  and  thought, 
and  to  give  the  latest  conclusions  of  philosophy  about  the  relations  of  God, 
man,  and  the  world.  In  fact,  we  are  to  see  whether  the  fundamental  truth 
of  philosophy  is  not  the  same  as  the  fundamental  truth  of  theology,  which 
is  God.  It  has  been  said  that  philosophy  searches,  but  religion  reveals 
God.  Our  duty  will  be  to  show  that  revealed  religion  is  superior  to  natural 
religion  in  giving  us  a  true  knowledge,  the  new  and  true  conception  of  God; 
His  nature.  His  attributes,  communicable  and  uncommunicable;  His  rela¬ 
tion  to  the  physical,  moral,  and  mental  world,  as  the  Creator,  Preserver, 
and  Governor. 

But  there  are  two  revelations  of  God:  the  one  written  and  the  other 
unwritten.  The  unwritten  revelation  of  God  is  nature,  from  whose  forms 
of  matter  and  systems  of  operating  forces  flash  the  suggestions  of  infinite 
power,  goodness,  and  wisdom.  The  Bible  is  the  written  revelation  of  God, 
and  is  open  to  the  gaze  of  man,  and  subject  to  interpretation.  It  con¬ 
tains  truths  which  are  subject  to  explanation.  The  theologian  is  the  inter¬ 
preter,  not  alone  of  the  Bible,  but  of  nature  and  providence.  He  is  to 
interrogate  nature  and  to  give  her  answers  according  to  the  rules  of  reason 
and  science.  He  is  to  interrogate  the  truths  as  found  in  revelation  and 
explain  them  in  the  light  of  the  church  of  God. 

The  negro  is  older  than  Christianity,  as  old  as  man,  for  he  is  one  of  the 
legitimate  sons  of  his  father  and  grandfather.  In  some  way  or  other  he 
has  been  connected  with  the  history  of  every  age  and  every  work,  so  that 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OE  RELIGIONS. 


60fe 

no  history  of  the  past  is  complete  without  some  reference  to  the  negro  or 
his  home,  Africa,  whose  soil  has  been  abundantly  fruitful  in  some  of  the 
best  and  many  of  the  worst  of  human  productions. 

The  negro’s  home,  Africa,  was  the  home  of  Dido,  of  Hannibal;  the  scene 
of  Scipio’s  triumphs  and  Jugurtha’s  crimes;  it  also  has  been  the  home  of 
scholars,  of  philosophers,  of  theologians,  of  statesmen,  and  of  soldiers.  It 
was  the  cradle  of  art  and  of  science.  In  the  first  days  of  Christianity  it 
contributed  more  than  its  proportion  of  the  early  agents  of  the  propagators 
of  the  new  religion.  Luke,  the  beloved  physician,  was  from  Gyrene,  an 
African  by  birth,  if  not  by  blood.  Lucius,  of  Cyrene,  was  one  of  the  first 
teachers  of  Christianity  and  was  from  Africa.  Simon,  the  father  of  Rufus 
and  Alexander,  was  a  Cyrenian.  It  was  this  black  man,  a  native  of  an 
African  city,  who  became  the  cross-bearer  of  the  Son  of  God  on  His  way 
to  Calvary. 

Africa,  having  contributed  either  by  birth  or  blood  to  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  the  religion  of  Christ  upon  earth,  certainly  her  sons  and  daughters 
ought  to  be  permitted  to  enjoy  the  blessings  purchased  with  so  much  sor¬ 
row,  suffering,  and  tears.  Among  the  early  teachers  of  Antioch  was  one 
Simon,  who  was  called  Niger.  Thus  we  have  at  least  one  evangelist  and 
four  of  the  early  teachers  of  Christianity  who  were  Africans. 

We  do  fervently  pray  and  earnestly  hope  that  the  meeting  held  this  day 
will  start  a  wave  of  infiuences  that  will  change  some  of  the  Christians  of  this 
land  and  the  brotherhood  of  man,  and  from  this  time  forward  they  will 
accord  to  us  that  which  we  receive  in  every  land  except  this  “  land  of  the 
free  and  home  of  the  brave.” 

All  we  ask  is  the  right  of  an  American  citizen;  the  right  to  life,  liberty, 
and  happiness,  and  that  be  given  us  the  right  and  privileges  that  belong  to 
every  citizen  of  a  Christian  commonwealth.  It  is  not  pity  we  ask  for,  but 
justice;  it  is  not  help,  but  a  fair  chance;  we  ask  not  to  be  carried,  but  to  be 
given  an  opportunity  to  walk,  run,  or  stand  alone  in  our  own  strength  or 
to  fall  in  our  own  weakness;  we  are  not  begging  for  bread,  but  for  an 
opportunity  to  earn  bread  for  our  wives  and  children;  treat  us  not  as 
wards  of  a  nation  nor  as  objects  of  pity,  but  treat  us  as  American  citizens, 
as  Christian  men  and  women;  do  not  chain  your  doors  and  bar  your  win¬ 
dows  and  deny  us  a  place  in  society,  but  give  us  the  place  that  our  intelli¬ 
gence,  our  virtue,  our  industry,  and  our  courage  entitle  us  to.  “  But  admit 
none  but  the  worthy  and  well  qualified.” 

We  do  not  shun  judgment,  but  we  ask  to  be  judged  justly  and  without 
prejudice;  hear  both  sides  of  our  case  before  you  render  a  verdict, and  then 
render  it  according  to  the  testimony  given.  Judge  us  not  by  the  color  of 
our  skin,  nor  the  texture  of  our  hair,  but  judge  us  by  our  intelligence  and 
character.  When  you  weigh  us,  weigh  our  virtues  against  our  vices;  our 
intelligence  against  our  ignorance;  our  industry  against  our  idleness;  our 
accumulations  against  our  poverty;  our  courage  against  our  cowardice; 
our  strength  against  our  weakness. 

When  you  look  for  a  sample  of  the  Christian  negro,  do  not  go  to  the 
depot  of  some  southern  town,  or  the  Hell's  Half  Acre  of  some  city,  or  to 
the  poorhouse,  or  jail,  or  penitentiary.  You  won’t  find  the  model  negro 
there;  he  has  moved  from  such  places  thirty  years  ago.  It  is  possible  to 
find  some  of  his  children  still  lingering  about  the  old  homestead,  but  the 
Christian  and  model  negro  is  living  in  the  city  of  industry  and  thrift,  and 
in  the  cottage  of  comfort  and  ease,  which  he  has  dedicated  to  religion, 
morality,  and  education,  and  morning  and  evening,  the  passer-by  may  hear 
music  from  the  piano  or  organ  of  “  Home,  Sweet  Home,”  the  dearest  spot 
on  earth. 

We  speak  not  thus  in  anger,  but  in  words  of  truth  and  soberness.  We 
know  what  has  been  done  in  the  name  of  Christianity,  in  the  name  of 
religion,  in  the  name  of  God.  We  were  stolen  from  our  native  land  in  the 


FOREIGN  MISSIONARY  METHODS, 


607 


name  of  religion,  chained  as  captives  and  brought  to  this  continent  in  the 
name  of  the  liberty  of  the  gospel;  they  bound  our  limbs  with  fetters  in 
the  name  of  the  Nazarene  in  order  to  save  our  souls;  they  sold  us  to  teach 
the  principles  of  religion;  they  sealed  the  Bible  to  increase  our  faith  in  God; 
pious  prayers  were  offered  for  those  who  chained  our  fathers,  who  stole 
our  mothers,  who  sold  our  brothers  for  paltry  gold,  all  in  the  name  of 
Christianity,  to  save  our  poor  souls.  When  the  price  of  flesh  went  down 
the  interest  in  our  souls  became  small;  when  the  slave  trade  was  abolished 
by  the  strong  hand  of  true  Christianity,  then  false  Christianity  had  no 
interest  in  our  souls  at  all.  Christianity  has  always  had  some  strong  friends 
for  the  negro  in  the  South  and  in  the  North,  men  who  stood  by  him 
under  all  circumstances. 


FOREIGN  MISSIONARY  METHODS. 

In  the  afternoon  debate,  foreign  missionary  methods  gave 
both  the  text  and  direction  to  its  treatment,  and  the  discussion 
was  taken  part  in  by  eminent  professors  of  various  faiths — 
missionaries  and  those  to  whom  they  had  been  sent.  In  intro¬ 
ducing  the  debate,  Dr.  Barrows  said: 

I  remember  receiving  a  letter  from  one  of  the  speakers  of  this  afternoon, 
who  sits  here  in  Chinese  costume,  in  which  he  said  that  if  a  thoroughly 
practical  character  could  be  given  to  this  Parliament  of  Religions  it  would 
restore  the  unlimited  hope  and  ardor  of  the  apostolic  age  to  Christian  mis¬ 
sions.  Charles  Darwin  is  the  greatest  name  in  modern  science.  Charles 
Darwin  was  a  contributor  to  foreign  missions.  Some  people  have  called 
this  parliament  one  of  the  great  spiritual  efforts  of  a  century.  This  parlia¬ 
ment  is  to  be  followed  for  eight  days  by  a  congress  of  missions.  We  have 
on  the  platform  with  us  a  number  of  persons  experienced  in  foreign  mis¬ 
sions  We  have  the  president  of  the  Robert  College  at  Constantinople, 
which  college  is  in  a  large  degree  the  creator  of  free  Bulgaria.  We  have 
with  us  those  who  can  bring  to  us  experience  in  the  improvement  of  the 
methods  of  Christian  methods  in  other  lands,  and  I  am  glad  that  we  are 
to  hear  from  those  who  are  not  in  the  Christian  fold.  I  am  glad  we  are  to 
have  their  criticism  as  well  as  their  praise,  for  they  will  give  us  both.  I 
take  great  pleasure  in  introducing  as  the  first  speaker  of  the  afternoon, 
Mr.  Dharmapala  of  Ceylon. 

H.  DHAEMAPALA. 

Mr.  Dharmapala,  who  was  received  with  applause,  said: 

This  question  of  foreign  missions  constitutes  an  important  problem  that 
requires  solution  before  the  20th  century  dawns,  and  I  ask  you  to  give  it 
earnest  and  thoughtful  consideration.  The  question  is  how  to  evangelize 
the  non-Christian  countries.  For  nineteen  centuries  you  have  had  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  Europe,  but  only  during  the  last  three  centuries  have  attempts 
been  made  to  propagate  it  in  the  East.  The  Buddhists  have  a  record  to  show 
that  the  Christian  nations  of  three  centuries  ago  did  not  do  their  duty  as 
Christ  wanted  it  done,  and  therefore  Christianity  failed  in  the  East.  The 
programme  that  has  been  constructed,  the  platform  you  have  built  up 
must  l)e  entirely  reconstructed  if  Christianity  is  to  make  progress  in  the 
East.  You  must  send  men  full  of  unselfishness.  They  must  not  go  as 
those  missionaries  of  modern  days  go,  but  they  must  have  a  spirit  of  self- 
sacrifice,  a  spirit  of  charity,  a  spirit  of  tolerance,  as  well  as  the  spirit  of 
lowliness  and  meekness  which  characterized  Jesus  Christ. 


608 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


The  conditions  of  our  country  are  different  from  those  of  yours.  Your 
great  slaughter-house  here  is  a  shame  and  a  curse  to  civilization  and  we 
do  not  want  any  such  Christianity  in  Ceylon,  in  Burmah,  in  Japan,  or  in 
China.  We  want  the  lowly  and  meek  and  gentle  teachings  of  Christ,  not 
because  we  do  not  have  them  now,  but  we  want  more  of  them.  I  tell  you,  if  you 
want  to  make  Christianity  an  influence  in  the  East  you  must  send  there 
men  of  gentleness,  lowliness,  meekness,  and  tolerance.  The  missionaries 
sent  to  Ceylon,  China,  or  Burmah,  as  a  rule,  have  not  the  tolerance  that 
we  need.  The  missionary  is  intolerant;  he  is  selfish.  Why  do  not  the 
natives  mix  with  him?  Because  he  has  not  the  tolerance  and  unselfishness  he 
should  have.  Who  are  his  converts?  They  are  all  men  of  low  type.  Seeing 
the  selfishness  and  intolerance  of  the  missionary  not  an  intelligent  man 
will  accept  Christianity.  Buddhism  had  its  missionaries  before  Christianity 
was  preached.  It  conquered  all  Asia  and  made  the  Mongolians  mild.  Its 
preachers  do  not  go  in  this  grand,  fashionable  costume  of  yours,  but  in  the 
simjile  garb  you  see  upon  this  platform.  They  did  not  go  with  a  Bible  in 
one  hand  and  a  rum  bottle  in  the  other,  but  they  went  full  of  love  and 
compassion  and  sympathy.  With  these  attributes  they  conquered  and 
they  made  Asia  mild.  Slaughter-houses  were  abolished,  public  houses  were 
abolished,  but  they  are  now  on  the  increase  because  of  the  influence  of 
Western  civilization. 

It  is  left  for  you,  this  younger  family  of  European  nations,  to  change 
this.  You  are  intelligent,  you  are  free  from  the  bonds  of  theology  and 
dogma,  and  I  want  you  seriously  to  consider  that  the  20th  century  evangel¬ 
ization  is  in  your  hands.  I  warn  you  that  if  you  want  to  establish  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  the  East  it  can  only  be  done  on  the  principles  of  Christ’s  love  and 
meekness.  Let  the  missionary  study  all  the  religions;  let  them  be  a  type 
of  meekness  .and  lowliness  and  they  will  find  a  welcome  in  all  lands. 

REV.  GEORGE  T.  CANDLIN. 

Rev.  George  T.  Candlin  of  Tientsin,  West  China,  followed 
Mr.  Dharmapala.  He  said: 

With  your  permission  I  will  commence  my  few  remarks  by  saying  that 
I  fully  indorse  all  that  the  previous  speakers  have  said  as  to  the  needs  of 
radical  reform  in  Christian  missions  and  as  to  the  character  of  Christian 
missionary  work  required.  But  I  take  this  one  exception:  That  I  do  not 
indorse,  and  I  venture  before  this  parliament  to  re^judiate,  the  personal 
remark  made  in  regard  to  the  missionaries  of  Ceylon,  of  India,  and  of 
Japan.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  regard  to  that  question  I  will  only  say  that  I  am 
no  advocate  for  forcing  our  Western  modes  of  life,  our  Western  social 
customs,  upon  the  East.  I  do  not  wish  to  Americanize  or  to  Anglicize  the 
Hindus  or  the  Chinese,  but  neither  do  I  want  to  be  turned  into  a  Hindu 
nor  do  I  want  to  be  turned  into  a  Chinaman;  and  I  say  this  in  regard  to  the 
countries  of  India,  of  Ceylon,  and  Japan,  that  if  there  are  no  true 
Christians  and  no  meek  and  lowly  followers  of  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus 
amongst  them,  then  there  is  not  one  in  America  and  there  is  not  one  in 
England,  and  the  Christian  world  does  not  contain  a  true  Christian. 

Dr.  Barrows  has  asked  me,  in  five  or  six  minutes,  to  give  you  my  belief 
ris  to  the  necessity  for  a  radical  change  in  mission  methods,  and  what  is 
likely  to  follow  this  great  Chicago  x^arliainent.  That  is  a  large  order,  and 
it  must  be  executed  with  dispatch.  Fortunately,  I  can  tell  you  what  I 
think  this  parliament  ought  to  result  in,  and  in  one  sentence,  or,  as  Dr. 
Haweis  would  say,  I  can  put  it  in  a  nutshell.  This  parliament  has  a  prac¬ 
tical  end — something  which  concerns  neither  to-day  nor  to  morrow,  some¬ 
thing  which  does  not  concern  the  news  in  the  newspaper  and  a  glorification 
of  ourselves,  but  something  which  concerns  the  future,  the  great  future, 
and  the  eternity. 


I 


1/^-7,  ’/  .  * 


»jr' 


KEV.  GEO.  T.  CANDLIN, 
l  ientsin,  West  China. 


\ 


THE  UBfiARY  ' 
OFTHI 

UHlYIRSlTt  RF 


/ 


-rs 


u. 


FOREIGN  MISSIONARY  METHODS. 


COO 

This  parliament  ought  to  result  in  the  bringing  about  between  Christian 
church  and  Christian  church  of  different  denominations  the  same  relations 
of  unity  as  now  exist  between  member  and  member  of  the  same  church. 
But  I  will  venture  to  put  before  you  the  first  commandment  of  the  Chicago 
parliament,  and  the  second  is'  like  unto  it.  We,  perhaps,  can  not  get  to  the 
very  end  of  Chidstian  progress  and  reach  the  millennium  with  our  hand 
within  measurable  time,  but  I  sincerely  believe  that  we  can  get  this 
between  the  Christian  religion  and  non-Christian  faiths — we  can  establish 
such  relations  of  mutual  respect,  toleration,  and  love  as  now  exist  between 
Christian  church  and  Christian  church. 

Well,  that  is' the  whole  of  my  scheme.  In  the  first  place,  I  will  be  frank 
with  you.  I  hope  the  chairman  will  stop  me  when  the  time  is  up.  I  don’t 
think  that  this  question  mainly  depends  upon  the  missionaries  at  all.  After 
fifteen  years  in  the  mission  field  and  a  careful  study  of  mission  problems  I 
venture  to  say  that  the  missionaries  of  the  Christian  world,  taken  as  a 
whole,  are  far  in  advance  in  sentiment  on  this  question  of  the  churches  at 
home.  We  are  your  representatives  and  your  agents,  and  if  ever  we  have 
power  to  bring  about  this  glorious  result  it  must  be  by  your  help,  and  by 
your  help  alone. 

Now,  I  am  quite  of  the  belief  that  these  two  things  must  go  together — 
the  conversion  of  the  world  and  the  union  of  Christians.  I  don’t  know 
which  will  come  first,  but  I  know  they  have  both  got  to  come.  I  know  that 
neither  can  come  alone  before  the  other.  You  remember  old  Thomas  Car¬ 
lyle’s  famous  question  as  to  the  shams,  hypocrisies,  and  lies  of  his  day.  It 
was  this:  “  Given  a  world  of  knaves,  to  deduce  honesty  from  their  united 
action?  ” 

Let  me  put  a  similar  one  to  you:  “  Given  a  Christendom  of  religious 
sects  wrangling  about  minor  points  of  doctrine  and  produce  a  universal 
harmony  from  their  united  action.”  When  I  read  Carlyle’s  question  I 
treated  it  as  a  conundrum  and  gave  it  up.  I  would  advise  you  to  do  the 
same,  and  to  be  sure  that  the  way  to  convert  the  world  is  by  the  union  of 
Christendom.  A  popular  speaker  on  this  platform,  the  other  day,  spoke  of 
the  non-Christian  religion  as  torsos.  I  am  not  sure — let  me  speak  with  care 
and  reverence  on  so  vital  a  question — I  am  not  sure  that  Christianity,  as 
we  know  it  is  more  than  a  torso,  and  I  do  venture  to  say  that  no  individ¬ 
ual  church — Roman  Catholic,  Protestant,  Methodist,  Presbyterian  (call  it  by 
what  name  you  like) — no  individual  church  of  Christendom  adequately  rep¬ 
resents,  nor  the  whole  taken  indiscriminately,  until  they  shall  be  united  in 
one,  ever  can  adequately  represent  what  Christianity  means. 

We  have  our  gleams  of  light  and  every  religious  system  existing  on  the 
face  of  the  earth  to-day  exists  to  bear  witness  to  some  part  of  the  truth 
which  the  rest  of  Christendom  has  ignored  or  made  light  of.  Now,  I  want 
to  enlarge  a  little  upon  another  subject.  I  am  quite  sure  that  this  Chicago 
parliament  will  act  in  a  thoroughly  missionary  spirit.  Let  me  mention  to 
you  how  great*  this  parliament  is,  not  merely  from  the  fact  that  it  is  held 
in  the  great  city  of  Chicago,  not  merely  from  the  fact  that  it  is  exerting 
marvelous!  influence  on  the  people  of  the  city  and  upon  the  people  of  Amer¬ 
ica,  but  in  this  also  that  the  Christian  workers  all  around  the  globe  are 
looking — some  of  them,  I  am  bound  to  say,  with  very  serious  mistrust,  others 
with  trembling  hope — to  see  what  this  parliament  has  to  say  on  the  mis¬ 
sionary  question. 

I  am  sure  you  will  say  this,  that  all  we  have  heard  from  our  brethren  of 
other  faiths,  while  ifileads  us  to  sincerely,  unstintedly,  and  joyfully  recog¬ 
nize  the  truth,  the  good,  which  entitles  them  to  take  their  place  as  a  part 
of  the  religious  world,  and  as  containing  a  part  of  the  universal  revolution 
of  God — still  it  will  commit  itself  unreservedly  to  the  principle  that  com¬ 
munication  of  the  Christian  ideas  is  of  priceless  value  to  the  world.  If  you 
don’t  you  turn  your  back  on  J esus  Christ. 


610 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


/  There  may  be  10,000  things  doubtful  in  our  Christian  religion,  but  one 
/  thing  is  not  doubtful,  if  anything  is  certain,  and  that  is  that  it  is  for  the 
world — redeeming  grace  stretches  perpendicularly  as  high  as  heaven,  and 
reaches  horizontally  all  around  the  equator  and  out  to  both  poles.  Jesus 
Christ  was  the  first  Christian  missionary.  He  came  farther,  traveled  more, 
bore  more  hardship  in  the  cause  of  His  religion  than  all  His  believing  follow¬ 
ers  put  together,  and  therefore  we  shall  never  pause  and  never  falter  in  the 
belief  that  our  religion  is  to  be  given  freely,  unreservedly,  with  royal  bounty 
to  all  the  sons  of  men. 

There  is  not  any  injustice  to  the  non-Christian  religions  in  this,  because 
what  we  claim  for  ourselves  we  concede  to  others.  I  believe  that  of  the  ten 
great  religions  here  represented  every  one  is  convinced  that  there  is  going 
to  be  a  final  consummation  of  all  things  when  their  religion  will  be  univers¬ 
ally  triumphant.  If  you  think  so,  work  for  it ;  we  won’t  hinder  you.  If 
you  have  any  religious  beliefs  of  value  to  us  we  want  them.  The  meaning 
of  Christianity,  from  a  missionary  point  of  view,  is  infinite  desire  to  give  and 
infinite  willingness  to  receive. 

Christianity  has  a  great  big  supplement  to  it.  It  has  a  great  big  guest 
chamber,  and  it  is  capable  of  entertaining  a  great  deal.  It  has  got  a 
“  finally  ”  to  its  sermon  for  the  world.  And  let  me  tell  you  what  that 
“  finally  ”  is.  Listen  to  it.  He  was  a  missionary,  a  very  great  missionary, 
who  told  us  the  “finally”  of  Christianity.  “Finally,  my  brethren,! what¬ 
soever  things  are  true,  whatsoever  things  are  honest,  whatsoever  things!  are 
just,  whatsoever  things  are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are  of  good  report,  if 
there  be  any  virtue,  and  if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on  these  things.” 

NAPASEMAOHANYA. 

A  learned  Brahman  of  Madras,  Narasemachanya,  in  perfect 

English,  addressed  the  company  as  follows: 

If  success  be  the  criterion  by  which  to  gauge  an  undertaking,  and  if 
missionary  success  mean  the  conversion  of  the  Hindus,  then  it  must  be 
confessed  that  missionary  work  in  India  is  a  failure.  None  cast  any  asper¬ 
sion  on  the  missionaries.  Successful  they  may  not  always  be,  but  their 
motive  is  a  noble  one.  There  are  American  missionaries  in  India  who 
could  have  achieved  an  honorable,  if  not  a  brilliant,  success  in  their  own 
country,  and  they  are  10,000  miles  from  the  native  land  of  their  fathers,  in 
an  inhospitable  climate,  among  an  unsympathetic  people,  toiling  and  striv¬ 
ing,  hoping  for  their  reward,  not  from  man,  but  from  God.  There  they  are 
devoting  their  lives  to  the  cause  of  their  religion.  Against  such  purity  of 
motives,  against  such  noble  unselfishness,  let  none  say  a  word. 

Why,  then,  does  not  Christianity  in  India  spread  faster?  Why  don’t 
the  natives  adopt  it  in  numbers?  For  this  there  are  many  reasons.  Into 
the  vexed  questions  as  to  the  benefits  the  Hindus  have  derived  from  Eng¬ 
lish  rule  I  shall  not  enter.  I  belong  to  that  class  of  my  countrymen  who 
believe  in  having  a  little  more  bread  to  eat  and  a  little  less  of  the  much- 
admired  Western  civilization.  But  there  is  another  class,  a  love-in-a-cot- 
tage  class,  v/ho  believe  in  the  efficacy  of  Western  civilization  to  feed  half- 
starved  millions,  but,  be  this  as  it  may,  the  English  advocacy  of  Christianity 
did  not  benefit  it  much,  for,  with  the  conqueror’s  pride,  they  can  not  bring 
themselves  down,  or  rather  can  not  bring  themselves  up,  to  practice  the 
humility  which  they  preach. 

The  religion  which  a  conquering  nation,  with  an  exasperating  conscious¬ 
ness  of  superiority,  condescendingly  offers  to  the  conquered  must  ever  be 
disgusting  to  the  recipient,  however  good  it  may  be.  Suppose  the  early 
apostles  of  Christ,  with  a  band  of  victorious  marauders  at  their  back,  had 
gone  about  Europe  with  a  sword  in  one  hand  and  a  Bible  in  the  other, 


FOREIGN  MISSIONARY  METHODS. 


611 


saying,  “  Accept  the  Bible  or  you  die.”  Do  you  think  their  religion  would 
have  been  as  generally  acceptable  as  it  was?  No,  it  was  their  humility, 
their  suffering  and  their  martyrdom  which  won  where  sword  and  fire  can 
not  win.  But,  you  may  say,  Mohammedanism  did  win  by  the  sword.  But 
there  were  political  conditions  in  x\rabia  and  Western  Asia  which  made  it 
easy  for  Mohammedanism  to  win. 

Then  there  is  the  difference  between  your  temperament  and  ours.  We 
are  brought  up  so  differently  from  you  that  the  things  that  effect  you  do 
not  affect  us.  Those  parables  in  which  you  see  so  many  beauties,  those  say¬ 
ings  and  doings  of  the  Savior,  which  seem  to  be  an  all-sufficient  guide  for 
you  through  life,  nay,  your  very  belief  in  the  necessity  of  a  vicarious  Savior, 
which  is  the  corner-stone  of  your  faith,  are  to  us  mere  words.  They  convey 
no  impression,  they  carry  no  conviction. 

The  character  of  the  Hindus  is  a  strange  and  unanalyzable  mixture.  I 
do  not  know  why  it  is  so,  but  religion  after  religion  has}failed  in  India.  The 
followers  of  the  gentle  sage,  Gautama  Buddha,  have  been  driven  out  of 
India.  Sankaracharya,  the  very  man  who  was  instrumental  in  this,  did  not 
succeed  in  numbering  any  large  following.  Ramanuja,  Madhia,  and  Desika 
have  a  few  followers,  but  they  succeeded  in  dividing  up  the  people,  and  not 
in  uniting  them. 

At  present  the  various  new  religons,  such  as  the  Brahmo-Somaj,  the 
Arya-Somaj,  and  the  various  other  societies,  do  not  have  very  many  fol¬ 
lowers.  They  are  only  a  handful,  and  the  small  waves  of  reformers  dash 
themselves  against  the  rock  of  the  older-established  faiths.  Thus  you  will 
see  that  the  religions  which  rise  up  among  themselves  are  not  welcomed 
with  enthusiasm.  No  wonder,  then,  that  a  religion  like  Christianity — a 
religion  of  foreigners,  containing  ioeas,  some  of  them  new,  some  of  them 
strange,  and  some  of  them  repugnant  co  our  preconceived  notions— meets 
with  such  scanty  welcome. 

Again,  your  missionaries,  in  their  iconoclastic  eagerness,  attack  some  of 
our  prejudices  which  are  not  necessarily  un-Christian.  Thus  our  inter¬ 
mingling  with  other  castes  is  made  a  necessary  article  of  faith  of  the  con¬ 
verted  Hindu,  and  let  me  tell  you,  from  my  own  experience,  that  it  is  to  us 
a  physical  repugnance.  Eating  with  lower  castes  is  a  nauseating  proc¬ 
ess  to  us;  we  can  not  do  it  if  we  try.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  in  Pondi¬ 
cherry  there  are  Catholic  Hindus  who  pride  themselves  on  being  Christians. 
To  them  Christianity  was  only  a  change  of  coat. 

There  is  another  custom  of  the  Brahmans  far  more  deeply  ingrained  and 
far  more  difficult  to  uproot.  1  mean  their  prejudice  against  animal  food. 
I  remember,  myself,  how  I  felt  when  first  I  tried  to  accustom  myself  to  it 
Words  can  not  describe  the  nauseating  disgust  and  repugnance  of  my  whole 
soul.  So  long  as  Christians,  by  tacit  silence,  make  people  believe  that  the 
eating  of  animal  food  is  a  necessary  preparatory  course  to  be  gone  through 
before  baptism,  so  long  then  will  you  find  you  have  a  stumbling-block  in 
the  way  of  the  evangelization  of  India. 

Oh,  tell  your  missionaries  to  preach  from  street  to  street  that  Christ 
never  said:  “You  must  kill  and  eat  to  be  a  Christian.”  Let  them  din  into 
the  people’s  ear  that  a  man  may  be  a  Christian  without  being  a  carniv¬ 
orous  one. 

I  shall  close  this  address  with  a  few  words  to  how  Christian  mission¬ 
aries  ought  to  work.  They  complain  that  they  can  not  get  a  hearing,  but 
suppose  100  of  your  zealous  young  Christians,  clad  in  the  saffron  robes  of 
humble  mendicants,  i)reach  from  house  to  house,  singing  the  praise  of  Him 
who  died  for  love,  do  you  think  the  people  would  refuse  to  hear  them? 
At  first  they  may  be  jeered,  they  may  be  ridiculed,  but  did  not  the  prophets 
endure  similar  trials? 

You  may  think  I  am  advocating  aU  impossible  attempt.  About  200 
years  ago  a  poor  Jesuit,  Father  Beschi  by  name,  went  about  the  country 


THE  PARLIAMEN  f  OF  EEUGIONS 


doing  these  very  things,  and  he  read  before  the  king  of  Mactura  a  poem  oh 
the  Life  of  Christ,  which,  notwithstanding  its  forced  style,  compares  favor¬ 
ably  with  Edwin  Arnold’s  “Light  of  the  World;”  To-day,  the  much-mis¬ 
understood  Salvationists  are  doing  the  sanie.  They  are  the  stuff  of  which 
missionaries  ought  to  be  made. 

If  these  my  remarks  put  you  in  the  right  track,  if  they  give  you  some 
of  our  feelings,  so  that  it  will  smooth  yoiir  Way  for  future  efforts,  I  have 
not  spoken  in  vain. 

BEV.  R.  E.  HUME. 

Hev.  R.  E.  Hume  of  India  said 

It  would  be  far  pleasanter  to  my  heart  to  tell  some  of  the  victories 
of  missions  than  to  attempt  suggestions  as  to  how  we  might  do  our  work 
better,  if  that  were  the  subject  which  was  assigned  to  me.  I  would  tell 
my  brother  from  Madras  what  he  does  not  know.  He  tells  the  truth  as  he 
sees  it,  that  in  the  City  of  Madras  and  in  the  university  of  which  he  is  a 
graduate  the  converts  of  the  Christian  faith  take  a  higher  standard  than 
the  Brahmans.  I  would  tell  him  that  in  the  ar*cade  from  1871  to  1881  the 
census  of  the  British  government,  not  miss  aai-y  reports,  says  that  when 
the  population  increased  6  per  cent  the  Christian  population  increased  32 
per  cent. 

I  would  tell  him  that  by  the  report,  not  of  missions  but  of  the  British 
government  census,  in  the  decade  from  1881  to  1891,  when  the  population 
of  the  country  increased  10  per  cent,  the  native  Christian  community 
increased  23  per  cent,  and  if  I  ever  have  permission  to  tell  the  story  of 
what  the  director  of  public  instruction,  in  his  own  city,  has  said — I  have  it 
in  my  pocket  now,  but  it  is  not  my  subject — 1  will  show  how  he  prophe¬ 
sies  that  in  a  generation  all  thefpositions  of  influence  and  of  responsibility 
will  be  in  the  hands  of  the  Christian  community  of  India.  That  is  not 
my  subject,  and  I  would  rather  speak  with  sympathy  of  my  brothers  and 
sisters  who  are  at  the  front,  and  it  is  no  pleasure  ever  to  say  anything 
behind  one’s  back,  and  were  it  not  for  that  mighty  faith  which  is  the 
inspiration  of  this  congress,  that  the  missionaries  to  the  end  of  the  world 
will  hear  what  is  said  here,  my  tongue  would  be  silent  now  to  suggest  how 
even  we  might  do  our  work  better,  for  what  I  want  to  do  is  to  strengthen 
their  hearts  and  their  hands. 

We  do  make  our  mistakes.  We  are  not  as  Christ-like  as  we  ought  to 
be.  We  confess  it  to  you  and  to  our  God.  We  want  to  be  better.  We  are 
willing  to  have  our  Buddhist  and  our  Brahman  friends  tell  us  how  we  can 
be  better.  Anyone  who  will  help  us  to  be  more  humble  and  more  wise  will 
do  us  good,  and  we  will  thank  him,  whoever  he  be. 

As  the  subject  is  “How  We  Might  Do  Our  Work  Better,”  I  will  say  a 
few  words  first  on  the  relations  of  missionaries  and  non-Christians,  and  the 
first  thing  is,  we  might  some  of  us  know  their  thoughts  better.  We  ought 
to  study  their  books  more  deeply,  more  intelligently,  more  constantly.  We 
ought  to  associate  with  them,  in  order  to  know  their  inmost  thoughts,  and 
their  feelings,  and  their  aspirations  better  than  we  do. 

The  second  suggestion  which  I  would  make,  and  which  is  at  the  kernel 
of  this  parliament,  is,  where  we  recognize  truth  we  should  more  cordially 
and  more  gladly  recognize  it.  When  we  fail  to  do  so,  it  is  disloyalty  to  our 
God  and  it  is  jealousy  of  our  God,  for,  at  bottom,  it  means  that  we  suppose 
that  this  great  Father  of  our  Indian  and  our  Chinese  and  our  Japanese 
brethren  had  not  yet  given  them  those  kindergarten  lessons  which  we  sup¬ 
posed  we  had  to  give,  and  find  that  he  had  taught  them,  and  we  sometimes 
feel  surprised  when  we  ought  to  be  grateful  to  the  God  of  all  Truth,  who, 
through  His  eternal  word,  enlighteneth  every  man  who  cometh  into  the 
world.  When  we  see  truth  anywhere,  we  ought  cordially  and  gladly  to 


Mohammedan  Koran  and  its  Doctrines. 


recognize  it  as  from  the  Father  of  Light ;  and  it  is  jealousy  of  God  if  we 
think  that  half-truth  or  some  measure  of  truth  is  to  be  a  hindrance  to  oui* 
work.  That  it  will  be  a  hindrance  or  a  help  depends  largely  upon  our 
attitude  toward  it. 

If  we  feel  that  this  is,  perhaps,  some  kind  of  hindrance  to  the  universal 
spread  of  the  kingdom,  it  will  be,  through  our  instrumentality,  somewhat 
of  a  hindrance.  We  should  not  be  afraid  of  the  half-way  houses  to  Chris¬ 
tianity,  as  we  sometimes  are.  We  should  feel  that  it  is  a  help  to  us  when 
we  recognize  it  as  the  eternal  reason  the  lamb  slain  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  which  has  been  influencing  the  hearts  and  the  minds  of  these 
men  to  give  them  thus  knowledge  of  Himself. 

And  the  third  point  which  I  would  note  is  a  point  which  I  desire  our 
Christian  brethren  in  this  country  to  carefully  bear  in  mind.  Sometimes 
we  are  criticised  for  it,  and  I  think  sometimes  we  make  our  mistakes.  It  is 
that  there  are  phases  of  Christian  truth  and  doctrine  which  are  put  before 
Orientals  as  essential  to  Christianity  which  I  do  not  believe,  and  which 
some.of  us  do  not  believe  are  essential  to  Christianity.  There  are  things 
taught  in  the  name  of  Christ  which  are  only  Western  theology,  which  are 
only  Western  comprehensions  of  truth  as  we  see  it.  There  have  been 
things  put  about  the  nature  and  person  of  Christ,  about  the  character  of 
his  atoning  work,  about  the  doctrine  of  retribution,  about  the  doctrine  of 
scripture,  v/hich  have,  instead  of  attracting,  repelled  the  minds  of  non- 
Christian  people. 

What,  now,  is  to  be  done  by  men  who  believe  these  Western  things?  It 
is  hard  for  a  man  to  say  that  he  is  to  give  another  message  than  that  which 
seems  in  him  truth,  but  I  would  have  my  brethren  and  sisters  remember 
that  even  our  divine  Master  exercised  a  restraint  in  regard  to  what  He 
believed  to  be  true  when  He  saw  that  men  were  not  in  a  position  to  accept 
it;  and  I,  for  my  part,  believe  that  it  is  sometimes  better  to  teach  less 
than  what  you  believe  to  be  the  whole  truth,  when  you  have  reason  to  know 
that  the  statements,  as  you  would  put  them,  instead  of  bringing  men  to  the 
essential  Christ,  to  the  heart  of  Christianity,  drive  them  from  it. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  KORAN  AND  ITS  DOCTRINES. 

REV.  GEORGE  E.  POST. 

Dr.  George  E.  Post  of  Bey  root,  Syria,  was  the  next  speaker. 
As  he  stepped  to  the  front  of  the  platform  he  held  aloft  a  thick 
volume  in  black  covers,  from  which  in  the  course  of  his  speech 
he  quoted  extensively.  The  book  was  a  copy  of  the  Koran, 
and  Dr.  Post’s  evident  object  in  reading  from  it  was  to  contrast 
the  text  with  some  of  the  utterances  of  Mohammed  Webb  in  his 
address  on  Thursday. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  a  book  which  is  never  touched  by  200,000,000  of  tho 
human  race  with  unwashed  hands,  a  book  which  is  never  carried  below  the- 
waist,  a  book  which  is  never  laid  upon  the  floor,  a  book  every  word  of 
which  to  these  200,000,000  of  the  human  race  is  considered  the  direct, 
word  of  God,  which  came  down  from  heaven.  I  propose  without  note  or 
comment  to  read  to  you  a  few  words  from  the  sacred  book,  and  you  may 
make  your  own  comments  upon  them  afterward. 

In  Chapter  Ixvi.  it  is  said:  “  O  Prophet,  attack  the  infidel  with  arms.” 


C14 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


And  Chapter  ii.  says:  “And  fight  for  the  religion  of  Ood  against  those 
who  fight  against  you,  and  kill  them  wherever  ye  find  them,  and  turn  them 
out  of  that  whereof  they  have  dispossessed  you.’*  Also  on  Page  25  it  is 
written:  “  War  is  enjoined  you  against  the  infidels,  but  this  faithful  unto 
you ;  yet  perchance  ye  hate  a  thing  which  is  better  for  you,  and  perchance 
ye  love  a  thing  which  is  worse  for  you/’  Chaijter  xlviii.:  “  Say  unto  the  Arabs 
of  the  desert  who  are  left  behind,  ye  shall  be  called  forth  against  a  mighty 
and  a  warlike  nation,  ye  shall  fight  against  them  orf  they  shall  profess 
Islam.”  And  this  maybe  translated,  “  until  they  profess  Islam.”  In  Chap¬ 
ter  ix.it  is  said:  “Now  has  God  assisted  you  in  many  engagements,  and 
particularly  at  the  battle  of  Hunein,  when  ye  pleased  yourself  in  your  multi¬ 
tude,  but  it  was  no  manner  of  advantage  to  you  and  the  earth  was  too 
straightifor  you.  notwithstanding  it  was  spacious;  then  did  ye  retreat  and 
turn  your  backs.  Afterward  God  sent  down  his  security  upon  his  apostle 
and  upon  the  faithful,  and  sent  down  troops  of  angels  which  he  saw  not. 
Fight  against  them  who  believe  not  in  God.”  And  many  more  of  a  similar 
character. 

I  read  in  Chapter  iv.  of  the  Koran:  “  And  if  ye  fear  that  ye  shall  not  act 
with  equity  toward  orphans  or  the  female  sex,  take  in  marriage  of  such 
other  women  asfiplease  you  two,  or  three,  or  four,  and  not  more.”  In  the 
same  chapter  I  read:  “  Ye  may  with  your  substance  provide  wives  for  your¬ 
selves.”  I  read,  however,  that  these  were  not  sufficient  provisions  for  the 
Prophet  and  the  special  revelation  had  to  be  made  from  heaven  in  these 
words:  “  O  Prophet,  we  have  allowed  thee  thy  wives  unto  whom  thou  hast 
given  thy  dower,  and  also  the  slaves  which  thy  right  hand  possesseth  of 
the  booty  which  God  hath  granted  thee;  and  the  daughters  of  thy  uncles 
and  the  daughters  of  thy  aunts,  both  on  thy  father’s  side  and  thy  mother’s 
side,  who  have  fled  with  thee  from  Mecca,  and  any  other  believing  woman, 
if  she  give  herself  unto  the  Prophet,  in  case  the  Prophet  desires  to  take 
her  to  wife.  This  is  a  particular  privilege  granted  unto  thee  above  the 
rest  of  the  true  believers.  We  know  what  we  have  ordained  them  concern¬ 
ing  their  wives  and  their  slaves  which  their  right  hands  possess;  lest  it 
should  be  deemed  a  crime  in  thee  to  make  use  of  the  privilege  granted 
thee,  for  God  is  merciful  and  gracious.  It  shall  not  be  lawful  W  thee  to 
take  other  women  to  wife  hereafter,  nor  to  exchange  any' of  thy  wives  for 
them,  although  their  beauty  pleases  thee,  except' the  slaves  whom  thy  right 
hand  shall  possess.  The  commentators  who  are  all  of  them  men  who  stand 
high  in  the  Mohammedan  world  as  Origen,  Chrysostom,  and  the  other 
fathers  of  the  church  stand  in  the  Christian  world,  differ  as  to  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  these  words.  Some  think  that  Mohammed  was  thereby  forbidden 
to  take  any  more  wives  than  nine,  which  number  he  had  then,  and  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  been  his  stint,  as  four  was  that  of  other  men;  some  imagine 
that  after  this  prohibition,  though  any  of  the  wives  he  then  had  should 
die,  or  be  divorced,  he  could  not  marry  another  in  her  room.  Some  think 
he  was  only  forbidden  from  this  time  forward  to  marry  any  other  woman 
than  one  of  the  four  sorts  mentioned  in  the  passage  quoted. 

There  is  one  chapter  which  I  dare  not  stand  before  you,  my  sisters 
mothers,  and  wives,  and  daughters,  and  read  to  you.  I  have  not  the  face  to 
read  it;  nor  would  I  like  to  read  it  even  in  a  congregation  of  men.  It  is  the 
sixty-fourth  chapter  of  the  Koran.  You  may  read  that  chapter  if  you  like 
yourselves,  and  you  may  read  the  comment  of  their  great  leaders  and  the¬ 
ologians,  those  men  on  whom  they  rely  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Koran. 
The  chapter  is  called  “  Prohibition.”  If  I  were  going  to  name  it  I  should 
call  it  “High  License.”  Chapter  xxiv.  says:  “  And  compel  not  your  maid 
servants  to  prostitute  their  bodies.”  In  Chapter  xxxiii.  it  is  revealed  to  the 
Prophet  that  he  is  an  exception  to  this  rule:  “  O  Prophet,  we  have  allowed 
thee  thy  wives,  unto  whom  thou  hast  given  their  dower,  and  also  the  slaves 
which  thy  right  hand  possesseth  of  the  boots  which  God  had  granted 


615 


MOHAMMEDAN  KORAN  AND  ITS  DOCTRINES. 


thee.”  Now  let  us  liear  the  Koran  on  the  subject  of  divorce.  “  Ye  may 
divorce  your  wife  twice,  but  if  the  husband  divorce  her  a  third  time  she 
shall  not  be  lawful  for  him  again  until  she  marry  another  husband.  But, 
if  he  also  divorces  her,  it  shall  be  no  crime  in  them  if  they  return  to  each 
other.”  Chapter  iv.:  “  If  ye  be  desirous  of  exchanging  a'  wife  for  another 
wife  and  ye  have  already  given  one  of  them  a  talent,  take  not  anything 
away  therefrom.”  In  Chapter  iv.  it  is  said;  “  Ye  are  also  forbidden  to  take 
to  wife  three  women  who  are  married  except  those  women  whom  your 
right  hands  shall  possess  as  slaves.”  But  this  was  not  enough  for  the 
Prophet.  There  had  to  be  a  special  revelation  from  God  in  order  to/justify 
him.  The  following  passage  was  recorded  on  Mohammed’s  wives  asking 
for  more  sumptuous  clothes  and  additional  allowance  for  their  expenses. 
The  Prophet  had  no  sooner  received  the  request  than  he  gave  them  their 
option  either  to  continue  with  him  or  be  divorced.  In  this  passage  God  is 
supposed  to  be  the  speaker.  He  says :  “  O  Prophet,  say  unto  thy  wives, 

if  ye  seek  this  present  life  and  the  pomp  thereof,  come,  I  will  make  a  hand¬ 
some  provision  for  you,  and  I  will  dismiss  you  with  an  honorable  dismis¬ 
sion;  but  if  ye  seek  God  and  his  apostle,  and  the  life  to  come,  verily  God 
hath  prepared  for  such  of  you  as  work  righteousness  a  great  reward.” 

Mohammed  purchased  a  slave  boy  named  Zeid,  who  was  a  winsome 
youth,  and  Mohammed  loved  him.  The  father  of  the  boy  hearing  where 
he  was  came  to  Mecca  with  a  great  ransom  in  his  hand,  and  he  said  to 
Mohammed:  “Give  me  back  my  boy  and  take  this  gold.”  Mohammed 
was  magnanimous — he  had  many  great  and  noble  qualities,  of  which  I 
would  like  to  speak  at  another  time — and  Mohammed  refused  the  ransom, 
and,  turning  to  the  boy,  offered  him  his  freedom.  The  boy,  however,  pre¬ 
ferred  to  remain.  He  said  to  the  Prophet:  “  I  will  stay  with  you;  you  are 
my  father.”  After  a  time  Mohammed  had  the  boy  swear  a  mighty  oath  at 
the  Kaaba  that  he  was  his  son  and  thus  he  adopted  him.  This  occurred 
before  the  proclamation  of  Islam.  After  the  revelation  of  Islam,  Moham¬ 
med  gave  the  boy  a  beautiful  girl  named  Zeinab  to  wife.  Some  years  after 
their  marriage  Mohammed  visited  the  house  of  Zeid  in  the  latter’s 
absence.  His  eyes  fell  upon  this  young  woman  and  he  loved  her.  She 
told  her  husband  of  this,  and  he,  from  his  devotion  to  his  adopted  father, 
offered  to  divorce  her  so  that  Mohammed  might  marry  her.  Mohammed  at 
first  recoiled  from  this.  He  said  it  was  a  scandal  that  would  ruin  him,  but 
it  is  alleged  that  God  gave  him  a  revelation  on  which  he  took  the  wife  of 
his  own  adopted  son  and  made  her  his  wife.  The  revelation  is  this:  “  But 
when  Zeid  had  determined  the  matter  concerning  her  and  had  resolved  to 
divorce  her  we  joined  her  in  marriage  unto  thee  lest  a  crime  should  be 
charged  on  the  true  believers  in  marrying  the  wives  of  their  adopted  sons 
when  they  had  determined  the  matter  concerning  them;  and  the  command 
of  God  is  to  be  performed.  No  crime  is  to  be  charged  on  the  Prophet  as  to 
what  God  hath  allowed  him  conformable  to  the  ordinance  of  God  with 
regard  to  those  who  preceded  him  (for  the  command  of  God  is  a  deter¬ 
minate  decree)  who  brought  the  messages  of  God  and  feared  him,  and 
feared  none  besides  God;  and  God  is  a  sufficient  accountant.  Mohammed 
is  not  the  father  of  any  man  amang  you,  but  the  apostle  of  God  and  the 
seal  of  the  prophets.” 

REV.  DR.  HAWORTH. 

The  closing  address  was  given  by  Rev.  Dr.  Haworth,  a  mis¬ 
sionary  to  Japan. 

I  fear  that  in  the  short  time  at  my  disposal  I  shall  be  like  the  surgeon 
who  has  time  only  to  probe  the  wound  without  applying  the  healing  balm. 
The  only  result  of  the  operation  may  be  to  bring  odium  upon  the  operator. 


610 


THE  PAnLl AMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


There  must  be  a  sore  to  be  treated.  The  announcement  of  the  topic 
proves  that  there  are  those  who  think  the  methods  of  missionaries  can  be 
improved.  There  are  plenty  of  missionaries  who  recognize  this;  but  his 
is  not  a  grateful  task  who  essays  tojtind  fault  with  a  foreign  missionary. 
I  quite  remember  the  indignation  aroused  in  Japan  a  few  years  ago  when  a 
brother  came  over  from  China  and,  after  a  short  stay  in  Japan,  went  back 
and  published  a  sharp  criticism  on  our  missionary  methods.  We  are  all 
ready  to  admit  that  offenses  do  come  because  of  our  limitations,  but  woe 
unto  him  who  charges  the  offenses  home  to  us. 

Nevertheless,  at  the  risk  of  failing  to  make  myself  understood  in  so 
short  a  time,  and,  therefore,  offending  some,  I  venture  to  add  my  word  in 
the  direction  of  emphasizing  the  need  of  improvement  in  missionary 
methods. 

Being  from  Japan  j^ou  will  naturally  expect  me  to  speak  of  the  particu¬ 
lar  phases  of  the  missionary  problem  which  are  more  or  less  peculiar  to 
that  field.  Those  who  heard  the  very  interesting  paper  of  Professor 
Kosaki  on  Wednesday  afternoon,  on  this  platform,  will  be  ready  to  believe 
that  in  Japan,  at  least,  it  is  high  time  for  missionaries  to  mend  their  ways, 
or  get  out  and  let  Brother  Kosaki  and  his  Christian  countrymen  work  out 
their  own  salvation. 

If,  in  the  great  problems  before  the  church  in  Japan,  the  problem  of  rec¬ 
onciling  Christianity  with  the  “National  Spirit,”  the  problem  of  adjusting 
the  relations  between  the  missionaries  and  the  Japanese  Christians,  the 
problem  of  denominationalism  and  church  government,  the  problem  of 
determining  what  are  the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity  and  of  written 
creeds,  the  problems  which  affect  the  very  life  and  continuity  of  Christ’s 
church  in  Japan;  if  in  these  vital  and  perplexing  questions  the  missionaries 
can  be  of  no  service,  as  Mr.  Kosaki  says;  if  the  Japanese  must  work  out 
these  difficult  problems  alone,  and  are  able  to  do  it,  the  explanation  of  this 
strange  situation  must  be,  either  that  the  missionary  has  done  his  work  so 
well  that  the  pupil  is  equal  in  all  respects  to  the  teacher,  who  might  as 
well  withdraw,  or  else  the  missionary  has  spent  thirty-five  years  in  grap¬ 
pling  with  the  great  problem  of  Christianizing  Japan  only  to  prove  himself 
in  the  end  a  colossal  and  preposterous  failure. 

And  further,  if  the  Congregationalists  of  Japan  are  substantially  on  the 
side  of  the  very  theology  which  the  American  board  emphatically  discoun¬ 
tenances;  if  the  Japanese  Presbyterians  almost  to^a  man  areV^n  the  side  of 
Professors  Briggs  and  Smith,  while  the  General  Association  in  America 
persistently  declares  that  those  learned  men  are  dangerous  leaders;  if 
these  two  great  churches  in  Japan,  which  include  the  large  majority  of  the 
Christian  population  of  the  country,  are  so  wide  of  the  mark  of  American 
orthodoxy,  the  inference  will  be  that  the  missionaries  are  either  untrue  to 
the  churches  that  sent  them  out,  or  that  they  are’ unable  to  influence  to 
any  considerable  extent  thefconverts  they  have  made. 

And  if  the  missionaries’  influence  in  Japan  is  so  startlingly  small  it  is 
only  a  question  of  a  little  time  when  the  church  of  America  will  withdraw 
its  support  and  leave  the  church  in  Japan  to  do  its  own  teaching  and 
preaching,  and  pay  its  own  bills.  The  Christians  of  America  will  not  give 
money  to  maintain  missionaries  in  a  land  where  they  can  be  only  ^?ubor- 
dinate  helpers,  utterly  impotent  in  solving  the  vital  questions  of  the 
church,  while  so  many  other  fields  are  drawing  us  with  Macedonian  cries 
which  must  be  answered. 

Now  I  am  not  here  to  take  exceptions  to  Professor  Kosaki’s  excellent 
paper.  I  know  his  sympathetic  heart  and  kindly  feeling  toward  the  mission¬ 
aries.  I  am  only  pointing  out,  from  the  view  point  of  the  audience  which 
heard  him,  the  inferences  which  must  come  from  his  statements.  With 
other  important  modifications,  which  I  have  not  time  to  make,  but  which  I 
am  sure  Professor  Kosaki  himself  would  accept,  the  paper  gives  a  true  pict¬ 
ure  of  the  situation  in  Japan. 


MOHAMMEDAN  KORAN  AND  ITS  DOCTRINES. 


617 


It  is  true  the  missionary  has  not  the  influence  he  once  had  in  Japan  and 
still  has  in  most  other  lields.  And  this  can  not  be  explained  wholly  on  the 
ground  of  our  success  there.  Japan  is  not  evangelized  to-day.  With 
40,000  baptized  Christians  out  of  40,000,000  people,  with  the  rate  of  annual 
increase  in  the  church  diminishing  rather  than  increasing,  with  all  these 
unsolved  problems  pressing  upon  the  infant  church,  let  not  Christian 
America  listen  for  one  moment  to  one  who  would  say  that  our  work  for 
Japan  is  done. 

And  to  those  who  may  feel  like  advising  us  to  leave  the  work  to  the 
Japanese  workers  there  ought  to  be  sufficient  answer  in  Brother  Kosaki’s 
frank  portrayal  of  the  unsteady  gait  of  the  national  advance,  and  in  the 
pathetic  confession  that  in  all  the  troublous  questions  before  the  church  no 
light  appears— no  prophet  has  yet  arisen  in  Japan  who  is  able  to  lead  the 
church  through  the  wilderness. 

Noble  indeed  is  the  specter  of  this  ancient  nation  struggling  in  the 
throes  of  a  new  birth.  History  will  forever  preserve  the  unique  movement 
by  which  an  Oriental  people  has  laid  hold  on  the  civilization  of  the  West. 
But  in  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  conflict  between  the  old  and  the  new  it  is 
too  much  to  expect  that  spiritual  stability  which  must  underlie  all  real 
progress.  At  one  time  welcoming  all  things  foreign  with  unthinking  zeal, 
at  another  raising  the  war-cry — there  is  no  room  in  such  a  condition  for 
the  calm  vision  which  knows  how  to  build  for  eternity.  Everyone  knows 
that  the  perpetual  motion  of  the  pendulum  is  not  progress.  It  only  marks 
the  progress  of  other  things  that  do  move.  I  am  here  to  say  that  in  my 
judgment  Japan  does  need  the  missionary  as  much  and  more  than  ever 
before. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


THIRTEENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  23d. 


LOVE  OF  HUMANITY  AN  OUTGROWTH  OF 

RELIGION. 

The  three  sessions  of  the  thirteenth  day  of  the  parliament 
in  Art  Institute  were  well  attended,  and  the  keynote  of  all 
the  speakers  in  the  Hall  of  Columbus  was  peace  and  unity. 
Dr.  J.  H.  Barrows  presided  at  the  morning  session;  the  Rev. 
L.  P.  Mercer  of  the  New  Jerusalem  Church  was  chairman  in 
the  afternoon ;  at  the  evening  session,  in  the  absence  of  the  chair¬ 
man  of  the  parliament.  Rabbi  Hirsch  was  the  presiding  officer 
The  exercises  of  the  morning  were  opened  by  repeating  the 
Lord’s  Prayer. 

RELIGION  AND  THE  LOVE  OF  MANKIND. 

EX-GOVERNOE  HOYT  OF  WYOMING, 

After  Rev.  Walter  M.  Barrows  led  in  the  universal  prayer. 
Dr.  J.  H.  Barrows  said:  “  We  have  the  pleasure  of  having  with 
us  this  morning  J.  W.  Hoyt  of  Washington,  formerly  Governor 
of  Wyoming,  a  gentleman  who  has  been  connected  with  philan¬ 
thropic  work  for  many  years.  He  has  been  present  as  an 
official,  I  believe,  at  all  the  v/orld’s  expositions  excepting  the 
first,  and  he  had  charge  of  the  Russian  famine  relief  fund  in 
Washington.  He  can  probably  say  to  us  a  few  words  at  the 
opening  of  this  day  in  which  international  obligations  will  be 
considered  by  the  parliament.” 

Mr.  Hoyt,  who  was  greeted  with  a  round  of  applause, 
said : 

After  sucli  an  introduction  I  regret  the  necessity  to  say  that  owing  to 
the  great  y)resriure  of  duties  in  connection  with  the  exposition,  and  to  the 

618 


RELIGION  AND  THE  LOVE  OF  MANKIND, 


619 


aLSumption  that  I  should  merely  for  a  moment  address  this  body  of  people, 
I  Qo  not  appear  before  you  with  any  elaborate  paper,  but  with  such 
thoughts  only  as  I  have  been  able  to  collect  during  the  last  one  or  two 
days. 

Let  us  thank  God  that,  in  this  first  great  parliament  of  all  the  religious 
faiths,  a  day  has  been  set  apart  for  the  study  of  “  religion  and  the  love  of 
mankind.”  During  the  last  two  wefeks  distinguished  representatives  of  all 
the  great  religions  of  the  world  have  ably,  and  with  a  courtesy  and  spiritual 
grace  that  can  never  be  forgotten,  presented  the  cardinal  doctrines  which 
serve  to  identify  and  distinguish  them.  The  benefit  that  will  come  of  this 
friendly  association  of  the  great  and  good  of  all  nationalities  is  beyond  the 
power  of  calculation.  Having  severally  met  and  heard  the  representatives 
of  other  faiths  than  our  own,  and  found  in  them  the  same  high  purpose 
and  devotion  to  the  truth  of  which  we  are  ourselves  conscious,  our  sympa¬ 
thies  must  have  broadened  and  our  hope  in  the  greater  future  been  newly 
kindled. 

If  it  should  seem  that  none  have  yet  set  forth  in  the  most  simple  and 
explicit  terms  what  religion  is  in  the  truest  and  highest  sense,  it  has, 
nevertheless,  become  apparent  that  it  is  not  a  mere  form  of  worship,  with 
however  rich  an  adornment  of  symbol  and  ceremony;  that  it  is  not  any 
particular  body  of  theological  dogmas,  however  interesting,  historically, 
intellectually,  or  ethically.  It  has  surely  come  to  be  understood  that  in  a 
generic  way  it  comprehends  all  frames  of  sentiment,  all  sorts  of  faith,  all 
forms  of  worship  to  which  man  is  moved  by  his  fears,  or  drawn  by  his 
hopes  toward  the  everywhere  apprehended,  if  not  always  clearly  recog¬ 
nized,  sources  of  infinite  power  and  goodness;  and  finally,  that  while  its 
mainspring  on  the  part  of  man  is  the  love  and  worship  of  the  Supreme 
Author  and  Supporter  of  all  things,  yet  in  the  mind  of  God  the  great  office 
of  religion  is  to  insure  the  present  and  eternal  welfare  ofmankind. 

Religion  is  a  fact  of  man’s  existence,  has  its  origin  not  in  any  conceiv¬ 
able  need  on  the  part  of  God,  whose  infinity  of  perfections  excludes  even 
the  most  shadowy  thought  of  the  want  of  any  sort,  but  rather  in  the  finite¬ 
ness  of  man,  who  for  this  simple  reason  is  none  other  than  a  body  of  wants, 
both  numberless  and  manifold,  and  who,  because  of  this  conscious  insuffi¬ 
ciency,  is  everywhere  and  always  feeling  after  God.  In  other  words,  religion 
is  to  be  recognized  as  an  outgrowth  of  the  very  constitution  of  man,  with 
his  numberless  wants  of  the  body  so  fearfully  and  wonderfully  made;  of 
the  Godlike  intellect  and  will  so  equal  to  the  discovery  of  natural  laws  and 
to  a  final  conquest  of  the  material  world,  of  the  undying  soul,  so  capable 
of  unutterable  anguish  as  well  as  of  a  joy  almost  divine.  Aye,  it  is  because 
of  this  very  constitution  of  man  that  there  has  been  in  all  ages,  and  will  be 
to  the  end  of  the  world,  pressing  need  of  a  body  of  truth,  suited  to  all 
peoples  and  times,  and  embracing  such  laws  as  should  entitle  it  to  the 
acceptance  and  respect  of  mankind. 

Of  all  this  there  can  be  no  question.  But  there  is  a  very  serious  ques¬ 
tion  of  how  far  the  several  religions  of  the  world  can  actually  meet  these 
high  demands  of  the  race,  and  how  far  the  vital  religious  truths  found  in  all 
of  them  have  been  so  obscured  by  the  drapery  of  useless  theories  and  forms 
as  to  have  been  lost  sight  of  and  then  made  of  no  effect.  Is  not  this  a 
question  of  profound  importance?  And  where  is  the  religious  organization 
that  does  not  quake  when  it  is  propounded? 

And  there  is  yet  another  question  of  even  greater  practical  moment, 
namely,  whether  religious  faiths,  thus  made  conflicting  creeds,  may  not  be 
so  harmonized  upon  the  great  essential  truths  recognized  by  all  as  to  make 
their  adherents  cordial  allies  and  earnest  co-workers  for  man’s  redemption 
from  the  bondage  of  sin,  and  for  his  advancement  to  the  dignity  and  glory 
of  the  ideal  man  as  he  was  in  the  mind  of  God  when  He  said,  “Let  us 
make  man  in  our  own  image,” 


620 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS.  ' 

The  religion  that  the  world  needs,  and  will  at  last  have,  is  one  that  shall 
make  for  the  rescue  and  elevation  of  mankind  in  every  realm  and  to  the 
highest  possible  degree — one  in  which  the  lofty  ideas  of  the  most  perfect 
living  here,  and  of  endless  progress  toward  perfection  in  the  great  here¬ 
after,  shall  so  engage  the  powers  and  aspirations  of  its  votaries  as  to  leave 
no  thought  for  the  profitless  theories  which,  at  present,  so  absorb  and  divide 
the  champions  of  the  many  faiths.  There  had  been  substantial  and  valu¬ 
able  expressions  of  it  by  great  and  good  men  long  centuries  before  the 
Christian  era,  as  by  Moses,  Confucius,  Buddha,  Socrates,  and  Mohammed; 
but,  in  my  judgment,  it  had  its  first  full  and  complete  expression  in  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  who,  by  His  supreme  teachings,  sounded  the  depths  and  swept 
the  heavens  of  both  ethical  and  religious  truth.  One  searches  ihe  litera¬ 
ture  of  all  kinds  and  all  peoples  in  vain  for  treasures  comparable  with  the 
sermon  on  the  Mount.  If  it  were  studied  and  practically  accepted  of  all 
men,  how  quickly  it  would  revolutionize  society  everywhere. 

Thou  shaft  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  mind;  this  is  the  first  great  commandment,  and  the  second  is  like 
unto  it:  thou  shaft  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  Upon  these  two  commandments 
hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

How  grandly  simple  this  declaration,  so  comprehensive  of  all  there  is 
that  is  vital.  Who  so  loveth  God  with  all  his  heart  v*^ill  seek  to  know  His 
will,  and  to  do  that  will  to  the  uttermost ;  nay,  will  find  the  supreme  joy 
of  life  in  such  living  and  doing ;  and  through  such  living  and  doing  will 
himself  be  transformed  and  exiled.  “  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy¬ 
self.”  What  meaning  there  is  in  this  divine  commandment.  “  As  thyself.” 

.  Here  is  a  theme  for  many  volumes ;  involving  the  science  of  living,  the  art 
of  living,  the  high  duty  of  true  living,  the  beauty  and  dignity  and  glory  of 
a  life  consecrated  to  exalted  ends. 

Alas,  how  little  there  is  of  loyalty  to  the  self!  How  few  know  and  obey 
the  laws  of  the  body,  and  are  able  to  stand  erect,  sound,  and  strong  before 
the  world,  fit  representatives  of  the 'race!  How  are  the  multitude  but 
dwarfed,  crippled,  diseased,  and  comparatively  feeble  caricatures  of  the 
perfect  man  each  ought  to  be.  How  small  is  the  minority  of  those  who  are 
loyal  to  the  intellectual  self,  with  such  culture  and  development  of  the 
mental  power  as  fit  them  for  man’s  intended  mastery  and  utilization  of  the 
wonderful  resources  of  nature.  How  sadly  small  is  the  minority  who  are 
so  loyal  to  the  mortal  self  as  to  have  gained  a  Christlike  comprehension  of 
ethical  truth,  or  even  a  just  conception  of  the  grand  possibilities  of  the 
moral  forces  of  mankind. 

Finally,  can  it  be  doubted,  that  having  this  perfect  love  of  God  and 
this  true  and  exalted  love  of  self,  man  would  spontaneously  love  his  neigh¬ 
bor?  Nay,  does  not  that  love  of  the  heavenly  father  necessarily  imply  a 
love  of  one’s  fellows  since  the  fatherhood  of  God  involve  the  brotherhood 
of  man?  What  but  such  a  being  could  have  justified  the  strong  language 
of  the  great  apostle,  “  He  who  loveth  God  loveth  his  brother,  and  he  who 
loveth  not  his  brother  abideth  in  death.”  “For  all  the  law  is  fulfilled  in 
one  word,”  said  the  Apostle  Paul;  “thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy¬ 
self.”  And  in  yet  stronger  language  said  the  loving  Apostle  John,  “  if  a 
man  say  I  love  God  and  hateth  his  brother  he  is  a  liar.” 

«  “  Aye,  the  brotherhood  of  man  has  been  a  divine  theory  of  exalted  man 
in  all  the  ages.  It  is  only  the  Cains  of  the  world  who  had  dared  openly  to 
ask,  “Am  I  my  brother’s  keeper?”  In  the  earlier  ages  the  fraternal  senti¬ 
ment  found  no  higher  expression  than  in  the  negative  comment  of  the 
divine  Buddha.  “  Do  not  unto  others  what  ye  would  not  have  them  do  unto 
you.”  But  in  the  divine  Christ  it  found  affirmative  expression  in  ihese 
positive  words:  “Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you  do  ye 
veil  so  unto  them.” 

In  this  doctrine  is  founded  the  fraternities  of  peoples  as  well  as  the 


RELIGION  AND  THE  LOVE  OF  MANKIND. 


621 


brotherhood  of  individual  man.  We  sometimes  forget  that  the  individual 
man  stands  for  the  race  and  that  the  law  of  Christ,  “  Do  unto  others  what¬ 
soever  ye  would  have  them  do  unto  you,”  is  as  binding  upon  peoples,  upon 
the  aggregations  of  men  in  their  relation  and  intercourse  with  other 
peoples  as  it  is  upon  me  or  upon  you  as  individuals  in  the  world.  How 
forgetful  has  been  mankind  of  the  sublime  truths  of  the  brotherhood  of 
man  in  all  the  ages.  What  have  meant  the  wars  in  all  history?  Has  not 
the  history  of  the  race  been  written  in  blood?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  even 
religious  congregations  and  the  champions  of  various  faiths  have  drawn 
the  sword  and  mingled  in  the  strife?  Let  us  thank  God  for  the  dawn  of  a 
better  era — that  time  is  coming,  aye,  is  at  hand,  when  no  nation  on  earth 
will  dare  to  draw  the  sword,  or  set  forth  the  glistening  bayonet  without  the 
universal  consent  of  mankind.  There  is  a  duty  of  self-preservation  which 
the  individual  man  and  the  individual  nation  must  recognize.  Aggressive 
warfare  without  a  submission  of  one’s  rights  and  claims  to  justice  before  a 
high  court  of  arbitration  representing  all  the  nations,  let  us  hope,  is  at  an 
end.  If  there  were  established,  and  there  will  be  established  at  an  early 
day,  a  high  court  of  international  arbitration  that  will  lay  down  the  law, 
that  will  expound  and  apply  the  law,  if  indeed  necessary,  to  the  extent  of 
making  the  repudiating  nation,  the  nation  that  shall  refuse  obedience  to 
that  law,  an  outlaw  in  the  world.  With  that  time  shall  come  the  reign  of 
peace  for  which  our  truly  beloved  bishop  and  these  priestly  men  from  many 
lands  have  struggled  long.  I  hope  this  Parliament  of  Religions  will  go  forth 
as  an  army  with  Christian  banners  bearing  upon  them  the  high  symbols  of 
the  cross  and  all  symbols  that  represent  religion  and  humanity  and  make 
peace  for  all  nations.  I  believe  the  day  is  at  hand.  Let  us  join  one  and 
all  in  the  devout  prayer  to  Almighty  God  that  it  may  early  come,  that  all 
may  unite  in  the  grand  chorus:  “  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest;  peace  on 
earth,  good  will  toward  all  men.” 

Dr.  Barrows  then  read  the  following  letter  from  Germanus, 

the  metropolitan  bishop  of  Athens: 

Athens,  Greece,  July  28, 1893. 

Most  Honorable  President:  With  great  desire  we  have  accepted 
your  letter  of  invitation,  accompanied  with  exact  explanation  of  the  pro¬ 
gramme  of  the  Religious  Congress  soon  to  be  held.  We  have  been  very 
glad  in  our  hearts  for  that  happy  idea  of  assembling  such  a  religious  con¬ 
gress,  in  which,  with  such  scientific  exactness  and  entirety,  all  the  existing 
differences  of  all  the  religions  of  earth  will  be  examined  and  discussed,  and 
that  which  surpasses  will  be  brought  to  light,  and  that  those  who  are  far 
from  the  truth,  if  they  do  not  come  immediately  into  a  re  ilizing  sense  of 
the  text  of  scripture  which  holds  the  promise  that  we  will  be  one  faith, 
one  shepherd  under  our  Jesus  Christ,  they  will  at  least  approach  to  it,  and 
be  gradually  illuminated  by  the  light  of  the  true  faith,  and  walking  straight 
in  the  roads  of  the  gospel  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  holding 
unshaken  faith  which  the  blessed  preachers  of  God,  the  apostles,  after  hav¬ 
ing  received  it,  delivered  by  word  or  by  epistle  to  those  who  are  with  them.  A 
great  sorrow  holds  me  because  I  could  not  fulfill  this  my  great  desire  either 
by  my  presence  or  by  representative.  Meanwhile,  being ,  absent  anct  far 
away  bodily,  but  being  present  by  my  spirit,  I  never  cease  to  send  up. my 
prayers  to  the  Highest,  and  to  require  a  beam  of  light  from  the  divinity  which 
shall  illumine  your  greai  congress,  and  serve  as  a  reward  of  your  labors  in 
bringing  it  together. 

With  great  respect,  I  am  yours  truly, 

Metropolite  of  Athens,  Ghermanus. 


G22 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


THE  GROUNDS  OF  SYMPATHY  AND  FRATERNITY 

AMONG  RELIGIOUS  MEN. 

A.  M.  POWELL  OF  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF  NEW  YORK. 

It  is  in  behalf  of  one  of  the  smaller  religious  bodies,  the  Society  of 
Friends,  that  I  am  invited  to  speak  to  you.  In  the  time  allotted,  it  would 
be  quite  impossible  to  cover  exhaustively  the  whole  field  of  my  broad  sub¬ 
ject,  “The  Grounds  of  Sympathy  and  Fraternity  Among  Religious  Men.” 

It  is  altogether  natural  and  proper  that  in  form  and  method  and  ritual 
there  should  be  diversity,  great  diversity,  among  the  peoples  interested  in 
religion  throughout  the  world,  but  it  is  also  possible,  as  it  is  extremely 
desirable,  that  there  should  be  unity  and  fraternity  and  co-operation  in  the 
promulgation  of  simple,  spiritual  truth.  To  illustrate  my  thought  I  may 
say  that  not  very  long  ago  I  went  to  one  of  the  great  Salvation  Army 
meetings  in  New  York  with  two  of  my  personal  friends,  who  were  also 
members  of  the  Society  of  Friends.  It  was  one  of  those  meetings  full  of 
enthusiasm,  with  volleys  innumerable,  and  we  met  that  gifted  and  eloquent 
queen  of  the  army,  Mrs.  Ballington  Booth,  to  whom  I  had  the  pleasure  of 
introducing  my  two  Quaker  friends.  Taking  in  the  humor  of  the  situation, 
she  said:  “  Yes,  we  have  much  in  common;  you  add  a  little  quiet,  and  we 
add  a  little  noise.” 

The  much  in  common  between  these  two  very  different  peoples,  the 
noisy  Salvationists  and  the  quiet  Quakers,  is  in  the  application  of  admitted 
Christian  truth  to  human  needs.  It  is  along  that  line  that  my  thought 
must  lead  this  morning  with  regard  to  unity  and  fraternity  among  relig¬ 
ious  men  and  religious  women.  Every  people  on  the  face  of  the  earth  has 
some  conception  of  the  supreme  and  the  infinite.  It  is  common  to  all 
classes,  all  races,  all  nationalities;  but  the  Christian  ideal,  according  to  my 
own  conception,  is  the  highest  and  most  complete  ideal  of  all.  It  embraces 
most  fully  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of  mankind. 

Justice  and  mercy  and  love  it  maintains  as  due  from  each  to  all.  There 
are  no  races,  there  are  no  territorial  limitations  or  exceptions.  Even  the 
most  untutored  have  always  been  found  to  be  amenable  to  the  presentation 
of  this  fundamental  Christian  thought  exemplified  in  a  really  Christian 
life.  Here  I  may  illustrate  by  the  experience  of  William  Penn  among  the 
Indians  of  North  America.  He  came  to  them  as  their  brother  and  as' their 
friend,  to  exemplify  the  principles  of  justice  and  truth.  It  is  a  matter  of 
history  that  the  relations  between  Penn  and  the  Quakers  and  the  Indians 
have  been  exceptional  and  harmonious  on  the  basis  of  this  ideal  brother¬ 
hood  of  man.  Alas,  that  all  the  Indians  in  America  might  not  have  had 
representatives  of  this  Quaker  humane  thought  to  deal  with !  What  a  dif¬ 
ferent  page  would  have  been  written  in  American  history. 

Many  years  later  another  Friend  was  sent  out  under  President  Grant’s 
administration  to  labor  as  a  superintendent  among  the  Indians — the  noble- 
hearted,  true  Quaker,  Samuel  M.  Janney.  As  he  went  among  the  Indians 
committed  to  his  charge,  he  not  only  undertook  to  deal  with  them  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  their  material  interests,  but  he  also  sought  to  labor  among  them  as 
their  friend  and  in  a  certain  sense  as  a  religious  helper  and  teacher.  He 
talked  with  those  Indians  in  Nebraska  about  spiritual  things.  They  could 
understand  about  the  Great  Spirit  as  they  listened  to  him,  and  he  told 
them,  furthermore,  the  wonderful  story  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  commending 
His  teaching  and  the  lesson  of  His  life  and  His  death  to  them.  They 
listened,  with  regard  to  the  Son,  as  they  had,  with  reverence,  to  the  Father, 
but  he  could  not  impress  them,  in  the  face  of  their  sad  experience  with  a 
so-called  Christian  nature,  with  the  virtues  of  the  Son. 

Finally  one  old  chief  said  to  him:  “  We  know  about  the  Father,  but  the 
Son  has  not  been  along  this  way  yet.” 


FRATERNITY  AMONG  RELIGIOUS  MEN. 


623'' 


I  do  not  wonder  in  the  light  of  the  record  which  this  so-called  Christian 
nation  had  made  in  dealing  with  those  Indians,  that  they  thought  that 
they  had  never  seen  the  Son  out  that  way  yet.  It  is,  alas,  to  our  shame  as 
a  people  that  it  must  be  said  as  a  matter  of  historic  truth  that  the  very 
reverse  of  the  Christian  spirit  has  been  the  spirit  shown  in  dealing  with 
the  Iniians,  who  have  been  treated  with  bad  faith  and  untold  cruelty. 

A  fresh  and  living  instance  of  this  spirit  is  illustrated  in  the  chapter  we 
•  are  now  writing  so  shamefully  in  our  dealings  with  the  Chinese.  We  are 
sending  missionaries  abroad  to  China,  but  what  are  we  teaching  by  example 
in  America  with  reference  to  the  Chinese  but  the  godless  doctrine  that 
they  have  no  rights  which  we  are  bound  to  respect?  We  are  receiving 
lessons,  valuable  and  varied,  from  these  distinguished  representatives  of 
other  religions,  but  what  are  we  to  say  in  their  presence  of  our  shortcom¬ 
ings  measured  by  the  standard  of  our  high  Christian  ideal,  which  recog¬ 
nizes  the  brotherhood  of  all  mankind  and  God  as  the  common  Father? 

I  want  to  say  that  the  potential  religious  life — and  it  is  a  lesson  which 
is  being  emphasized  day  by  day  by  this  wonderful  parliament — is  not  a 
creed  but  character.  It  is  for  this  message  that  the  waiting  multitude 
listens.  We  have  many  evidences  of  this.  Among  the  recent  deaths  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic  which  awaken  world-wide  echoes  of  lamentation  and 
regret,  there  has  been  no  one  so  missed  and  so  mourned,  as  a  religious 
teacher  in  this  century,  as  Phillips  Brooks. 

One  thing  above  ali  else  which  characterized  the  ministry  of  Phillips 
Brooks  was  his  interpretation,  as  a  spiritual  power  in  the  life,  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual  human  soul.  The  ooe  poet  who  has  voiced  this  thought  most  widely 
in  our  own  and  in  other  coaolries,  whose  words  are  to  be  found  in  the  after¬ 
part  of  the  general  programme  of  this  parliament,  is  the  Quaker  poet, 
Whittier.  His  words  are  adapted  to  world-wide  use  by  all  who  enter  into 
the  spirit  of  Christianity  in  its  utmost  simplicity.  In  seeking  the  grounds 
of  fraternity  and  co-operation  we  must  not  look  in  the  region  of  forms  and 
ceremonies  and  rituals,  wherein  we  may  all  very  properly  differ  and  agree  to 
differ,  as  we  are  doing  here,  but  wemust  seek  them  especially  in  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  unity  and  action  for  the  removal  of  the  world’s  great  evils. 

I  believe  we  stand  to-day  at  the  dividing  of  the  ways,  and  whether  or 
not  there  shall  follow  this  Parliament  of  Religions  any  permanent  com¬ 
mittee,  or  any  general  organization,  looking  to  the  creation  of  a  universal 
church,  I  do  hope  that  one  outcome  of  this  great  commingling  will  be  some 
sort  of  action  between  the  peoples  of  the  different  religions  looking  to  the 
removal  of  the  great  evils  which  stand  in  the  pathway  of  the  progress  of 
all  true  religions. 

Part  of  my  speech  has  been  made  this  morning  by  the  eloquent  ex-gov¬ 
ernor  who  preceded  me,  but  I  will  emphasize  his  remarks  with  regard  to 
arbitration.  There  v/ere  two  illustrations  of  my  thoughts  to  which  he  did 
not  make  specific  reference.  One  is  recent  in  the  Bering  Sea  arbitration. 
What  a  blessing  that  is  as  compared  with  the  old-fashioned  method  of  set¬ 
tling  differences  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain  by  going  to  war. 
We  may  rejoice  and  take  courage  in  this  fresh  illustration  of  the  practica¬ 
bility  of  arbitration  between  two  great  and  powerful  nations. 

I  may  cite,  also,  one  other  illustration — the  Geneva  award,  which  at  the 
time  it  occurred  was  perhaps  even  more  remarkable  than  the  more  recent 
arbitration  of  the  Bering  Sea  dispute.  Among  the  exhibits  down  yonder 
at  the  White  City,  which  you  doubtless  have  seen,  is  the  great  Krupp  gun. 
It  is  a  marvelous  piece  of  inventive  ingenuity.  It  is  absolutely  appalling 
in  its  possibilities  for  the  destruction  of  humanity.  Now,  if  the  religious 
people  of  the  world,  whatever  their  name  or  form,  will  unite  in  a  general 
league  against  war  and  resolve  to  arbitrate  all  difficulties  I  believe  that  that 
great  Krupp  gun  will,  if  not  preserved  for  some  museum,  be  literally 
melted  and  recast  into  plowshares  and  pruning-hooks. 


G24 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


This  parliament  has  laid  very  broad  foundations.  It  is  presenting  an 
object  lesson  of  immense  value.  In  June  I  had  the  privilege  of  assisting 
here  in  another  World’s  Congress  wherein  were  representatives  of  various 
nationalities  and  countries.  We  had  on  the  platform  the  distinguished 
Archbishop  of  St.  Paul,  that  great  liberal  Catholic,  Archbishop  Ireland. 
Sitting  near  him  was  Father  Cleary,  his  neighbor  and  friend — another 
noble  man.  Sitting  near  those  two  Catholics  was  Adjutant  Vickery,  of  the 
Salvation  Army,  the  representative  of  Mrs.  Ballington  Booth,  who  was 
unable  through  sickness  to  be  present.  Near  these  were  several  members 
of  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  along  with  them  were  some  Episcopalians, 
Methodists,  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  and  one  Unitarian  whose  face  I  see 
here  to-day.  All  these  were  tremendously  in  earnest  to  strike  a  blow  at 
one  of  the  great  obstacles  to  the  progress  of  Christian  life  in  Europe — state 
regulated  vice. 

I  can  not  deal  with  that  subject  now,  but  I  may  say  that  it  is  the  most 
infamous  system  of  slavery  of  womanhood  and  girlhood  the  world  has  ever 
seen.  It  exists  in  most  European  countries,  and  it  has  its  champions  in 
America,  who  have  been  seeking  by  their  propagandism,  to  fasten  it  upon 
our  large  cities.  It  is  one  of  the  most  vital  questions  of  this  era,  and  it 
should  be  the  care  and  responsibility  of  religious  people  everywhere  to  see 
that  as  speedily  as  possible  this  great  shame  shall  be  wiped  away  from 
modern  civilization. 

Let  me  tell  you  an  incident  that  occurred  in  Geneva,  Switzerland,  three 
or  four  years  ago.  There  jumped  out  of  a  four-story  window  down  to  the 
court  below  a  beautiful  young  girl.  Marvelously,  her  life  was  spared.  A 
noble  Christian  woman,  whom  I  count  it  a  privilege  to  number  among  my 
personal  friends,  went  to  this  poor  girl’s  side  and  got  her  story.  In  sub¬ 
stance  it  was  this: 

She  had  been  sold  for  a  price  in  Berlin  to  one  of  the  brothel  keepers  of 
Geneva,  and,  as  his  property,  had  been  imprisoned  in  that  brothel  and  was 
held  therein  as  a  prisoner  and  slave.  She  endured  it  as  long  as  she  could, 
and  finally,  as  she  told  this  friend  of  mine,  “  When  I  thought  of  God  I 
could  endure  it  no  longer  and  I  resolved  to  take  the  chances  of  my  life  for 
escape,”  and  she  made  that  fearful  leap  and  providentially  her  life  was 
spared.  What  must  be  the  nature  of  the  oppression  that  will  thus  drive 
its  victim  to  the  desperate  straits  of  this  young  girl?  It  is  a  slavery  worse 
than  the  chattelism  in  some  of  its  details,  which  formerly  prevailed  in  our 
own  country. 

Now,  what  has  America  to  do  on  this  line?  America  has  a  fearful 
responsibility.  Though  it  may  not  have  the  actual  system  of  State  regu¬ 
lation,  we  call  ourselves  a  Christian  country,  and  yet,  in  this  beloved 
America  of  ours,  in  more  than  one  State,  under  the  operation  of  the  laws 
called  “Age  of  consent,”  a  young  girl  of  ten  years  is  held  capable  of  consent¬ 
ing  to  her  own  ruin.  Shame,  indeed;  it  is  a  shame;  a  ten-fold  shame.  I 
appeal  in  passing,  for  league  and  unity  among  religious  people  for  the 
overthrow  of  this  system  in  European  countries,  and  the  rescue  and 
redemption  of  our  own  land  from  this  gigantic  evil  which  threatens  us 
here. 

I  now  pass  to  another  overshadowing  evil;  the  ever-pressing  drink  evil. 
There  was  another  congress  held  here  in  June;  it  was  to  deal  witn  the  vice 
of  intemperance.  I  had  the  privilege  of  looking  over  forty  consular  reports 
prepared  at  the  request  of  the  late  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Blaine.  In 
every  one  of  these  reports  intemperance  was  shown  to  be  a  producing 
cause  of  a  large  part  of  the  vice,  immorality,  and  crime  in  those  countries. 
There  is  need  of  an  alliance  on  the  part  of  religious  people  for  the  removal 
of  this  great  evil  which  stands  in  the  pathway  of  practical  Christian  prog¬ 
ress. 

Now,  another  thought  in  a  different  direction.  What  the  world  greatly 


THPl  ESSENTIALS  OF  RELIGION. 


625 


needs  to-day  in  all  countries  is  greater  simplicity  in  connection  'Vvith  the 
religious  life  and  propagandism.  The  Society  of  Friends,  in  whose  behalf 
I  appear  before  you,  may  fairly  claim  to  have  been  teachers  by  example  in 
that  direction.  We  want  to  banish  the  spirit  of  worldliness  from  every 
land  which  has  taken  possession  of  many  churches,  and  inaugurate  an 
era  of  greater  simplicity. 

The  actual  progress  of  Christianity  in  accordance  with  its  ideal  may  be 
cited  in  a  sentence,  to  be  measured  by  the  position  of  women  in  all  lands. 
The  Society  of  Friends  furnished  pioneers  in  the  prisons  of  Old  England 
and  of  New  England  in  the  direction  of  divinely  inspired  womanhood.  We 
believe  there  is  still  urgent  need  of  an  enlargement  of  this  sphere  to 
woman  and  we  ought  to  have  it  preached  more  widely  everywhere.  There 
should  be  leagues  and  alliances  to  help  bring  about  this  needed  change.  The 
individual  stands  alone,  unaided,  comparatively  powerless,  but  in  organ¬ 
ization  there  is  great  power  and  in  the  fullness  of  the  life  of  the  spirit,  applied 
through  organization,  it  is  possible  to  transform  the  world  for  its  benefit 
in  many  directions. 

Someone  has  described  salvation  as  being  simply  harmonious  relation¬ 
ship  between  God  and  man.  If  that  be  a  true  description  of  the  heavenly 
condition  we  need  not  wait  till  we  pass  beyond  the  river  to  experience 
something  of  the  uplift  of  the  joy  of  salvation.  Let  us  band  together, 
religious  men  and  women  of  all  names  and  nationalities,  to  bring  about 
this  greater  harmony  between  each  other  and  between  God,  the  Father  of 
us  all.  Then,  finally,  in  all  lands  and  in  every  soul,  the  lowliest  as  well  as 
the  highest,  may  this  more  and  more  become  the  joyous  refrain  of  each, 
“  Nearer,  My  God,  to  Thee;  nearer  to  Thee.” 


THE  ESSENTIALS  OF  RELIGION, 

BEV.  ALFRED  W.  MOMERIE  OF  LONDON,  ENGLAND. 

We  who  have  attended  the  sessions  of  these  congresses  have,  I  think, 
learned  one  great  lesson,  viz.,  that  there  is  a  unity  of  religion  underlying 
the  diversity  of  religions,  and  that  the  imxjortant  work  before  us  is  not  so 
much  to  make  men  accept  one  or  the  other  of  the  various  religions  of  the 
world  as  to  induce  them  to  accept  religion  in  a  broad  and  universal  sense. 
This  lesson  which  we  have  learned  here,  we  shall,  I  hop»e,  teach  elsewhere, 
so  that,  from  the  Hall  of  Columbus  as  a  center,  it  will  spread  and  spread 
and  spread,  until  it  at  last  reaches  the  furtherest  limits  of  the  habitable 
globe. 

There  is  a  story  told  of  a  man  of  a  theological  sect  of  Great  Britain,  in 
the  extreme  North  of  Scotland,  whose  special  pride  was  that  they  were  the 
sole  possessors  of  the  true  religion.  But  there  was  a  gradual  falling  away 
from  their  ranks  until  there  were  few  of  them  left.  A  gentleman  called 
upon  an  old  lady  one  day  and  inquired  as  to'  the  progress  of  that  religion. 
She  told  him  that  about  all  there  was  left  of  the  once  flourishing  commu¬ 
nity  was  “myself  and  Jock”  (meaning  her  husband),  “and  I  am  not  so  very 
sure  of  Jock,”  she  added.  My  own  views  at  one  time  very  much  coincided 
with  the  old  lady’s.  I  remember  one  day,  when  a  boy,  I  had  occasion  to 
spend  several  hours  with  a  liberal-minded  clergyman.  We  talked  of  many 
things  and  of  many  people,  and  among  others  of  Kingsley.  I  had  been 
brought  up  in  an  evangelical  school.  My  friend  held  a  high  opinion  of  the 
great  canon’s  works.  I  said,  “  Yes,  I  suppose  Kingsley  was  a  good  man, 
but  he  had  no  religion.”  The  clergyman  quietly  replied,  “  What  is 
religion?  ”  Now,  will  you  allow  me  to-day  to  ask  that  question?  What  is 
religion?  The  majority  think  it  is  a  pleasant  ceremony  for  use  in  a  church. 
1  don’t  much  blame  them,  for  it  is  the  clergymen  who  are  responsible 


G26 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


mainly  for  the  bigotry  of  the  laity.  I  am  glad  you  agree  with  me.  You 
have  got  it  from  us.  We  have  been  bigots  partly  from  ignorance,  partly 
from  our  supercilious  priestly  pride.  We  have  transferred  our  bigotry  to 
the  laity.  We  have  kindled  their  bigotry  into  a  flame.  But  there  have 
lieen  one  or  two  glorious  exceptions.  I  should  like  to  quote  you  two  or 
three  verses  from  one  of  your  own  bishops: 

The  parish  priest. 

Of  austerity, 

Climbed  up  in  a  high  church  steeple. 

To  be  nearer  God, 

So  that  he  might  hand 
His  word  down  to  the  people. 

And  in  sermon  script. 

He  daily  wrote 

What  he  thought  was  sent  from  heaven; 

And  he  dropped  it  down 
On  the  people’s  heads 
Two  times  one  day  in  seven. 

In  his  age  God  said 
”  Come  down  and  die ;  ” 

And  he  cried  out  from  the  steeple, 

“  Where  art  Thou,  Lord?  ” 

And  the  Lord  replied, 

“  Down  here  among  my  people.” 

Now,  who  are  God’s  people?  What  is  religion?  Perhaps  we  may  be 
able  to  arrive  at  a  deflnite  answer  to  this  question  if  we  try  to  discover 
whether  there  are  any  subjects  in  regard  to  which  the  great  religious 
leaders  of  the  world  differ.  Let  me  read  you  two  or  three  extracts.  The 
first  words  are  taken  from  the  old  Hebrew  Prophets: 

To  what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto  me?  saith  the  Lord. 
I  delight  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks  or  of  he-goats.  Bring  no  more  vain  oblations: 
incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me;  your  new  moons  and  Sabbath  I  can  not  away 
with.  Cease  to  do  evil;  learn  to  do  well.  Seek  judgment;  relieve  the  oppressed; 
judge  the  fatherless,  plead  for  the  widow.” 

Zoroaster  preached  the  doctrine  that  the  one  thing  needful  was  to  do 
right.  All  good  thoughts,  words,  and  works  lead  to  Paradise.  All  evil 
thoughts,  words,  and  works  to  hell.  Confucius  was  so  anxious  to  fix  men’s 
attention  on  their  duty  that  he  would  enter  into  no  metaphysical  specula¬ 
tion  regarding  the  problem  of  immortality.  When  questioned  about  it  he 
replied:  “I  do  not  as  yet  know  what  life  is.  How  can  I  understand 
death?  ”  The  whole  duty  of  man,  he  said,  might  be  summed  up  in  the  word 
reciprocity.  We  must  refrain  from  injuring  others,  as  we  would  that  they 
should  refrain  from  injuring  us.  Gautama  taught  that  every  man  has  to 
work  out  his  salvation  for  himself,  without  the  mediation  of  a  priest.  On 
one  occasion,  when  he  met  a  sacrificial  procession,  he  explained  to  his  fol¬ 
lowers  that  it  was  idle  to  shed  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  that  all  they 
needea  was  change  of  heart.  So,  too,  he  insisted  on  the  uselessness  of  fasts 
and  penances  and  other  forms  of  ritual. 

Neither  going  naked,  nor  shaving  the  head,  nor  wearing  matted  hair, 
nor  dirt,  nor  rough  garments,  nor  reading  the  Vedas  will  cleanse  a  man. 
*  *  *  Anger,  drunkenness,  envy,  disparaging  others,  these  constitute 
uncleanness,  and  not  the  eating  of  flesh. 

He  summed  up  his  teaching  in  the  celebrated  verse: 

To  cease  from  sin. 

To  get  virtue. 

To  cleanse,  the  heart. 

That  is  the  religion  of  the  Buddhas. 

And  in  the  farewell  address  which  he  delivered  to  his  disciples  he 
called  his  religion  by  the  name  of  Purity.  “Learn,”  he  exhorted,  “and 


THE  ESSENTIALS  OF  RELIGION. 


627 


spread  abroad  the  law  thought  out  and  revealed  by  me,  that  this  purity  of 
mine  may  last  long  and  be  perpetuated  for  the  good  and  happiness  of  mul¬ 
titudes.”  To  the  same  effect  spoke  Christ:  “Not  everyone  that  sayeth 
unto  Me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  but  he  that  doeth 
the  will  of  My  Father.”  Mohammed  again  taught  the  selfsame  doctrine 
of  justification  by  work: 

It  is  not  the  flesh  and  blood  ye  sacrificed;  it  is  your  piety,  which  is  acceptable 
to  Cxod.  *  *  *  Woe  to  them  that  make  a  show  of  piety  and  refuse  to  help  the  needy. 
It  is  not  righteousness  that  ye  turn  your  faces  in  prayer  toward  the  East  or  toward 
tne  West,  but  righteousness  is  of  those  who  perform  the  covenants  which  they 
have  covenanted. 

This  was  the  teaching  of  the  great  religious  teachers  of  the  world.  But 
these  old  forms  of  religion  are  hardly  now  recognizable.  You  have  only  to 
read  Davies’  Book  on  Buddhism  and  the  great  poem  to  which  reference  has 
been  made,  and  you  will  see  how  in  modern  times  there  is  a  wide  departure 
from  the  original  Buddhism  and  Mohammedanism — how  far  they  have 
diverged  from  the  original  plan  of  their  fathers.  And  the  same  is  true  of 
Christianity.  Christ  taught  no  dogmas,  Christ  laid  down  no  system  of 
ceremonialism.  And  yet,  what  do  we  find  in  Christendom?  For  centuries 
His  disciples  engaged  in  the  fiercest  controversy  over  the  question, 
“Whether  His  substance”  (whatever  that  may  be — you  may  know,  I 
don’t)  “was  the  same  substance  of  the  Father  or  only  similar.”  They 
fought  like  tigers  over  the  definition  of  the  very  Prince  of  Peace.  Later  on 
Christendom  was  literally  rent  asunder  over  the  question  of  “  whether  the 
Holy  Ghost  proceeded  from  the  Father  to  the  Son  ”  (whatever  that  may 
mean).  .And  my  own  church,  the  Church  of  England,  has  been,  and  still 
is,  in  danger  of  disruption  from  the  question  of  vestments — and  clothes. 

Now,  these  metaphysical  subtleties,  these  questions  of  millinery,  were 
started  by  theologians.  They  may  be  useful  or  not — that  is  a  matter  of 
opinion — but  they  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  vAth  the  religion  as  religion 
was  understood  by  the  greatest  teachers— the  true  religion  which  the  world 
has  had.  That  is  a  fact  which  all  the  great  religious  teachers  of  the  world 
have  agreed  upon,  that  conduct  was  the  only  thing  needful. 

But  it  may  be  objected  that  a  religion  of  conduct  is  nothing  but  moral¬ 
ity.  Some  people  have  a  great  contempt  for  morality,  and  I  am  not  sur¬ 
prised  at  it.  They  are  accustomed  to  call  men  moral  who  restrain  them¬ 
selves  from  murder  and  manage  just  to  steer  clear  of  the  divorce  court. 
That  kind  of  morality  is  a  contemptible  thing.  That  is  not  real  morality. 
We  should  understand  by  morality  all-around  good  conduct;  conduct  that 
is  governed  only  by  love,  and  in  that  true  sense  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
mere  morality;  in  that  true  sense  morality  involves  religion.  Don’t  mis¬ 
understand  me;  I  am  far  from  denying  the  importance  of  an  explicit  recog¬ 
nition  of  God.  It  is  of  very  great  importance.  It  affords  us  an  explanation, 
a  hopeful  explanation,  of  the  mysteries  of  existence  which  nothing  else  can 
supply. 

But  explicit  recognition  of  God  is  not  the  beginning  of  religion.  That 
is  not  the  first  which  is  spiritual,  but  that  which  is  natural,  and  afterward 
that  which  is  spiritual.  “If  a  man  love  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath 
seen  how  can  he  love  God  whom  he  hath  not  seen?”  Nor  is  an  explicit 
recognition  of  God  the  essence  of  religion.  Who  shall  define  essence  of 
religion?  If  a  man  say  that  he  loves  God  and  hateth  his  brother,  he  is  a 
liar.  It  is  by  love  of  man  alone  that  religion  can  be  manifested.  The  love 
of  man  is  the  essence  of  religion.  Religion  may  be  lacking  in  metaphysical 
com|jieteness;  it  may  be  lacking  in  original  consistency;  it  may  be  lacking 
in  msthetical  development;  it  may  be  lacking  in  almost  everything,  yet  if 
lacking  in  brotherly  love  it  would  lie  mockery  and  a  sham. 

The  essential  thing  is  in  right  conduct,  therefore  it  follows  that  there 
must  be  implicit  recognition  of  God.  I  tell  you  there  is  a  strange  surj)riso 
awaiting  some  of  us  in  the  great  hereafter.  We  shall  discover  that  many 


G28 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


so-called  atheists  are,  after  all,  more  religious  than  ourselves.  He  who 
worships,  though  he  know  it  not,  peace  be  on  the  intention  of  his  thought, 
devout  beyond  the  meaning  of  his  will.  The  whole  thing  has  been 
summed  up  once  and  forever  in  Leigh  Hunt’s  beautiful  story  of  “Abou 
Ben  Adhem.” 


INTERNATIONAL  ARBITRATION. 

THOMAS  J.  SEMMES  OF  LOUISIANA. 

During  six  and  a  half  centuries,  from  Numa  to  Augustus,  the  temple  of 
Janus  was  closed  only  six  years.  Roman  civilization  is  characterized  by  a 
disdain  of  human  life,  until  it  became  a  sanguinary  thirst.  It  was  for  them 
a  joy  to  cause  the  death  of  others.  Hence  their  hatred  to  the  Christian 
religion,  although  so  inditferent  to  all  religions;  the  manner  in  which  the 
Christians  regarded  things,  human  and  divine,  was  essentially  opposed  to 
the  Roman  view  and  insjhred  a  profound  antipathy.  It  is  no  doubt  true 
that  in  proportion  as  the  intellectual  faculties  develop,  men  learn  to  appre 
ciate  their  superiority  over  the  material  element.  But  intellectual  develop¬ 
ment  of  itself  does  not  weaken  the  influence  of  the  body  on  the  soul;  it  only 
impresses  on  the  passions  more  refined  tendencies.  It  stimulates  gener¬ 
ous  emotions,  such  as  the  love  of  glory  and  patriotism ;  it  excites  in  the  ego¬ 
tist  the  thirst  for  riches  and  honors.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  military 
spirit  is  manifested  even  in  an  advanced  state  of  civilization;  the  worship 
of  force  is  established  under  the  name  of  glory  or  patriotism.  These  are 
only  names  for  Jupiter  and  Hercules — the  object  of  the  worship  is  the 
same. 

In  the  beginning  of  Roman  domination  international  law  had  really  no 
existence,  the  Roman  world  was  in  fact  a  federation  of  peoples,  under  the 
same  ruler  as  sovereign  arbitrator;  the  allies  and  confederates  of  Rome 
were  subjects  who  preserved  the  appearance  of  liberty.  This  union  of 
states  did  not  resemble  the  society  of  free  and  equal  states,  like  that  of 
modern  times;  it  was  a  society  of  states,  equally  subject  to  Roman  power, 
though  the  forms  of  subjection  were  different.  At  a  later  period  appear¬ 
ances  were  abandoned;  the  territories  of  allies,  confederates,  and  kings  were 
divided  into  Roman  provinces,  subject  to  the  imperial  power.  Then  came 
Christ,  who,  uniting  in  His  person,  God  and  man,  revealed  to  the  world  the 
doctrine  of  charity  and  the  liberty  of  man. 

The  church  alone,  in  the  midst  of  this  world  of  deso’ation,  was  com¬ 
pletely  and  powerfully  organized.  The  various  states  conscious  of  their 
weakness,  voluntarily  sought  pontifical  interventions  until  the  pontifical 
tribunal  became  the  resort  of  peoples  and  princes  for  the  settlement  of 
their  controversies  on  principles  of  equity  and  justice.  The  oldest  treaty 
now  on  record  made  by  an  English  king  with  a  foreign  power  was  arranged 
by  Pope  John  XV.,  A.  D.  1002,  and  drawn  up  in  his  name.  In  1298  Boni- 
f;ice  VIII.  acted  as  arbitrator  between  Phil  Bel  and  Edward  I. 

Since  the  French  revolution  the  condition  of  society  has  changed; 
slavery  has  been  abolished  throughout  Christendom;  the  liberty  as  well  as 
the  equal  spiritual  value  of  all  men  is  established;  the  dignity  of  labor  is 
recognized,  and  a  new  society,  commercial  and  industrial,  has  been  born, 
which  teaches  that  the  earth  is  only  fertilized  by  the  dews  of  sweat,  that 
work  is  not  a  malediction,  but  a  rehabilitation;  that  the  earth  is  only  truly 
cursed  by  Cain,  to  whom  “God  said  she  shall  refuse  her  fruits  to  thy 
labor.” 

This  society,  notwithstanding  the  philosophies  of  the  age,  is  funda¬ 
mentally  Christian,  not  Pagan,  for  Paganism  defied  force,  duty,  pleasure, 
and  it  believed  the  unfortunate  deserved  the  anger  of  God.  This  society 


INTEtiNATlONAL  ARBITRATION. 


m 

believed  that  Jesus  came  to  solve  the  problem  of  the  misery  of  the  poor, 
and  wished  to  solve  it  by  voluntary  poverty  and  the  rehabilitation  of  labor. 

With  treaties  of  arbitration  commences  the  judicial  status  of  nations, 
and  statesmen  think  that  international  wars  will  disappear  before  the  arbi¬ 
tration  tribunal — before  a  more  advanced  civilization.  In  1883  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  voted  in  favor  of  inserting  in  our  treaties  an  arbitra¬ 
tion  clause,  the  arbitrators  to  consist  of  eminent  juris  consults  not  engaged 
in  politics.  President  Grant,  in  his  message  to  Congress  in  1873,  mystically 
said:  “I  am  disposed  to  believe  that  the  Author  of  the  Universe  is  prepar¬ 
ing  the  world  to  become  a  single  nation,  speaking  the  same  language,  which 
will  hereafter  render  armies  and  navies  superfluous.”  In  1874  Congress,  by 
a  joint  resolution,  declared  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  recommend 
that  an  arbitrafion  tribunal  be  constituted  in  place  of  war,  and  the  Presi¬ 
dent  was  authorized  to  open  negotiations  for  the  establishment  of  a  system 
of  international  rules  for  the  settlement  of  controversies  without  resort  to 
war.  In  December,  1882,  President  Arthur  announced  in  his  message  to 
Congress  that  he  was  ready  to  participate  in  any  measure  tending  “to  guar¬ 
antee  peace  on  earth.”  The  United  States,  in  many  instances,  has  added 
example  to  precept.  During  the  present  century  the  United  States,  since 
1818,  has  settled  by  arbitration  all  of  its  controversies  with  foreign  nations. 
The  differences  with  England  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  treaty  of 
Ghent  were  amicably  settled. 

The  Bering  Sea  controversy  with  England,  settled  a  few  weeks  ago  by 
arbitration  in  Paris,  brings  to  the  mind  the  interesting  fact  that  during  the 
century  from  1793  to  1893  there  have  been  fifty-eight  international  arbitra¬ 
tions,  and  the  advance  of  public  opinion  toward  that  mode  of  settling 
national  controversies  may  be  measured  by  the  gradual  increase  of  arbitra¬ 
tions  during  the  course  of  the  century.  Prom  1793  to  1848,  a  period  of  fifty- 
five  years,  there  were  nine  arbitrations;  there  were  fifteen  from  1848  to  1870, 
a  period  of  twenty-two  years;  there  were  fourteen  from  1870  to  1880,  and 
twenty  from  1880  to  1893.  The  United  States  and  other  American  states 
were  interested  in  thirteen  of  these  arbitrations,  the  United  States,  other 
American  states,  and  European  nations  were  interested  in  twenty-three. 
Asiatic  and  African  states  were  interested  in  three,  and  European  nations 
only  were  interested  in  eighteen. 

The  most  celebrated,  the  most  delicate,  and  the  most  difficult  arbitration 
of  the  century,  is  that  which  at  Geneva  adjudicated  the  claims  of  the 
United  States  against  Great  Britain,  for  non-conformance  of  its  duty  as  a 
neutral  during  the  late  Civil  War.  The  most  interesting  arbitration  of  the 
century  was  that  in  which  the  highest  representative  of  moral  force  in  the 
world  was  accepted  in  1885  by  the  apologist  of  material  force  to  mediate 
between  Germany  and  Spain.  Leo  XIII.  revived  the  role  of  the  Popes  in 
the  middle  ages.  The  sensibilities  of  both  nations  had  been  intensely 
excited  by  events  at  the  Carolines  and  at  Madrid;  under  these  circum¬ 
stances  the  acceptance  of  mediation  by  Spanish  pride  and  German  pride 
forces  us  to  acknowledge,  says  Frederick  Papy,  “that  the  spirit  of  peace 
has  made  progress  in  the  public  conscience  and  in  the  intelligence  of  govern¬ 
ments.” 

Peace  leagues  and  international  conferences,  and  associations  for  the 
advancement  of  social  science,  have  for  over  thirty  years  endeavored  to 
elaborate  an  international  code  with  organized  arbitration.  The  French 
opened  to  the  world  the  Suez  Canal  by  an  analagous  phenomenon.  Laborers 
group  themselves  into  unions  and  hold  their  international  congresses,  and 
substitute  the  patriotism  of  class  for  the  patriotism  of  peoples  and  form,  as 
it  were,  a  state  in  the  midst  of  nations.  They  see  what  science  has 
accomplished;  that  its  instruments,  like  weavers’  shuttles,  weave  the  bond 
of  friendshix)  between  the  nations;  its  vessels  and  its  railways  transport 
with  extraordinary  velocity  men  and  merchandise  from  one  extremity  of 


630 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  earth  to  the  other;  its  wires,  transmitting  human  speech,  bind  together 
cities  and  villages;  its  explorers  renew  geography  and  open  new  continents 
to  the  activity  and  ambition  of  the  older  nations.  This  economical  soli¬ 
darity  suggests  success  in  formulating  some  plan  for  reorganizing  a  perma¬ 
nent  judicial  tribunal  of  arbitration. 

No  one  wishes  to  consolidate  all  nations  into  one  and  establish  a 
universal  empire,  the  ideal  state  of  the  humanitarians;  for  nations  are 
moral  persons  and  are  part  of  humanity,  and,  as  such,  they  assume 
reciprocal  obligations  which  constitute  national  right.  A  nation  is  an 
organism,  created  by  language,  by  tradition,  by  history,  and  the  will  of 
those  who  compose  it,  hence  all  countries  are  equal  and  have  an  equal 
right  to  inviolability.  There  may  be  some  countrieslof  large  and  some  of 
small  territories,  but  these  are  not  large  or  small  countries,  because  as 
nations  they  are  equal  and  each  one  is  the  work  of  man  which  man  should 
respect.  The  existence  of  these  organisms  is  necessary  to  the  welfare  of 
mankind. 

The  obstacles  to  an  international  code  are  not  insurmountable,  but  the 
assent  of  nations  to  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  tribunal  of  arbitra¬ 
tion  depends  upon  the  practicability  of  so  organizing  it  as  to  secure 
impartiality.  Many  suggestions  have  been  made  by  the  wise  and  the  learned, 
by  philosophers,  statesmen,  and  philanthropists,  but  none  seem  to  be 
free  from  objection.  In  despair  the  eyes  of  some  are  fixed  on  the  Pope. 
David  Urquard,  a  Protestant  English  diplomat,  in  1869,  made  an  eloquent 
appeal  to  Pius  IX.  Jules  La  Cointa,  a  jurist  of  high  authority,  in  his 
introduction  to  the  recent  work  of  Count  Kamarowski,  entitled  “The 
International  Tribunal,”  makes  an  interesting  quotation  from  the  Specta¬ 
tor  and  English  Revieic,  in  which  the  writer  says: 

Humanity  is  in  search  of  an  arbitrator  whose  impartiality  is  indisputable.  In 
many  respects  the  Pope  is  by  position  designed  for  this  office.  He  occupies  a 
rank  which  permits  monaichs  as  well  as  republics  to  have  recourse  to  him  with¬ 
out  sacrifice  of  dignity.  As  a  consequence  of  his  mission  the  Pope  is  not  only 
impartial  between  all  nations,  but  he  is  at  such  a  degree  of  elevation  that  their 
differences  are  imperceptible  to  him.  The  difficulty  about  religion  is  becoming 
weaker  every  day.  No  country  can  have  stronger  prejudices  on  this  subjectthan 
Germany,  yet  Prince  Bismarck  has  consented  to  ai>ply  to  the  head  of  the  Roman 
Church.  Evidently  the  Carolines  are  of  little  importance  to  Prince  Bismarck, 
but  that  the  fact  that  the  most  liaughty  statesman  of  Europe  recognizes,  in 
the  face  of  the  world,  that  he  can  without  loss  of  dignity  submithis  conduct  in  an 
international  affair  to  the  judgment  of  the  Pope,  is  an  extr  aoi-dinary  proof  that 
the  Pope  still  occupies  an  exceptional  position  in  our  skeptical  modern  world. 

Why  should  not  the  exceptional  i)Osition  of  the  Pope  be  utilized  by 
the  nations  of  the  world?  He  is  the  highest  representative  of  moral 
force  on  earth;  over  200,000,000  of  Christians  scattered  throughout  all 
nations  stand  at  his  back,  with  a  moral  power  which  no  other  human 
being  can  command;  no  longer  a  temporal  sovereign,  the  ambition  of  hegem¬ 
ony  can  not  affect  his  judgment,  religion  and  state  are  practically  disas¬ 
sociated  throughout  Christendom,  so  that  in  matters  of  religion  all  are  free 
to  follow  the  dictates  of  conscience  without  fear  of  the  civil  power,  and 
therefore  political  motives  can  not  disturb  his  equilibrium;  provision  could 
be  made  for  the  exceptional  controversies  to  which  his  native  country 
might  be  a  party. 

The  Pope,  if  selected  at  all,  would  exert  the  authority  thus  vested  in 
him  by  virtue  of  the  assent  of  nations,  and  the  nature  of  the  authority 
would  be  civil,  the  exercise  of  which  would  commit  no  one  to  hopeless 
supremacy  or  to  ecclesiastical  doctrines  based  on  it.  Indeed,  to  avoid  all 
religious  objections,  the  exceptional  position  of  the  Pope  might  perhaps  be 
better  used,  not  to  decide  controversies,  but  to  select  arbitrators,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  for  that  purpose,  under  regulations  to  be  prescribed  by 
treaty. 

What  a  blessing  to  the  world  would  be  the  adoption  of  some  plan  of  arbi¬ 
tration,  what  a  relief  especially  to  Europe!  The  Paris  Figaro,  in  speaking  of 


RELIGION  AND  THE  AMERICAN  NEGRO. 


631 


European  armaments,  about  a  month  ago,  said:  “  In  1870  Europe  devoted 
annually  for  jneparations  tor  war  the  sum  of  about  three  millards;  at  pres¬ 
ent  the  annual  expenditure  for  the  same  purpose  is  five  millards.  In  1870 
Europe  kept  on  a  peace  footing  a  little  more  than  2,000,000  men;  to-day 
she  keeps  a  little  more  than  3,500,000  men.  In  1870  Europe  estimated  that 
in  case  of  war  she  could  place  in  line  as  a  supreme  effort  about  7,000,000 
men;  to-day  she  could  have  12,500,000,  and  her  legislation  tends  to  carry 
that  number  to 22,000,000.” 

“  The  ogre  of  war,”  says  Bastiat,  “  devours  as  much  for  its  digestions 
as  it  does  for  its  repasts.”  Two-thirds  or  three-fourths  of  the  budget  of 
each  nation  are  devoted  to  the  work  of  death.  Personal  and  obligatory 
service  have  modified  the  conditions  of  war.  “All  the  peoples,”  says  Jules 
Simon,  “  employ  all  their  money  to  prejjare  all  their  men  for  a  war  which 
all  the  peoples  dread  and  all  the  men  abhor.”  Nations  are  no  longer 
behind  their  armies,  they  are  the  armies  themselves.  A  general  mobiliza¬ 
tion  embraces  the  entire  available  population;  only  the  men  over  forty-five 
years  of  age  and  the  women  and  children  are  not  enrolled  in  the  regiments; 
civil  and  social  life  are  suspended.  Science  perfects  tactics  and  armament; 
she  is  mistress  of  war  and  changes  from  hour  to  hour  its  implements,  its 
methods,  and  its  dimensions.  “War,”  as  was  said  by  the  King  of  the  Bel¬ 
gians  in  1887,  “  has  become  terrible,  and  those  whom  it  takes  by  surprise 
are  lost.” 

In  the  next  war,  armies  will  not  be  confronted,  but  nations,  and  the  con¬ 
querors,  exhausted  by  their  victories,  will  contrive  to  forever  extinguish  in 
the  conquered  the  idea  of  revenge,  hence  Europe  hesitates  at  the  perspec¬ 
tive  of  this  supreme  shock,  and  in  the  year  1891  one  of  Italy’s  statesmen, 
in  a  public  discourse,  gave  warning  to  his  countrymen  that  the  certainty 
of  victory  and  the  certainty  of  acquiring  glory  would  not  compensate  for 
the  infinite  injury  of  the  disastrous  conflict. 


WHAT  CAN  RELIGION  FURTHER  DO  TO  ADVANCE 
THE  CONDITION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  NEGRO? 

MRS.  FANNIE  BARRIER  WILLIAMS. 

Mrs.  Fannie  Barrier  Williams  of  Chicago  was  introduced 

to  the  audience  by  Bev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  who  said: 

The  president  has  accorded  me  the  privilege  of  presenting  to  you  the 
next  speaker,  my  friend,  helper,  and  parishioner;  one  whose  heart  is  in  sym¬ 
pathy  with  all  that  is  helpful.  In  this  city  the  Providence  Crandall  Club 
has  been  a  force  that  has  done  much.  I  was  almost  on  the  point  of  saying 
it  has  done  more  toward  breaking  down  color  lines  on  the  levels  of  culture 
and  refinement  than  any  other  force  I  know  of,  and  the  speaker  whom 
I  am  now  about  to  present  has  been  one  of  the  vital  forces  in  that  club,  and 
I  still  hope  that  it  will  not  be  many  months  before  Providence  Crandall  will 
be  i^resented  to  the  younger  American  people  in  her  true  light,  and  be  no 
longer  a  forgotten  heroine  in  the  great  cause  of  emancipation.  When  the 
American  peoples  recognize  in  Providence  Crandall  what  she  is,  the  great 
pioneer  in  the  cause  of  equal  rights,  it  will  be  because  Fannie  Williams 
will  have  adequately  written  her  biography,  upon  which  she  is  now  at  work. 

Mrs.  Williams  said: 

The  strength  and  weakness  of  the  Christian  religion  as  believed, 
preached,  and  practiced  in  the  United  States,  is  aptly  illustrated  in  its 
influence  as  a  civilizing  and  educational  force  among  the  colored  people  of 


632 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


this  country.  The  negro  was  brought  to  this  country  by  Christians  for 
the  use  of  Christians,  and  he  has  ever  since  been  treated,  estimated,  and 
gauged  by  what  are  called  Christian  ideas  of  right  and  wrong. 

The  negro  has  been  in  America  so  long  and  has  been  so  completely 
isolated  from  everything  that  is  foreign  to  American  notions  as  to  what  is 
compatible  with  Christianity  that  he  may  be  fittingly  said  to  be  entirely  the 
product  of  Christian  influences.  The  vices  and  virtues  of  the  American 
negro  are  the  same  in  kind  and  degree  as  those  of  the  men  and  women 
from  whom  he  has  been  learning,  by  precept  and  example,  all  that  he 
knows  of  God  and  humanity.  The  fetiches  and  crudities  of  the  dark  con¬ 
tinent  have  long  since  ceased  to  be  a  part  of  his  life  and  character.  He  is 
by  every  mark,  impulse,  and  asiiiration  an  American  Christian,  and  to  the 
American  church  belong  the  credit  and  responsibility  of  all  that  he  is  and 
is  to  1)8  as  a  man  and  citizen  of  this  Republic. 

Religion,  like  every  other  force  in  America,  was  first  used  as  an  instru¬ 
ment  and  servant  of  slavery.  All  attempts  to  christianize  the  negro  were 
limited  by  the  important  fact  that  he  was  property  of  a  valuable  and 
Iieculiar  sort,  and  that  the  property  value  must'  not  be  disturbed,  even  if 
his  soul  were  lost.  If  Christianity  could  make  the  negro  docile,  domestic, 
and  less  an  independent  and  fighting  savage,  let  it  be  preached  to  that 
extent  and  no  further.  Do  not  open  the  Bible  too  wide. 

Such  was  the  false,  pernicious,  and  demoralizing  gospel  preached  to  the 
American  slave  for  two  hundred  years.  But,  bad  as  this  teaching  was,  it 
was  scarcely  so  demoralizing  as  the  Christian  ideals  held  up  for  the  negro's 
emulation.  When  mothers  saw  their  babes  sold  by  Christians  on  the 
auction  block  in  order  to  raise  money  to  send  missionaries  to  foreign  lands; 
when  black  Christians  saw  white  Christians  openly  do  everything  forbidden 
in  the  Decalogue;  when,  indeed,  they  saw,  as  no  one  else  could  see,  hypocrisy 
in  all  things  triumphant  everywhere,  is  it  not  remarkable  if  such  people 
have  any  religious  sense  of  the  purities  of  Christianity?  People  who  are 
impatient  of  the  moral  progress  of  the  colored  people  certainly  are  igno¬ 
rant  as  to  how  far  false  teachings  and  vicious  examples  tended  to  dull  the 
moral  senses  of  the  race. 

As  it  is,  there  is  much  to  be  unlearned  as  well  as  to  be  learned.  That 
there  is  something  higher  and  better  in  the  Christian  religion  than  rewards 
and  punishments  is  a  new  lesson  to  thousands  of  colored  people  who  are 
still  worshiping  under  the  old  dispensation  of  the  slave  Bible.  But  it  is 
not  any  easy  task  to  unlearn  religious  conceptions.  “Servants  obey  your 
masters”  was  preached  and  enforced  by  all  the  cruel  instrumentalities  of 
slavery,  and  by  its  influence  the  colored  people  were  made  the  most  valued 
slaves  in  the  world.  The  people  who  in  Africa  resisted  with  terrible 
courage  all  invasions  of  the  white  races,  became,  through  Christianity,  the 
most  docile  and  defenseless  of  servants. 

Knowing  full  well  that  the  religion  offered  to  the  negro  was  first  stripped 
of  moral  instructions  and  suggestions,  there  are  thousands  of  white  church 
members  even  who  charge  or  are  ready  to  believe  that  the  colored  people 
are  a  race  of  moral  reprobates.  Fortunately  the  negro's  career  in  America 
is  radiant  with  evidence  showing  that  he  has  always  known  the  difference 
between  courage  and  lawlessness  of  all  forms,  and  anarchy  in  this  country 
is  not  of  negro  origin  nor  a  part  of  his  history. 

There  was  a  notable  period  in  the  history  of  this  country  when  the 
moral  force  of  the  negro  character  was  tested  to  an  extraordinary  extent 
and  he  was  not  found  wanting.  When  the  country  was  torn  asunder  by 
the  passions  of  Civil  War  and  everybody  thirsted  for  blood  and  revenge  in 
every  violent  form,  when  to  ravage  and  to  kill  was  the  all-controlling  pas¬ 
sion  of  the  hour,  the  negro’s  opportunity  for  retribution  was  ripe  and  at 
hand. 

The  men  who  degraded  the  race  and  were  risking  everything  to  continue 


RELIGION  AND  THE  AMERICAN  NEGRO. 


G33 


that  degradation,  left  their  widows,  their  daughters,  their  mothers,  wealth, 
and  all  the  precious  interests  of  home  in  the  keeping  of  a  race  who  had 
received  no  lessons  of  moral  restraint.  It  seems  but  tame  to  say  that  the 
negro  race  was  loyal  to  that  trust  and  responsibility.  Nowhere  in  Christen¬ 
dom  has  such  nobleness  of  heart  and  moral  fortitude  been  exampled  among 
any  people,  and  a  recollection  of  the  negro's  conduct  under  this  extraordi¬ 
nary  test  should  save  the  race  from  the  charge  of  being  lacking  in  moral 
instincts. 

There  is  yet  another  notable  example  of  the  moral  heroism  of  the  col¬ 
ored  American,  in  spite  of  his  lack  of  real  religious  instruction.  The  Afri¬ 
can  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  with  its  million  members,  vast  property 
in  churches,  schools,  academies,  publications,  and  learned  men  and  women,  is 
an  enduring  monument  to  the  righteous  jjrotest  of  Christians  to  establish 
the  mean  sentiment  of  caste  in  religion  and  degrade  us  to  a  footstool  posi¬ 
tion  at  the  shrine  of  Christian  worship.  The  colored  churches  of  all 
denominations  in  this  country  are  not  evidences  of  our  unfitness  for  relig¬ 
ious  equality,  but  they  are  so  many  evidences  of  the  negro’s  religious  hero¬ 
ism  and  self-respect,  that  would  not  brook  the  canting  assertion  of  mastery 
and  superiority  of  those  who  could  see  the  negro  only  as  a  slave,  whether 
on  earth  or  in  heaven. 

There  is  another  and  brighter  side  to  the  question  as  to  how  far  the 
Christian  religion  has  helped  the  colored  people  of  America  to  realize  their 
positions  as  citizens  of  this  proud  Republic.  Enough  has  already  been  said 
to  show  that  the  colored  American,  in  spite  of  all  the  downward  forces  that 
have  environed  him,  must  have  been  susceptible  to  the  higher  influences 
of  the  false  teachings  thereof.  Though  the  Bible  was  not  an  open  book 
to  the  negro  before  emancipation,  thousands  of  the  enslaved  men  and 
women  of  the  negro  race  learned  more  than  was  taught  to  them.  Thou¬ 
sands  of  them  realized  the  deeper  meanings,  the  sweeter  consolations,  and 
the  spiritual  awakenings  that  are  a  part  of  the  religious  experiences  of  all 
Christians.  These  thousands  were  the  nucleus  out  of  which  was  to  grow 
the  correct  religious  life  of  the  millions. 

In  justification  of  the  church  it  must  be  said  that  there  has  always 
been  a  goodly  number  of  heroic  men  and  saintly  women  who  believed  in 
the  manhood  and  womanhoo  I  of  the  negro  race,  and  at  all  times  gave  the 
benefit  of  the  best  religious  teachings  of  the  times.  The  colored  people 
gladly  acknowledge  that,  since  emancipation,  the  churches  of  the  country 
have  almost  redeemed  themselves  from  their  former  sin  of  complicity  with 
slavery. 

The  churches  saw  these  people  come  into  the  domain  of  citizenship 
stripped  of  all  possessions,  unfurnished  with  intelligence,  untrained  in  the 
school  of  self-sacrifice  and  moral  restraint,  with  no  way  out  of  the  wilder¬ 
ness  of  their  ignorance  of  all  things,  and  no  leadership.  They  saw  these 
people  with  no  home  or  household  organizations,  no  social  order,  no 
churches,  no  schools,  and  in  the  midst  of  people  who,  by  training  and 
instinct,  could  not  recognize  the  manhood  of  the  race.  They  saw  the  gov¬ 
ernment  give  these  people  the  certificate  of  freedom  and  citizenship  with¬ 
out  telling  them  what  it  meant.  They  saw  politicians  count  these  people 
as  so  many  votes  and  laughed  at  them  when  pleading  for  schools  of  learn¬ 
ing  for  their  children. 

They  saw  all  the  great  business  and  industrial  organizations  of  the 
country  ignoring  these  people  as  having  any  possible  relationship  to  the 
producing  and  consuming  forces  of  the  nation.  They  saw  the  whole  white 
population  looking  with  distrust  and  contempt  upon  these  men  and  women, 
new  and  untried  in  the  responsibilities  of  civil  life.  While  the  colored  people 
of  America  were  thus  friendless  and  without  status  of  any  kind,  the  Chris¬ 
tian  churches  came  instantly,  heroically,  and  powerfully  to  the  rescue. 
They  began  at  once  not  only  to  create  a  sentiment  favorable  to  the  uprising 


G31 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  these  people,  but  began  the  all-important  work  of  building  schools 
and  churches. 

They  aroused  the  philanthropic  impulse  of  the  American  people  to  such 
a  degree  that  millions  of  money  and  an  army  of  men  and  women  have  cov¬ 
ered  the  hills  of  the  South  with  agencies  of  regeneration  of  the  white  and 
black  slaves  of  the  South.  The  churches  have  vied  with  each  other  in 
their  zeal  for  good  work  in  spreading  the  gospel  of  intelligence.  Going 
into  States  that  knew  nothing  of  public-school  systems,  they  have  created 
a  passion  for  education  among  both  races.  States  that  have  been  hostile 
to  the  idea  of  universal  intelligence,  and  that  at  one  time  made  it  a  crim¬ 
inal  offense  to  teach  black  men  and  women  to  read  and  write,  have,  under 
the  blessed  influence  of  the  missionary  work  of  the  churches,  been  wonder¬ 
fully  converted,  and  are  now  making  appropriations  for  the  education  of 
colored  children  and  founding  and  maintaining  institutions  that  rank  as 
normal  schools,  colleges,  and  industrial  schools. 

Whatever  may  be  our  just  grievances  in  the  Southern  States,  it  is  fitting 
that  we  acknowledge  that,  considering  their  poverty  and  past  relationship 
to  the  negro  race,  they  have  done  remarkably  well  for  the  cause  of  educa¬ 
tion  among  us.  That  the  whole  South  should  commit  itself  to  the  principle 
that  the  colored  people  have  a  right  to  be  educated  is  an  immense  acquisi¬ 
tion  to  the  cause  of  jjopular  education. 

We  are  grateful  to  the  American  church  for  this  significant  change  of 
sentiment,  as  we  are  grateful  to  it' for  making  our  cause  and  needs  jjopular 
at  the  fireside  of  thousands  of  the  best  homes  in  the  country.  The  moral 
force  that  vouched  for  the  expenditure  of  nearly  $40,000,000,  voluntarily 
given  for  educational  and  church  work  in  the  South  during  the  last 
twenty -five  years,  is  splendid  testimony  of  the  interest  felt  by  the  American 
people  in  the  cause  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  development  of  the  negro 
race.  Bearing  in  mind  all  this  good  work  done  by  the  churches  since  eman¬ 
cipation,  it  is  proper  to  ask.  What  can  religion  further  do  for  the  colored 
people?  This  question  is  itself  significant  of  the  important  fact  that 
colored  people  are  beginning  to  think  for  themselves  and  to  feel  restive  and 
conscious  of  every  limitation  to  their  development. 

At  the  risk  of  underestimating  church  work  in  the  South  I  must  say 
that  religion  in  its  more  blessed  influences,  in  its  wider  and  higher  reaches 
of  good  in  humanity,  has  made  less  progress  in  refining  the  life  and  char¬ 
acter  of  the  white  and  colored  people  of  the  South  than  the  activity  of  the 
church  interests  of  the  South  would  warrant  us  in  believing.  That  there  is 
more  profession  than  religion,  more  so-called  church  work  than  religious 
zeal,  is  characteristic  of  the  American  people  generally  and  of  the  Southern 
people  particularly. 

More  religion  and  less  church  may  be  accepted  as  a  genercal  ansv/er  to 
the  question.  What  can  religion  further  do  to  advance  the  condition  of 
the  colored  i)eople  of  the  South?  It  is  not  difficult  to  specify  wherein 
church  i'lterests  have  failed  and  wherein  religion  could  have  helped  to 
improve  these  people.  In  the  first  place  the  churches  have  sent  among  us 
too  many  ministers  who  have  had  no  sort  of  preparation  and  fitness  for  the 
work  assigned  them.  With  a  due  regard  for  the  highly  capable  colored 
ministers  of  the  country,  I  feel  no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  the  advance¬ 
ment  of  our  condition  is  more  hindered  by  a  large  part  of  the  ministry 
intrusted  with  leadership  than  by  any  other  single  cause. 

Only  men  of  moral  mental  force,  of  a  patriotic  regard  for  the  relation¬ 
ship  of  the  two  races,  can  be  of  real  service  as. ministers  in  the  South. 
Less  theology  and  more  of  human  brotherhood,  less  declamation  and  more 
common  sense  and  love  for  truth,  must  be  the  qualifications  of  the  new 
ministry  that  shall  yet  save  the  race  from  the  evils  of  false  teachings. 
With  this  new  and  better  ministry  will  come  the  reign  of  that  religion 
which  ministers  to  the  heart  and  gives  to  all  our  soul  functions  an  impulse 


RELIGION  AND  THE  AMERICAN  NEGRO. 


(535 


to  righteousness.  The  tendency  of  creeds  and  doctrine  to  obscure 
religion,  to  make  complex  that  which  is  elemental  and  simple,  to  suggest 
partisanship  and  doubt  in  that  which  is  universal  and  certain,  has  seriously 
hindered  the  moral  progress  of  the  colored  people  of  this  country. 

The  home  and  social  life  of  these  people  is  in  urgent  need  of  the  purify¬ 
ing  power  of  religion.  We  do  not  yet  sufficiently  appreciate  the  fact  that 
the  heart  of  every  social  evil  and  disorder  among  the  colored  people,  espe¬ 
cially  of  the  rural  South,  is  the  lack  of  those  inherent  moral  potencies 
of  home  and  family  that  are  the  well-springs  of  all  the  good  in  human 
society. 

In  nothing  was  slavery  so  savage  and  so  relentless  as  in  its  attempted 
destruction  of  the  family  instincts  of  the  negro  race  in  America.  Individ¬ 
uals,  not  families;  shelters,  not  home;  herding,  not  marriages;  were  the 
cardinal  sins  in  that  system  of  horrors  Who  can  ever  express  in  song  or 
story  the  pathetic  history  of  this  race  of  unfortunate  people  when  freedom 
came,  groping  about  for  their  scattered  offspring  with  only  instinct  to 
guide  them,  trying  to  knit  together  the  broken  ties  of  family  kinship?  It 
was  right  at  this  i3oint  of  rehabilitation  of  the  home-life  of  these  people 
that  the  philanthropic  efforts  of  America  should  have  begun.  It  was  right 
here  that  religion  in  its  humanitarian  tendencies  of  love,  in  its  moral  direc¬ 
tion  and  purifying  force,  was  most  needed,  and  still  is  most  needed.  Every 
preacher  and  every  teacher  in  the  South  will  tell  us  that  x^reaching  from 
the  pulpit  and  teaching  in  the  schoolhouse  are  but  half  done  so  long  as  the 
homes  are  uninstructed  in  that  practical  religion  that  can  make  pure  and 
sacred  every  relationship  it  touches  of  man,  woman,  and  child. 

Religion  should  not  leave  these  x>eopl©  alone  to  learn  from  birds  and 
beasts  those  blessed  meanings  of  marriage,  motherhood,  and  family. 
Religion  should  not  utter  itself  only  once  or  twice  a  week  through  a  minis¬ 
ter  from  a  x)ulpit,  but  should  open  every  cabin  door  and  get  immediate 
contact  with  those  who  have  not  yet  learned  to  translate  into  terms  of  con¬ 
duct  the  promx^tings  of  religion. 

How  ardently  do  we  all  hope  that  the  heart  of  American  womanhood 
will  yet  be  aroused  and  touched  by  this  opportunity  to  elevate  and  broaden 
the  home-life  of  these  unfortunate  women  in  black.  It  ought  never  to  be 
said  that  a  whole  race  of  teachable  women  are  permitted  to  grope  their 
way  unassisted  toward  a  realization  of  those  domestic  virtues,  moral 
impulses,  and  standards  of  family  and  social  life  that  alone  are  badges  to 
responsibility.  There  needs  no  evidence  to  show  that  these  unfortunate 
people  are  readily  susceptible  to  these  higher  and  i^urifying  influences  of 
religion.  Come  from  what  source  they  may,  Jew  or  Gentile,  Protestant  or 
Catholic,  or  from  those  who  profess  no  religion,  but  who  indeed  are  often 
the  most  religious,  the  colored  x^eople  are  eager  to  learn  and  know  those 
lessons  that  make  men  and  women  morally  strong  and  responsible. 

In  pleading  for  some  organized  effort  to  imx)rove  the  home-life  of  these 
people  we  are  asking  for  nodiing  but  what  is  recognized  everywhere  as  the 
necessary  i^rotection  to  the  homes  of  all  civilized  people.  Witness  how 
beautifully  and  grandly  the  women  of  Christendom  are  organized  to  pro¬ 
tect  the  homes  against  the  invasions  of  intemperance.  The  Woman’s 
Christian  Temperance  Union  has  gathered  up  the  religious  imi^ulse  of 
American  womanhood  for  God,  home,  and  native  land.  Again,  to  this 
union  of  pure  hearts  against  the  sin  of  intemperance  is  that  other  union  in 
behalf  of  x^ure  homes — “The  Social  Purity  Society  ”;  in  fact,  good  women 
and  brave  men  continually  stand  guard  at  the  entrance  of  American  homes, 
excexjt  that  of  the  negro.  Our  homes  need  in  a  special  degree  those  moral 
helps,  promptings,  inspirations,  and  protections  that  are  now  and  every¬ 
where  the  necessary  safeguards  even  to  the  homes  of  those  people  who  are 
cultured  in  all  things  spiritual  and  mental. 

There  is  still  another  and  important  need  of  religion  in  behalf  of  our 


636 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


advancement.  In  nothing  do  the  American  people  so  contradict  the  spirit 
of  their  institutions,  the  high  sentiments  of  their  civilization,  and  the 
maxims  of  their  religion  as  they  do  in  denying  to  our  men  and  women  the 
full  rights  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 

The  colored  people  have  apj^ealed  to  every  source  of  power  and  authority 
for  reliefs,  but  in  vain.  For  the  last  twenty-live  years  we  have  gone  to  Legis¬ 
latures,  to  political  parties,  and  even  to  churches  for  some  cure  for  prejudice, 
but  we  have  at  last  learned  that  heljjs  from  these  are  merely  palliative. 
It  is  a  monstrous  thing  that  nearly  one-half  of  the  so-called  evangelical 
churches  of  this  country  repudiate  and  haughtily  deny  fellowship  to  every 
Christian  lady  and  gentleman  happening  to  be  of  African  descent.  It  is  a 
shameful  thing  to  say  of  the  Christian  religion  as  practiced  in  one  part  of 
our  country  that  a  young  colored  man  susceptible  of  spiritual  enlighten¬ 
ment  will  hud  a  readier  welcome  in  a  saloon  or  any  other  place  than  he 
will  in  any  evangelical  church. 

The  fact  is  that  the  heart  of  America  is  fearfully  wrong  in  its  under¬ 
standing  and  sentiment  concerning  the  colored  race.  The  golden  rule  of 
fellowship  taught  in  the  Christian  Bible  becomes  in  practice  the  iron  rule 
of  race  hatred.  That  distinguished  representative  from  Japan  who  startled 
this  parliament  the  other  day  by  arraigning  Christendom  for  its  many 
hypocrisies  must  have  had  in  mind  the  irreligious  conduct  of  white  Ameri¬ 
can  Christians  toward  black  American  Christians. 

The  hope  of  the  negro  and  other  dark  races  in  America  depends  upon 
how  far  the  white  Christians  can  assimilate  their  own  religion.  At  present 
there  seems  to  be  no  ethical  attitude  in  public  opinion  toward  our  colored 
citizens.  White  men  and  women  are  careless  and  meanly  indifferent  about 
the  merits  and  rights  of  colored  men  and  women.  The  white  man  who 
swears  and  the  white  man  who  prays  are  alike  contemptuous  about  the 
claims  of  colored  men. 

In  every  profession,  in  every  trade  and  occupation  of  men  there  is  a 
code  of  ethics  that  governs  the  relationship  and  fosters  the  spirit  of  fra¬ 
ternity  among  its  members.  This  is  the  religious  sense  of  the  people 
applied  to  the  details  of  practical  life.  Yet,  even  these  religious  prompt¬ 
ings  to  deal  rightly  too  often  stop  short  of  reaching  the  man  or  woman  who 
happens  to  be  black.  What  we  need  is  such  a  re-enforcement  of  the  gentle 
power  of  religion  that  all  souls,  of  whatever  color,  shall  be  included  within 
the  blessed  circle  of  its  influence.  The  American  negro  in  his  meager 
environments  needs  the  moral  helpfulness  and  contact  of  men  and  women 
whose  lives  are  larger,  sweeter,  and  stronger  than  his.  It  should  be  the 
mission  of  religion  to  give  him  this  help. 

RABBI  JOSEPH  SILVERMAN. 

E-abbi  Joseph  Silverman  was  introduced  and  spoke  briefly: 

One  of  the  keenest  and  most  injurious  evils  that  can  befall  a  man  or  a 
people  is  to  be  misunderstood — perhaps  worse  to  be  misrepresented.  The 
individual  who  has  experienced  both  knows  the  vital  sufferings  that  were 
his.  To  worship  truth  and  be  accused  of  falsehood;  to  be  religiously  virtu¬ 
ous  and  be  charged  with  vice;  to  aspire  to  heaven  and  by  the  world  be  con¬ 
signed  to  purgatory;  to  be  robbed  of  one’s  identity  and  be  clad  in  the 
garb  of  another  inferior  being;  to  see  one’s  principles  distorted,  every  motive 
questioned;  one’s  words  misquoted,  every  act  misunderstood;  one’s  whole 
life  misrepresented,  and  to  be  a  caricature  in  the  eyes  of  all  men,  without 
the  power  of  redress,  is  to  suffer  all  the  unmitigated  pangs  of  mortification. 

The  very  fact  that  the  Jews  once  formed  a  separate  race,  and  a  distinct 
nation,  and  still  maintain  themselves  as  an  independent  religious  com¬ 
munity,  has  created  prejudices  from  which  have  grown  up  also  many 


RELIGIOUS  MISSION  OF  ENGLISH-SPEAKING  NATIONS.  G37 


errors  regarding  this  people  in  other  directions  than  those  already  men¬ 
tioned. 

Rabbi  Silverman  then  went  on  to  point  out  some  of  the  spe¬ 
cific  errors  which  existed  in  the  popular  mind  concerning  the 
Jews.  He  said  they  were  accused  of  exclusiveness  and  clannish¬ 
ness,  whereas  they  are  the  most  gregarious  and  broadly  social 
— the  only  remnant  of  clannishness  being  that  which  was  com¬ 
pelled  by  the  conduct  of  those  who,  either  purposely  or  igno¬ 
rantly,  persisted  in  thus  misunderstanding  them.  The  Jew 
was  maliciously  represented  as  a  consumer,  as  distinguished 
from  a  producer,  when  by  birthright  he  was  a  tiller  of  the  soil, 
and  had  been  compelled,  through  centuries  of  persecution,  to 
become  a  trafficker  in  moneys  and  gems.  And  noth  withstanding 
the  age  of  the  persecution  the  Jew  was  to-day  found  in  all 
departments  of  agriculture  and  the  mechanical  arts,  while  his 
contributions  to  music  and  art  and  literature  were  notable.  The 
same  character  of  error  concerning  the  Jew  extended  to  his 
religious  faith,  and  this  largely  because  of  the  prevailing  error 
that  the  Jews  crucified  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Rabbi  Silverman 
concluded  his  paper  as  follows: 

We  deplore  and  condemn  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  He  was 
without  doubt  one  of  nature’s  noblemen,  pure  in  sentiment  and  action,  a 
great  leader  and  reformer  of  men,  and  as  such,  fell  a  victim  to  the  fanati¬ 
cism  and  jealous  power  of  Rome.  His  was  the  execution  of  an  innocent 
man. 

When  the  truth  is  once  known  and  the  Jew  is  placed  in  the  right  light 
before  the  world,  we  believe  prejudice  will  be  removed,  errors  corrected,  and 
persecution  will  cease  and  love  prevail. 

We  are  worshiping  the  same  God,  the  creator  and  preserver  of  us  all.  In 
the  words  of  Malachi,  “  Have  we  not  all  one  father?  Has  not  one  God 
created  us  all?  Why  shall  we  deal  unjustly  one  against  the  other?”  May 
truth  prevail,  may  love  reign  supreme.  May  that  brotherhood  of  man  be 
speedily  realized  in  which  there  shall  be  no  distinction  as  to  nationality  or 
creed. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  MISSION  OF  THE  ENGLISH-SPEAK¬ 
ING  NATIONS. 

REV.  HENRY  H.  JESSUP,  D.  D.,  OF  BEIROUT,  SYRIA. 

There  is  a  divine  plan  in  all  human  history.  It  embraces  nations  as 
well  as  individuals,  and  stretches  on  to  the  end  of  time.  Every  nation 
and  people  is  a  part  of  the  plan  of  God,  who  has  set  to  each  its  bounds 
and  its  sphere  of  service  to  God  and  man. 

For  I  doubt  not  through  the  ages  one  increasing  purpose  runs, 

And  the  thoughts  of  men  are  widened  with  the  process  of  the  suns* 


638 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


But  no  nobler  service  has  been  given  to  any  people,  no  nobler  mission 
awaits  any  nation  than  that  which  God  has  given  to  those  who  speak  the 
English  tongue. 

In  1800  the  English-speaking  population  of  the  globe  numbered  24,000,- 
000.  It  now  numbers  not  less  than  108,000,000,  an  increase  of  over  400  per 
cent,  and  it  rules  over  two-fifths  of  the  total  area  of  the  globe.  It  stands 
on  a  vantage  ground  of  influence.  Its  voice  sounds  through  the  nations. 

The  four  elements  which  make  up  its  power  for  good  and  fit  it  to  be  the 
divine  instrument  for  blessing  the  world  are: 

1.  Its  historic  planting  and  training. 

2.  Its  geographical  position. 

3.  Its  physical  and  political  traits. 

4.  Its  moral  and  religious  character;  which,  combined,  constitute: 

5.  Its  divine  call  and  opportunity,  and  result  in  its  religious  mission,  its  duty 
and  responsibility. 

1.  The  historic  planting  and  training.  In  the  beginning  of  the  7th 
century  the  Saxon  race  in  Britain  embraced  the  religion  of  Christ.  From 
that  time  through  nine  centuries  the  hand  of  God  was  training,  leading, 
disciplining,  and  developing  that  sturdy  Northern  race  until  the  hidden 
torch  of  truth  was  wrested  from  its  hiding-place  by  Luther,  and  held  aloft 
for  the  enlightenment  of  mankind  just  at  the  time  when  Columbus  dis¬ 
covered  the  continent  of  America,  and  opened  the  new  and  final  area  for 
the  activity  and  highest  development  of  man. 

2.  The  geographical  position.  A  map  of  the  world,  with  North  Amer¬ 
ica  in  the  center,  shows  at  a  glance  the  vantage  ground,  the  strategic  posi 
tion  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  Their  vast  seacoast,  the 
ianumerable  harbors  facingi  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  the  mari¬ 
time  instincts  of  the  two  nations,  their  invigorating  climate,  matchless 
resources,  world- wide  commerce,  facilities  for  exploration  and  travel,  and 
Ijeculiar  adaptation  to  permanent  colonization  in  remote  countries,  give 
these  people  the  control  of  the  world’s  future,  and  the  key  to  its  moral  and 
ethnical  problems. 

While  no  other  European  race  has  succeeded  in  planting  successful  col¬ 
onies  and  keeping  them  unmixed  with  the  blood  and  the  vices  of  inferior 
races,  the  Anglo-Saxons  have  transplanted  the  vigor  of  the  original  stock 
to  the  temperate  climates  of  North  America,  South  Africa,  and  Australia. 

These  great  nations  are  permeated  with  the  principles  of  the  Bible ; 
their  poetry,  history,  science,  and  philosophy  are  moral,  pure,  religioi^s ; 
they  are  founded  on  a  belief  in  the  divine  existence  and  Providence,  and  in 
final  retribution;  in  the  sanctions  of  law,  and  in  the  supremacy  of  con¬ 
science;  in  man’s  responsibility  to  God,  and  the  ruler’s  responsibility  to  the 
people;  in  the  purity  of  the  family,  the  honor  of  woman,  and  the  sanctity 
of  home;  in  the  obligation  to  treat  all  men — white,  black,  and  tawny — as 
brothers  made  in  the  image  of  God.  Such  principles  as  these  are  destined 
to  mould  and  control  all  mankind.  The  United  States  are  impressing  deeply 
the  semi-Latin  populations  of  South  America,  and  England  and  America 
are  affecting  France. 

A  sincere  religious  spirit,  a  God-fearing  integrity,  will  mould  a  nation 
only  in  one  way,  and  the  upward,  God  ward  growth  of  such  a  people  will 
affect,  by  its  vital  energy,  other  nations  and  peoples. 

5.  With  such  a  unique  combination  of  historic,  geographical,  political, 
and  religious  elements,  it  is  easy  to  see  what  constitutes  the  divine  call 
and  opportunity,  the  religious  mission  and  responsibility  of  these  great 
nations.  The  true  ideal  of  the  religious  mission  of  a  nation  embraces  its 
entire  intellectual,  moral,  and  social  relations  and  duties  to  its  people  and 
to  all  other  peoples. 

It  is  thus  a  home  and  a  foreign  mission.  To  its  own  citizens  this  mission 
is  one  of  religious  liberty,  the  promotion  of  Sabbath  rest,  temperance, 
social  purity,  and  reverence  for  the  laws  of  God.  The  Anglo-American 


RELIGIOUS  MISSION  OF  ENGLISH-SPEAKING  NATIONS.  639 


peoples  should  foster  and  defend  those  principles  which  their  fathers  fought 
to  secure,  and  keep  pure  the  foundation  whose  streams  are  to  gladden  and 
refresh  the  world. 

It  is  treason  to  liberty,  disloyalty  to  religion,  and  a  betrayal  of  the 
sacred  trust  we  hold  from  God  for  our  children  and  our  country  to  sur¬ 
render  the  control  of  our  educational  system,  our  moral  code,  and  our  holy 
Sabbath  rest  from  toil  to  our  brethren  from  other  lands,  who  have  come  at 
our  disinterested  invitation  to  share  in  these  blessings,  but  who,  as  yet 
hardly  free  from  the  shackles  of  Old  World  absolutism  or  the  despair-begot¬ 
ten  dreams  of  unbridled  license,  are  not  yet  assimilated  to  our  essential  and 
vital  principles  of  liberty  and  law,  of  perfect  freedom  of  conscience,  tem¬ 
pered  by  the  absolute  subjection  of  the  individual  to  the  public  good. 

Let  us  each  rear  his  own  temple  for  the  worship  of  his  God  according 
to  his  own  conscience,  but  let  the  schoolhouse  be  reared  by  all  in  common, 
open  and  free  to  all,  and  patronized  by  all. 

To  the  civilized  nations  this  mission  is  one  which  can  only  be  effective 
through  a  consistent,  moral  example.  The  English-speaking  nations  are 
not  set  as  dumb  finger-posts  of  metal  or  stone,  but  as  living,  speaking, 
acting  guides.  They  are  set  for  an  example — to  exhibit  reform  in  act,  to 
shun  all  occasions  of  war  and  denounce  its  horrors,  to  show  the.  blessings 
of  arbitration  by  adopting  it  as  their  own  settled  international  practice, 
and  to  treat  all  social  questions  from  the  standpoint  of  conscience  and 
equity.  The  Alabama  and  Bering  Sea  arbitrations  have  been  an  object 
lesson  to  the  world  more  potent  in  exhibiting  the  true  spirit  of  Christianity 
than  millions  of  printed  pages  or  the  persuasive  voice  of  a  hundred  mes¬ 
sengers  of  the  cross. 

The  recent  action  of  Congress  and  the  House  of  Commons  with  regard 
to  a  treaty  of  arbitration  is  pregnant  with  promise  for  the  future  peace  of 
the  nations  and  cause  for  profound  gratitute  to  God.  It  is  the  religious 
mission  of  the  English-speaking  nations  to  form  a  juster  estimate  of  other 
nations,  to  treat  all  men  as  entitled  to  respect,  to  allow  conscience  its  full 
sway  in  all  dealings  with  them. 

Let  these  closing  years  of  this  noble  century  of  progress  be  crowned 
with  the  glorious  spectacle  of  a  heaven-born  and  heaven-blessed  covenant 
of  lasting  and  inviolable  peace  between  these  great  nations,  one  in  history, 
one  in  faith,  one  in  liberty,  one  in  law,  one  in  future  service  to  God  and  all 
mankind. 

To  the  semi-civilized  and  heathen  nations  our  religious  mission  is  one  of 
helpfulness,  uplifting  and  enlightening.  The  sympathies  of  our  Christian 
faith  are  all  with  the  poor,  the  suffering,  the  ignorant,  the  oppressed.  We 
are  bound  in  honor  and  gratitude  to  give  to  those  hundreds  of  millions  the 
Word  of  God,  that  golden  key  which  shall  unlock  to  them  all  our  precious 
treasures  of  knowledge  and  truth,  of  faith  and  happiness. 

The  highly  favored  Northern  races  are  called  by  every  prompting  of  the 
law  of  love  to  go  to  the  help  of  the  less-favored  continents  of  the  south. 
Christ  bids  the  strong  to  help  the  weak,  the  blessed  to  succor  the  unblessed, 
the  free  to  deliver  the  enslaved,  the  saved  to  evangelize  the  unsaved.  We 
owe  them  the  benefits  of  civilization,  the  principles  of  justice,  honor,  and 
veracity,  our  social  comforts  and  joys,  intellectual  education  and  uplifting, 
the  relief  of  physical  suffering,  the  blessings  of  medical  science  and  skill, 
and,  above  all,  the  bright  hopes  and  celestial  promises  of  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

But  we  find  ourselves  confronted  and  thwarted  at  the  very  gateway  of 
the  Asiatic  and  African  as  well  as  the  Polynesian  races  by  that  monster 
of  hideous  mien,  the  “Sacra  auri  fames,”  the  accursed  European  greed  for 
gold — gold  earned  at  any  price,  gold  in  exchange  for  opium,  gold  for  poison¬ 
ous,  maddening  liquors,  degrading  and  crazing,  with  their  flood  of  foulness 
and  death,  men,  women,  and  children  made  in  the  image  of  God.  African 


G40 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


chiefs  and  insular  kings,  pagan  princes  and  Mohammedan  sheikhs  entreat 
us  with  tears  to  save  their  people  from  devouring  tire  enkindled  among 
them  by  our  own  countrymen. 

American  citizens  and  British  subjects  vie  with  each  other  in  pouring 
these  streams  of  “  distilled  damnation,”  these  brain-poisoning,  nerve-destroy¬ 
ing  narcotics  and  intoxicants,  into  the  dark  continent,  the  solitary  islands, 
and  the  colossal  empire  of  China.  The  European  and  American  liquor 
traffic  in  Africa  is  pronounced  by' commercial  and  philanthropic  men  to  be 
a  greater  evil  than  the  slave  trade  and  to  threaten  the  entire  extirpation 
of  the  African  races.  We  are  denounced  by  these  children  of  nature  in 
their  helplessness  and  woe,  as  worshipers  of  a  god  of  gold,  as  willing  to  sac¬ 
rifice  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men  to  this  gilded  fiend  of  avarice. 

We  who  are  strong  and  bidden  by  our  Master  to  bear  the  infirmities  of 
the  weak,  and  instead  of  this,  men  bearing  the  name  of  Christians,  are 
shamelessly  taking  advantage  of  their  weakness  for  the  lowest  and  most 
groveling  motives,  to  betray  and  destroy  them.  Where  is  the  inspiration 
of  our  marvelous  providential  history?  Where  the  fruitage  and  out¬ 
growth  of  our  ijolitical,  moral,  and  religious  training?  Where  our  obedi¬ 
ence  to  the  divine  call  and  summons  to  the  rescue  of  the  sons  of  men? 
Where  our  following  of  the  Golden  Rule?  Where  is  our  sympathy;  where 
our  gratitude;  where  our  honor?  Let  us  all  resolve  that  our  nation  and 
peoxjle  shall  no  longer  be  compromised  by  complicity  in  these  accursed 
forms  of  sordid  traffic. 

Our  mission  is  one  of  peace.  Von  Moltke,  surveying  his  army  of  1,000,000 
panoplied  warriors,  may  declare  war  to  be  a  divine  institution;  zealous 
enthusiasts  may  call  for  an  Anglo-American  alliance,  which,  by  its  armies 
and  navies,  could  dictate  laws  to  the  world;  but  we  are  called  to  a  propa- 
gandism  of  amity  and  peace.  We  are  to  guarantee  to  our  sons  and  daugh¬ 
ters  of  toil  one  full  day’s  rest  in  seven;  an  equitable  adjustment  of  all 
social  and  labor  questions  that  arise;  the  protection  of  our  children  from 
the  gilded  temf)ting  cup  which  at  last  “  biteth  like  a  serpent  and  stingeth 
like  an  adder.” 

This,  then,  is  our  mission:  That  we  who  are  made  in  the  image  of  God 
should  remember  that  all  men  are  made  in  God’s  image.  To  this  divine 
knowledge  we  owe  all  we  are,  all  we  hope  for.  We  are  rising  gradually 
toward  that  image  and  we  owe  to  our  fellowmen  to  aid  them  in  returning 
to  it  in  the  glory  of  God  and  the  beauty  of  holiness.  It  is  a  celestial 
privilege  and  with  it  comes  a  high  responsibility. 

From  this  responsibility  there  is  no  escape.  If  we  are  true  to  it  we 
shall  stand  up  for  liberty,  truth,  and  righteousness;  we  shall  be  pure,  we 
shall  be  peaceable;  we  shall  use  our  wealth,  our  moral  and  political  power 
to  root  out  wrong  and  sin  from  our  homes,  our  public  councils,  our  land, 
and  our  commerce,  so  that  wherever  our  flags  may  float,  neither  slavery 
nor  the  drink  traffic,  legalized  impurity  nor  illicit  trade  can  lift  their  heads. 
The  pride  of  wealth,  the  consciousness  of  irresistible  military  power  on 
land  and  sea,  would  soon  transform  our  cwo  great  nations  from  being  twin 
sisters  of  love  and  justice,  truth  and  peace,  into  a  double-headed  monster 
of  war  and  ambition,  consumed  with  insatiate  greed  of  universal  dominion, 
and  we  should  at  length  degenerate  into  that  frightful  Hindu  ideal  of  the 
final  age  of  the  world,  “  the  age  of  progressive  misery  and  all  prevailing 
woe.” 

In  the  palace  of  Behjeh,  or  Delight,  just  outside  the  fortress  of  Acre  on 
the  Syrian  coast,  there  died  a  few  months  since  a  famous  Persian  sage — the 
Babi  saint,  named  Beha  Allah,  the  “  Glory  of  God  ’’—the  head  of  that  vast 
reform  party  of  Persian  Moslems  who  accept  the  New  Testament  as  the 
word  of  God,  and  Christ  as  the  deliverer  of  men,  who  regard  all  natives  as 
one,  and  all  men  as  brothers.  Three  years  ago  he  was  visited  by  a  Cam¬ 
bridge  scholar,  and  gave  utterance  to  sentiments  so  noble,  so  Christlike, 
that  we  repeat  them  as  our  closing  words : 


THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH  OF  ARMENIA, 


641 


That  all  nations  should  become  one  in  faith,  and  all  men  as  brothers;  that 
the  bonds  of  affection  and  unity  between  the  sons  of  men  should  be  strength¬ 
ened;  that  diversity  of  religion  should,  and  differences  of  race,  be  annulled  ; 
what  harm  is  there  in  this?  Yet  so  it  shall  be.  These  fruitless  strifes,  these 
ruinous  wars  shall  pass  away,  and  the  “most  great  peace”  shall  come. 

Do  not  you  in  Europe  need  this  also? 

Let  not  a  man  glory  in  this,  that  he  loves  his  country;  let  him  rather  glory 
in  this,  that  he  loves  his  kind. 


THE  SPIRIT  AND  MISSION  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC 

CHURCH  OF  ARMENIA. 

OHANNER  CHATSCHUMYNA  OE  ARMENIA. 

According  to  the  general  testimony  of  historians,  Christianity  was  intro¬ 
duced  into  Armenia  in  the  1st  century.  In  the  year  34  A.  D.  the  apostle 
Thaddeus  went  to  this  country,  and  in  the  year  60  A.  D.  Bartholomew  fol¬ 
lowed.  They  preached  the  gospel  and  were  martyred.  These  apostles 
were,  therefore,  the  founders  of  the  Armenian;  Church.  Besides  them  two 
others,  Simeon  and  Judah,  preached  in  Armenia.  But  Christianity  did  not 
become  the  established  religion  until  the  year  302  A.  D.,  although  during 
this  interval  thousands  of  Armenians  became  martyrs  for  Christianity.  In 
that  St.  Gregory  Illuminator  enlightened  the  entire  Armenian  nation,  and 
Christianity  became  the  religion  of  the  king  as  well  as  of  the  people.  In 
the  Armenian  language  to  “  enlighten  ”  means  to  “  Christianize.”  Whether, 
therefore,  we  date  the  establishment  of  Christianity  from  the  1st  century 
or  at  the  beginning  of  the  4th,  the  Armenian  Church  remains  the  oldest 
Christian  church  in  the  world. 

Because  of  its  past  it  has  a  peculiar  place  among  other  churches.  While 
the  church  is  only  one  element  in  the  lives  of  other  nations — an  element 
sometimes  strong,  sometimes  less  strong — in  Armenia  it  embraces  the  whole 
life  of  the  nation.  There  are  not  tv/o  different  ideals,  one  for  Christianity, 
the  other  for  nationality.  These  two  ideals  are  united.  The  Armenians 
love  their  country,  because  they  love  Christianity.  Church  and  fatherland 
have  been  almost  synonymous  in  their  tongues. 

The  construction  of  the  Armenian  Church  is  simple  and  apostolic.  It 
is  independent  and  national.  U'he  head  is  called  the  patriarch  catholicos 
of  all  Armenians  in  whatever  part  of  the  world  they  may  be.  He  is  elected 
by  the  representatives  of  the  nation  and  clergy,  in  Etchmidzin,  at  the  foot 
of  Mount  Ararat.  Any  Armenian,  even  a  layman,  can  become  head  of  the 
church  if  the  general  assembly  finds  him  worthy  of  this  high  office.  Since 
Armenia  has  been  divided  among  the  three  powers— Turkey,  Russia,  and 
Persia — the  election  of  the  catholicos  is  confirmed  by  the  Russian  emperor. 
The  bishops  are  elected  by  the  people  of  each  province  and  are  anointed  by 
the  catholicos.  The  ordinary  clergy  are  elected  by  each  parish.  The  par¬ 
ish  is  free  in  its  election,  and  neither  bishop  nor  catholicos  can  assign  a 
priest  to  a  parish  against  its  wish.  Each  church  being  free  in  its  home 
work,  they  are  all  bound  with  one  another  and  so  form  a  unity. 

The  people  share  largely  in  the  work  of  the  church.  All  assemblies  which 
have  to  decide  general  questions,  even  dogmatic  matters,  are  gathered  from 
both  people  and  clergy.  The  clergy  exist  for  the  people  and  not  the  people 
for  the  clergy. 

The  Armenian  clergy  have  always  been  pioneers  in  the  educational 
advancement  of  the  nation.  They  have  been  the  bringers  in  of  European 
civilization  to  their  people.  From  the  5th  century  to  this  very  day  young 
men  intended  for  the  priesthood  are  sent  to  the  Occident  to  study  in  order 
that  Christianity  and  civilization  may  go  hand  in  hand.  The  country  owes 
everything  to  its  clergy.  They  have  been  first  in  danger  and  first  in  civil¬ 
ization. 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


642 

The  spirit  of  the  Armenian  Church  is  tolerant.  A  characteristic  feature 
of  Armenians,  even  while  they  were  heathen,  was  that  they  were  cosmopol¬ 
itan  in  religious  matters.  Armenia,  in  early  ages,  was  an  America  for  the 
oppressed  of  other  lands.  From  Assyria,  as  we  read  in  the  Bible,  in  the 
Book  of  Kings,  Adramelik  and  Landssar  escaped  to  Armenia.  From  China, 
Hindustan,  and  Palestine  they  went  thither,  carrying  their  religious 
thoughts  and  their  idols,  which  they  worshiped  side  by  side  with  the  Arme¬ 
nian  gods. 

Christianity  has  entirely  changed  the  political  and  moral  life  of 
Armenia,  but  the  tolerant  spirit  has  ever  remained.  For  more  than  fifteen 
hundred  years  she  has  been  persecuted  for  her  faith  and  for  conscience’s 
sake,  and  yet  she  has  never  been  a  religious  persecutor.  She  calls  no  church 
heterodox.  The  last  catholicos,  Makar  I.,  said  once  to  me:  “My  son, 
do  not  call  any  church  heterodox.  All  churches  are  equal,  and  everybody 
is  saved  by  his  own  faith.”  Every  day  in  our  churches  prayers  are  offered 
for  all  those  who  call  on  the  name  of  the  Most  High  in  sincerity. 

The  Armenian  Church  does  not  like  religious  disputes.  She  has  defended 
the  ideals  of  Christianity  more  with  the  red  blood  of  her  children  than  with 
big  volumes  of  controversies.  She  has  always  insisted  on  the  brotherhood 
of  all  Christians.  Nerces,  Archbishop  of  Zanbron,  Cilicia,  who  was  called 
the  second  Apostle  Paul,  in  the  12th  century  defended  and  practiced  the 
very  ideals  and  equality  of  all  churches  and  the  brotherhood  of  all  men 
which  the  most  liberal  clergymen  of  this  century  believe  in. 

The  Armenian  Church  has  a  great  literature,  especially  in  sacred  lyrics, 
which  has  had  a  vast  influence  over  the  people.  But  the  purifying  influ¬ 
ence  of  our  church  appears  chiefly  in  the  family.  In  no  land  is  the  family 
life  purer.  For  an  Armenian  the  family  is  sacred.  Ethnologists  ask  with 
reason:  “How  can  we  explain  the  continued  existence  of  the  Armenian 
nation  through  the  fire  and  sword  of  4,000  years?”  The  solution  of  this 
riddle  is  in  the  pure  family  life.  This  is  the  anchor  by  which  the  storm- 
beaten  has  been  held.  It  is  a  singular  fact  that  Armenia  never  had,  even 
in  her  heathen  time,  either  polygamy  or  slavery,  although  always  sur¬ 
rounded  by  nations  who  followed  this  evil  practice. 

Women  in  Armenia  have  always  had  a  distinguished  place  in  the 
church.  The  first  Christian  martyr  among  women  in  the  whole  world  was 
an  Armenian  girl,  Sandooct,  the  beautiful  daughter  of  the  king  Sanstreek. 
In  the  5th  century,  as  says  the  historian,  Equishe,  the  songs  of  the  Arme¬ 
nian  women  were  the  psalms  and  their  daily  readings  the  gospel. 

Geographically,  Armenia  is  the  bridge  between  Asia  and  Euro])e.  All 
the  nations  of  Asia  have  traveled  over  this  bridge.  One  can  not  show  a 
single  year  in  the  long  past  through  which  she  has  enjoyed  peace.  Every 
one  of  her  stones  has  been  baptized  many  times  with  the  sacred  blood  of 
martyrs.  Her  rivers  have  flowed,  not  with  water,  but  with  blood  and  tears 
of  the  Armenian  nation.  Surrounded  by  non-Christian  and  anti-Christian 
peoples,  she  has  kept  her  Christianity  and  her  independent  national  church. 
Through  the  darkness  of  the  ages  she  has  been  a  bright  torch  in  the  Orient 
of  Christianity  and  civilization. 

All  her  neighbors  have  passed  away — the  Assyrians,  the  Babylonians, 
the  Parthians,  and  the  Persian  fire  worshipers.  Armenia  herself  has  lost 
everything;  crown  and  scepter  are  gone;  peace  and  happiness  have  departed; 
to  her  remains  only  the  cross,  the  sign  of  martyrdom.  Yet  the  Armenian 
Church  still  lives.  Why?  To  fulfill  the  work  she  was  called  to  do;  to 
spread  civilization  among  the  peoples  of  this  part  of  Asia,  and  she  has  still 
vitality  enough  to  fulfill  this  mission.  For  this  struggling  and  aspiring 
church  we  crave  your  sympathy.  To  help,  the  Armenian  Church  is  to  help 
humanity. 


GREEK  CHURCH  CHARACTERISTICS. 


643 


GREEK  CHURCH  CHARACTERISTICS. 

KEV.  P.  PHIAMBOLIS,  IN  CHARGE  OF  THE  GREEK  CHURCH,  CHICAGO. 

Most  Honorable  President  Charles  C.  Bonney,  Most  Reverend  John 
Henry  Barroivs,  and  Very  Honorable  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  At  first 
I  wish  to  beg  your  jjardon  if  I  make  any  mistake,  not  being  well  versed  in 
the  English  language.  In  coming  here  as  a  delegate  to  the  Religious  Con¬ 
gress  I  did  not  come  to  discuss  Christianity  and  the  Christian  truths,  nor 
the  existence  of  a  god,  because  I  think  I  would  attack  your  Christian  con¬ 
science.  All  the  Christian  delegates  of  this  parliament  have  spoken  enough 
of  Christianity  and  the  existence  of  God,  and  I  think  a  repetition  of  it  would 
be  vain  labor. 

I  did  not  come  to  teach  you  to  become  Christians,  because  you  are 
Christians,  perhaps,  with  a  small  exception  of  non-Christian  hearers.  I  did 
not  come  to  teach  you  to  believe  in  one  god,  father  god,  god  without 
beginning  and  end,  god  eternal,  immaterial,  personal,  living  god,  omnipo¬ 
tent  saint,  just,  almighty,  provider,  god  of  mercy,  god  of  love,  god  creator 
of  every  being,  creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  invisible,  incomprehensible, 
intellectual,  god  having  mind,  and  where  there  is  a  mind  there  is  a  word, 
where  there  is  a  word  there  is  a  spirit,  and  consequently  in  a  god  of  three 
persons  there  is  a  mind  of  the  Father,  the  word  of  the  Son,  and  the  spirit 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

I  say  I  do  not  come  to  preach  such  a  god,  because  you  and  every  Chris¬ 
tian  believe.  I  do  not  come  to  discuss  that  the  God  of  love  and  mercy  sent 
His  son  to  earth,  who  took  flesh  from  the  blood  of  a  holy  virgin  and  became 
man — became  man  equal  to  us,  but  without  sin;  perfect  God  and  perfect 
man  mysteriously  united  in  one  person. 

I  do  not  come  to  teach  you  anew  gospel,  because  our  gospel  is  always 
new.  You  know  very  well  that  its  truths  are  unchangeable  and  eternal, 
the  rudder  of  the  action  of  every  Christian,  the  guide  for  salvation.  But  I 
come  into  your  presence  as  a  representative  of  the  truths  of  the  orthodox 
church  and  to  greet  you  with  our  love. 

Let  us  see  where  is  the  truth  and  the  righteousness  in  the  philosophical 
systems.  They  have  been  proved  unable  to  find  the  truth  and  satisfy  the 
requests  of  the  human  hearts,  and  the  results  of  those  philosophical  sys¬ 
tems  were  a  ridiculous  polytheism,  and  humanity  had  been  educated  in 
desperation  to  find  the  truth,  when  a  man  of  Judea  preached,  saying,  “  I 
am  the  truth,  I  am  the  light  of  the  world,  I  will  send  to  the  world  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  spirit  of  the  truth,  and  He  will  say  every  truth.”  Now  let  us 
examine.  Has  that  man  said  the  truth?  Two  thousand  years  passed 
almost  from  that  epoch  and  all  the  nations  who  came  in  connection  with 
His  preaching  say  “yes,”  but  let  us  continue  to  examine  where  this  truth 
remained  pure  and  clear  and  unmixed  with  some  errors. 

I  read  the  scriptures  and  I  see  that  our  Jesus  Christ  sent  His  Holy 
Ghost,  the  spirit  of  the  truth,  to  all  the  disciples  without  exception.  The 
apostles  were  the  first  Christian  church  with  the  spirit  of  the  truth.  But 
the  apostles  sometimes  disputed  among  themselves  upon  religious  ques¬ 
tions.  They  decided  it,  however,  by  leaving  it  to  the  apostles  and  elders  of 
the  church.  Has  the  orthodox  church  kept  this  example  of  the  apostles, 
namely,  the  discussion  and  the  union  after  the  decision?  Let  us  look  at 
the  history  of  the  church.  The  Jews  of  Judea,  according  to  the  prophets, 
were  waiting  for  a  messiah.  When,  in  the  fullness  of  time,  a  boy  was  born 
in  Bethlehem,  and  when  He  was  old  enough  to  preach  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  He  met  great  opposition  until  He 
was'crucified.  After  His  resurrection  His  disciples  continued  the  work  of 
their  teacher,  and  the  subject  of  their  teaching  was  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  crucified.  St.  Paul,  an  eminent  and  learned  Jew,  at  first  a 


644 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


persecutor  of  Christianity,  finally  became  the  chosen  vessel  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Jesus  Christ  was  to  the  Jews  a  scandal,  and  to  the  Greeks  a  fool¬ 
ishness.  The  apostles  began  at  first  their  preaching  among  their  compa¬ 
triots,  the  Jews,  but  their  followers  were  few.  Then  they,  and  especially 
St.  Paul,  applied  to  the  nations,  and  especially  to  the  Greeks  of  Asia 
Minor  ;  afterward  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  Phillipians,  of  Macedonia,  to 
Athenians,  Corinthians,  and,  at  last,  to  Romans,  or  to  the  Jews  and  Greeks 
of  Rome. 

Some  Greek  Christian  churches  had  been  established,  and  for  this  rea¬ 
son  the  Evangelists  wrote  their  gospel  in  the  Greek  language,  as  other 
disciples  did  their  epistles.  I  said  above  that  Christianity  met  a  great 
opposition.  It  was  to  fight  against  all  the  religions  of  that  epoch;  against 
the  prejudices,  the  philosophical  systems;  it  was  to  fight  against  tyranny, 
against  all  the  world,  and  to  conquer.  The  emperors  or  Rome  armed  them¬ 
selves  against  it,  and  the  weapon  cut  off  tender  ana  feeble  creatures.  But 
Christianity  became  the  religion  of  the  Roman  states.  Meanwhile  the 
opposition  continued  under  other  shapes  of  false  Christian  x^hilosophy, 
that  is,  the  heresies,  and  it  began  to  enter  the  inclosure  of  the  church 
under  the  shape  of  truth  and  agitated  the  peace  of  the  church.  Clouds 
of  heresies  troubled  the  ceremony  of  the  church,  which  cut  them  off  by 
the  weapon  of  the  true  doctrine,  by  the  weapon  of  the  Holy  Ghost  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  example  of  the  apostles,  and  they  guarded  the  Christian  doctrine 
far  from  any  error.  All  these  synods  agreed  about  the  Christian  and  evan¬ 
gelical  truths  and  composed  the  Christian  creed  as  it  is  to-day  except  the 
filooqua,  which  entered  in  the  church  without  the  ecumenical  decision  at 
the  9th  century.  And  the  opinion  of  the  whole  church  was  one,  and  they 
had  true  love  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  truth  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  that 
time  have  been  seen  most'eminent  theologians,  Christian  philosophers,  and 
writers  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  and  the  most  of  them  took  part  in  these 
synods. 

Unfortunately  the  human  interest,  the  human  proud  and  politic, 
unknown  to  the  united  church,  entered  at  the  9th  century  the  sacred 
inclosure  of  the  church  and  a  great  schism  and  division  followed  between 
the  East  and  West.  This  division  resulted  in  retarding  Christianity  and 
the  progress  of  Mohammedanism,  whose  motto  is  “  Kill  the  Infidels,”  because 
everyone  who  is  not  a  Mohammedan,  according  to  the  Koran  of  the 
Prophet,  is  an  infidel,  is  a  dog. 

It  is  not  my  desire  to  speak  about  Turkish  tyranny,  but  I  will  say  a  few 
words  concerning!  the  Christian  kings  of  Europe.  The  people  of  the  Orient 
suffered  and  still  suffer;  Christian  virgins  are  dishonored  by  the  followers 
of  the  moral  Prophet,  and  the  life  of  a  Christian  is  not  considered  as  pre¬ 
cious  as  that  of  a  dog.  But  the  kings  of  Europe,  the  Christian  kings, 
thinking  only  of  themselves  and  their  interests,  see  from  afar  this  barba¬ 
rous  state  of  affairs,  but  without  sympathy,  and  for  that  reason  I  stated 
that  politics  had  entered  the  church. 

Regarding  the  orthodox  church,  we  are  true  to  the  examples  of  the 
apostles;  we  follow  the  same  road  in  religious  questions  and  after  discus¬ 
sion  do  not  accept  new  dogma  without  the  agreement  of  the  whole  ecu¬ 
menical  church;  neither  do  we  adopt  any  dogma  other  than  that  of  the 
one  united  and  undivided  church,  whose  doctrine  has  been  followed  until 
to-day.  The  orthodox  apostolic  Catholic  church  contains  many  different 
nations,  and  every  one  of  them  uses  its  own  language  in  the  mass  and 
litany  and  governs  its  church  independently,  but  all  these  nations  have  the 
same  faith.  The  patriarchs,  metropolites,  archbishops,  and  bishops  are  all 
equal.  There  is  no  difference  in  their  rank;  freedom,  fraternity,  and  cere¬ 
mony  range  between  them.  This  is,  in  short,  the  church  which  I  repre¬ 
sent.  The  church  which  does  not  request  the  authority  over  other 
churches  or  mix  itself  in  politics — the  church  of  the  apostles  who  had  the 


INTERNATIONAL  JUSTICE  AND  AMITY. 


645 


spirit  of  truth.  And  can  we  say  that  the  truth,  far  from  any  error,  is  not 
found  in  such  a  church? 

In  finishing  this  short  exhibition  of  my  church  I  raise  my  eyes  on  high 
and  pray: 

O  Thou  Holy  Ghost,  the  spirit  of  the  truth.  King  <  f  Kings,  Thou  who  illumi¬ 
nated  the  holy  apostles.  Thou  who  illuminated  Thy  saints  apostolic.  Thy  united 
and  undivided  church  and  synods;  O  Tnou  Holy  Ghost  who  illuminates  every 
man  coming  into  the  world;  Thou  who  illuminated  Columbus,  the  hero,  to  give 
the  whole  continent  to  humanity;  Thou  who  illuminated  this  glorious  people  of 
America  to  fight  against  slavery  and  for  freedom,  and  they  conquered;  Thou 
who  illuminated  the  eminent  presidents  of  this  religious  congress,  from  which 
an  immense  light  will  be  spread  over  all  the  world  that  great  benevolences  for 
the  gospel  and  humanity  are  expected;  O  Thou  Holy  Ghost,  hear  my  humble 
prayer,  and  grant  us  that  all  men  of  the  earth  may  become  one  flock  under  one 
shepherd,  and  that  our  Jesus  Christ  be  the  only  head  of  the  church. 


INTERNATIONAL  JUSTICE  AND  AMITY. 

KEV.  S.  L.  BALDWIN,  D.  D.,  OF  NEW  YOEK. 

These  words  are  rightly  associated  in  the  theme  assigned  me  for  discus¬ 
sion  at  this  time,  for  it  is  only  by  justice  that  real  amity  between  nations 
can  be  secured.  Nations  are  just  as  much  bound  to  be  governed  by  justice 
as  individuals.  There  is  an  idea  still  afioat,  I  am  aware,  that  the  proper 
course  for  a  nation  to  take  in  dealing  with  others  is  to  keep  a  sharp  look¬ 
out  for  advantages  for  itself,  to  secure  all  that  it  can  from  other  nations 
and  give  as  little  as  possible  in  return.  This  is  reckoned  smart  diplomacy 
and,  it  must  be  confessed,  is  still  the  basis  of  action  with  too  many  nations 
professing  to  be  governed  by  Christian  principle. 

But  the  true  basis  for  international  conduct  as  for  that  of  the  individ¬ 
ual  is  the  golden  rule,  “  Therefore  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  to  you  do  ye  even  so  to  them.”  Or  the  rule  laid  down  by  Con¬ 
fucius,  which  may  be  called  a  negative  form  of  the  golden  rule,  “  What  you 
do  not  like  when  done  to  yourself,  do  not  do  toothers.”  Between  the  old 
brute  law  of  “  might  makes  right  ”  and  the  Christian  teaching  of  justice, 
based  on  a  love  for  our  fellowmen,  there  is  no  middle  ground.  It  is  no 
longer  necessary  to  argue  against  the  claim  that  “  might  makes  right.” 
The  world  is  rapidly  outgrowing  that  barbarous  proverb,  and  acknowledg¬ 
ing  that  nations  and  individuals  are  alike  bound  to  be  governed  by  consid¬ 
erations  of  justice  and  fair  dealing  in  their  treatment  of  one  another.  As 
Theodore  Parker  beautifully  said,  “Justice  is  the  keynote  of  the  world  and 
all  else  is  ever  out  of  tune.” 

Mazzini,  Italy’s  Christian  hero  and  patriot,  voiced  the  true  sentiment 
when  he  said :  “  Foremost  and  grandest  amid  the  teachings  of  Christ  were 

these  two  inseparable  truths — there  is  but  one  God  ;  all  men  are  the  sons 
of  God — and  the  promulgation  of  these  two  truths  changed  the  face  of  the 
world,  and  enlarged  the  moral  circle  to  the  confines  of  the  inhabited  globe. 
To  the  duties  of  men  toward  the  family  and  country  were  added  duties 
toward  humanity.  Man  then  learned  that,  wheresoever  thero  existed  a 
human  being,  there  existed  a  brother;  a  brother  with  a  soul  immortal  as 
his  own,  destined  like  himself  to  ascend  toward  the  Creator,  and  on  whom 
he  was  bound  to  bestow  love,  a  knowledge  of  the  faith,  and  help  and  coun¬ 
sel  when  needed.” 

In  order  that  there  may  be  pleasant  relations  between  nations,  treaties 
are  formed.  Of  course,  the  object  of  such  treaties  should  be  to  secure  and 
preserve  peace  and  good  fellowship,  and  to  do  this  by  acting  in  accordance 
with  the  demands  of  justice  and  righteousness  in  all  dealings  with  each 
other.  Justice  Field,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  his 
dissenting  opinion  on  the  Geary  law,  well  said; 


646 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Aliens  domiciled  within  the  country  by  its  consent  are  entitled  to  all  the  guar¬ 
antees  for  the  protection  of  their  person  and  property  which  are  secured  to 
native-born  citizens.  The  moment  any  human  being  comes  within  the  jurisdic¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States,  with  the  consent  of  the  government  — and  such  consent 
will  always  be  implied  when  not  expressly  withheld,  and  in  the  case  of  the  Chi¬ 
nese  laborers  before  us  was  in  terms  given  by  treaty —  he  becomes  subject  to  all 
their  laws  and  amenable  to  their  punishment  and  entitled  to  their  protection. 
Arbitrary  and  despotic  authority  can  no  more  be  exercised  over  them  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  their  persons  and  property  than  over  the  persons  and  property  of 
native-born  citizens.  They  difTer  only  from  citizens  in  the  respect  that  they  can 
not  vote  or  hold  any  public  office.  As  men  having  our  common  humanity  they  are 
protected  by  all  the  guarantees  of  the  constitution.  To  hold  that  they  are  subject 
to  any  different  law,  or  are  less  protected  in  any  particular,  is,  in  my  judgment, 
against  the  teachings  of  our  history,  the  practice  of  our  government,  and  the 
language  of  our  constitution. 

Let  us  test  this  doctrine  by  a  few  illustrations:  If  a  foreigner,  who  resides  in 
the  country  by  its  consent,  commits  a  public  offense  he  is  subject  to  be  cut  down, 
maltreated,  imprisoned,  or  put  to  death  by  violence  without  accusion  made,  trial 
had,  and  judgment  of  an  established  tribunal  following  the  regular'forrns  of  judi¬ 
cial  procedure?  If  any  rule  in  the  administration  of  justice  is  to  be  omitted  or 
discarded  in  his  case  what'rule  is  it  to  be?  If  one  ruiOimay  be  laid  aside  in  his  case 
another  rule  may  be  laid  aside,  and  all  rules  may  be  so  treated.  In  such  instances 
a  rule  of  evidence  may  be  set  aside  in  one  case,  a  rule  of  ideading  in  another.  The 
testimony  of  eye-witnesses  may  be  rejectedand  hearsays  adopted,  or  no  evidence 
at  all  may  be  received,  but  simply  an  inspection  of  the  accused,  as  is  often  the 
case  in  tribunals  of  Asiatic  countries  where  personal  caprice  and  not  settled  rules 
prevail.  That  would  be  to  establish  a  pure,  simple,  undisguised  despotism  and 
tyranny  withlrespect  to  them  and  their  class,  and  such  an  exercise  of  power  are  not 
permissible  under  our  Constitution. 

Certainly  the  object  of  all  treaties  between  nations  must  include  and 
keep  foremost  the  idea  of  securing  exact  justice  to  the  citizens  and  subjects 
of  the  nations  represented.  If  this  be  true,  it  is  no  less  true  that  treaties 
once  made  should  be  faithfully  kept  by  both  parties  to  the  agreement. 
This  has  always  been  the  accepted  principle  of  civilized  nations.  Nothing 
is  considered  more  sacred  than  a  treaty  and,  by  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  the  treaties  made  by  the  government  were  placed  with  the 
constitution  and  the  laws  enacted  under  it  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land. 

If  the  provisions  of  a  treaty  may  be  set  aside  at  the  caprice  of  one  party 
without  any  consultation  with  the  other,  by  mere  legislative  enactment, 
they  become  of  little  value.  No  nation  ought  to  feel  at  liberty  to  violate  a 
treaty  in  any  way  until  every  possible  means  of  securing  a  desired  change 
by  way  of  diplomatic  action  has  been  exhausted,  and  even  in  that  case, 
justice  can  not  approve  the  violation  of  a  treaty  unless  it  can  be  clearly 
shown  that  some  fundamental  interest  absolutely  requires  such  a  course 
after  due  notice  to  the  other  parties  concerned.  These  principles  are  so 
fundamental,  and  so  necessary,  to  any  good  understanding  between  nations 
that  they  have  never  been  seriously  called  in  question  until  in  these  latter 
days  of  disregard  for  treaty  obligations  under  supposed  political  exigencies. 

A  new  doctrine  is  promulgated  in  certain  quarters,  but  a  Christian 
nation,  with  the  history  and  principles  which  traditionally  belong  to  our 
government,  should  repudiate  with  vehemence  any  deflection  from  the 
original  principles  of  fidelity  to  our  treaty  obligations,  which  characterized 
all  the  early  history  of  the  nation. 

In  further  pursuance  of  justice  it  is  evident  that  in  case  of  disagree¬ 
ment  between  nations  there  should  be  some  method  of  coming  to  a  good 
understanding  without  resorting  to  the  barbarous  practice  of  war,  which 
is,  after  all,  an  appeal  to  the  old  motto  of  brute  force,  “  Might  makes 
right.” 

Christian  principle  suggests  in  such  cases  that  other  nations  be  called 
in  to  arbitrate  in  the  matters  of  disagreement,  and  the  two  greatest  nations 
of  the  world,  England  and  the  United  States,  have  set  a  most  laudable 
example  in  this  respect  in  the  arbitration  by  which  the  Alabama  claims 
were  settled,  and  in  the  recent  case  concerning  the  seal  fisheries  in  the 
quarters  adjacent  to  Alaska.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  Christian  principle  in 
this  matter  is  becoming  strong  enough  to  substitute  this  sensible  method 


INTERNATIONAL  JUSTICE  AND  AMITY. 


647 


for  settling  differences  in  the  place  of  appealing  to  war,  in  which  the  blood 
of  many  innocent  persons  will  be  shed,  and  sorrow  brought  to  multitudes 
of  households  without  really  settling  in  any  just  way  a  single  issue  involved. 

In  the  light  of  justice  the  duty  of  strong  nations  toward  weak  ones  is 
very  clear.  It  certainly  is  not  to  conform  to  the  old  practice  of  absorbing 
them  or  dividing  them  among  the  stronger  nations  and  thus  blotting  them 
out  of  existence,  but  as  treating  them  as  weak  children  in  a  loving  family 
are  treated,  giving  to  them  the  greater  consideration  because  of  their  weak¬ 
ness,  and  the  stronger  ones  emulating  each  other  in  a  strife  for  pre-emi¬ 
nence  in  kindness  of  treatment  toward  those  who  need  it  most.  If  this 
Christian  principle  can  but  prevail  among  nations,  just  rights  will  be 
secured  to  all,  and  injustice  will  be  prevented.  The  weak  will  be  as  well 
off  as  the  strongest,  because  the  strongest  will  combine  to  secure  every  just 
right  to  the  weakest. 

Politicians  of  the  day  may  call  this  a  Utopian  scheme,  but  the  world  is 
steadily  advancing  toward  the  adoption  of  this  principle,  and  we  may  look 
for  the  time  when  it  shall  be  the  accepted  principle  of  all  the  great  nations 
of  the  world,  and  we  may  repeat  with  emphasis  the  noble  words  of  John 
Boyle  O’Reilly: 


Wherever  a  principle  dies— 

Nay,  principles  never  diel 
But  wherever  a  ruler  lies. 

And  a  people  share  the  lie. 

Where  right  is  crushed  by  force. 

And  manhood  is  stricken  dead— 

There  dwelleth  the  ancient  curse. 

And  the  blood  on  the  earth  is  red! 

And  just  as  surely  as  the  curse  will  abide  where  right  is  crushed  by 
force  so  the  blessing  of  the  Highest  will  abide  wherever  justice  rules  in  the 
conduct  of  a  nation. 

One  most  important  matter  to  be  considered  at  this  time  is  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  these  principles  to  the  question  of  immigration.  No  just  objection 
can  be  made  to  laws  intended  to  secure  the  welfare  of  a  country,  to  protect 
it  against  anarchists,  law  breakers,  and  harmful  immigrants  of  every  kind. 
Laws  may  be  devised  to  secure  this  result,  as,  for  instance,  the  requisition 
of  a  certiiicate  from  the  American  consul  of  the  port  from  which  the  immi¬ 
grant  sails  that  he  has  given  evidence  he  is  a  person  of  good  moral  charac¬ 
ter  and  purposes  to  become  a  law-abiding  resident  of  the  United  States. 
Or,  a  limitation  of  the  number  of  immigrants  that  will  be  permitted  on 
any  one  vessel  entering  the  port  of  the  United  States.  Or,  even,  a  certain, 
definite  head  tax  imposed  upon  every  immigrant  entering  the  country  and 
made  large  enough  to  secure  a  reasonable  prospect  of  self-support  on  the 
part  of  the  individual.  General  laws  on  any  of  these  lines  can  be  justified 
as  being  not  only  in  the  interest  of  our  own  country,  but  of  the  immigrants 
themselves. 

But  any  discrimination  against  any  race  or  people,  as  such,  is  of  the 
nature  of  an  essential  injustice  and  cannot  be  defended  on  any  principle  of 
divine  or  human  law.  If,  as  an  illustrious  instance  of  how  not  to  do  it,  we 
examine  the  conduct  of  the  United  States  government  in  regard  to  the 
Chinese  in  the  light  of  the  principles  laid  down,  we  can  only  be  filled  with 
humiliation.  At  the  outside,  we  asked  China  to  reverse  her  ancient  princi¬ 
ple  of  keeping  strictly  to  herself  and  to  consent  to  the  free  emigration  of 
her  people,  which  was  accomplished  by  the  persuasion  of  Mr.  Burlingame. 

In  the  treaty  which  was  proclaimed  July  28, 1868,  was  this  article:  “The 
United  States  of  America  and  the  Emperor  of  China  cordially  recognize  the 
inherent  and  inalienable  right  of  man  to  change  his  home  and  allegiance, 
and  also  the  mutual  advantage  of  free  migration  and  emigration  of  their  citi¬ 
zens  and  subjects  respectively  from  the  one  country  to  the  other  for  the 
purpose  of  curiosity,  of  trade,  or  as  permanent  residents.” 


648  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


This  is  not  a  Chinese  idea  but  an  American  idea,  which  we  insisted 
upon  having  recognized  by  the  emperor  of  China,  and  to  which  he  gave 
his  consent.  We  adhered  to  that  view  of  the  subject  for  about  twelve  years, 
when  we  sent  an  embassy  to  China  to  withdraw  this  principle  and  to 
secure  the  adoption  in  some  measure  of  the  ancient  Chinese  idea  of  restric¬ 
tion.  The  reason  assigned  for  this  curious  action  was  the  fear  that  we 
would  be  overwhelmed  by  a  vast  number  of  Chinese  laborers  who  would 
work  untold  misery  to  the  laborers  of  our  country. 

The  facts  in  the  case  were  that  the  whole  Chinese  population,  at  that 
time,  was  105,000;  that  in  the  year  preceding  there  had  actually  been  more 
departures  than  arrivals  of  Chinese  at  San  Francisco,  as  shown  by  the 
reports,  the  number  of  arrivals  being  6,544,  and  of  departures  6,906.  For 
the  three  years  previous  the  arrivals  were  23,868,  and  the  departures 
21,270,  or  a  gain  of  2,598.  There  was  absolutely  no  reason  for  the  fright 
into  which  our  government  was  thrown  by  the  action  of  shrewd  politicians 
who  had  their  own  ends  to  serve.  But,  at  our  instance,  a  new  treaty  was 
made,  and  the  right  to  limit  immigration  was  secured,  which  our  govern¬ 
ment  availed  itself  of  to  pass  a  law  prohibiting  the  immigration  of  Chinese 
laborers  for  ten  years. 

In  1888  another  act,  known  as  the  Scott  act,  was  passed,  which  not  only 
forbade  laborers  to  enter  but  even  denied  the  right  to  come  back  of  those 
WHO  had  returned  to  China  with  the  certificates  of  the  government  in 
their  hands  assuring  their  right  to  return  to  this  country.  Under  this 
enactment  members  of  Christian  churches  in  this  country  who  arrived  at 
San  Francisco,  trusting  to  the  pledge  of  the  government  which  they  held 
in  their  hands  that  they  should  be  allowed  to  re-enter,  were  stopped  in  the 
port  of  San  Francisco  and  compelled  to  return  to  China  in  the  steamer 
which  brought  them  here. 

Among  other  cases  which  came  under  my  personal  knowledge  was  that 
of  an  English  merchant  in  invalid  condition  who  was  accompanied  by  a 
faithful  Chinese  nurse — who  had  watched  him  through  a  dangerous  illnese 
— and  who  was  informed  at  San  Francisco  that  this  nurse  could  not  be 
allowed  to  land,  and  he  was  obliged  to  proceed  across  our  'country  on  his 
way  home  without  the  faithful  nurse  he  needed  so  much.  A  minister  of 
the  gospel  started  from  China  to  come  to  preach  to  his  own  countrymen  in 
this  country,  but  was  informed  in  Japan  that  he  would  not  be  allowed  to 
land,  and  returned  to  China. 

Many  instances  might  be  given  showing  the  hardships  which  were 
experienced  under  this  law,  but  in  1892  another  law,  still  more  unjust  and 
oppressive,  violating  more  fundamentally  our  solemn  treaties  with  China, 
was  enacted,  which  is  known  as  the  Geary  law.  It  requires  all  Chinese 
laborers  to  register  and  to  take  out  certificates  of  their  right  to  be  here, 
which  must  be  proved  by  at  least  one  white  witness,  and  provides  for  the 
imprisonment  and  deportation  of  all  who  fail,  within  one  year  from  the  time 
of  its  enactment,  to  comply  with  its  provisions.  On  this  justice  Field  well 
said: 

The  punishment  is  beyond  all  reason  in  its  severity.  It  is  out  of  all  propor¬ 
tion  to  the  alleged  offense.  It  is  cruel  and  unusual.  As  to  its  cruelty,  nothing 
can  exceed  a  forcible  deportation  from  a  country  of  one’s  residence  and  the 
breaking  up  of  all  relations  oif  friendship,  family,  and  business  there  contracted. 
I  will  pursue  the  subject  no  further.  The  decision  of  the  court  and  the  sanction 
it  would  give  to  legislation  depriving  resident  aliens  of  the  guarantees  of  the 
constitution  fill  me  with  apprehension.  These  guarantees  are  of  priceless  value 
to  every  resident  in  the  country,  whether  citizen  or  alien.  I  can  not  but  regard 
the  decision  as  a  blow  a'uxinst  constitutional  liberty  when  it  declares  that  Con¬ 
gress  has  the  right  to  disregard  the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution  intended  for 
all  men  domiciled  in  the  country,  with  the  consent  of  the  government,  in  their 
rights  of  person  and  property. 

These  words  are  none  too  strong.  Our  treaty  had  promised  to  these 
men  the  same  treatment  accorded  to  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  most 
favored  nation,  but  this  solemn  promise  seems  to  have  been  utterly 


UNIVERSAL  BROTHERHOOD. 


649 


ignored  when  this  unblushing  violation  of  our  treaty  was  enacted  into 
so-called  law,  What  apology  is  there  for  such  action?  None  whatever. 
The  reasons  urged  against  the  Chinese  have  been  frequently  shown  to  be 
without  weight. 

In  regard  to  the  charge  of  their  lessening  the  price  of  labor  and  bring¬ 
ing  ruin  to  the  American  laborer,  Rev.  Dr.  L.  A.  Banks,  a  native  of  Oregon 
and  for  many  years  a  native'of  the  Pacific  Coast,  has  said: 

One  of  the  most  deplorable  features  of  the  whole  matter,  aside  from  the  direct 
dishonor  of  such  action,  is  that  no  intelligent  man  believes  for  a  moment  that 
such  a  bill  could  have  been  passed  on  its  merits;  but  that  members  of  Congress 
of  both  parties  permitted  themselves  to  be  made  the  tools  of  an  infamous  race 
prejudice  because  it  was  understood  that  the  electoral  vote  of  the  Pacific  Coast 
States,  in  the  last  Presidential  election,  would  be  affected  by  it.  I  was  born  on 
the  Pacific  Coast  and  lived  there  for  thirty  years;  was  there  through  the  riots  of 
six  and  seven  years  ago,  and  I  say  deliberately  there  was  no  just  cause  for  the 
cruel  persecution  the  Chinese  received.  It  was  not  a  auestion  of  low  wages 
through  Chinese  competition,  for  during  those  years  the  highest  wages  paid  to 
workingmen  in  the  civilized  world  were  paid  on  the  Pacific  Coast. 

We  have  already  shown  that  the  charge  of  coming  in  overwhelming 
numbers  is  without  foundation.  It  was  charged  against  them  that  they 
would  not  become  citizens,  and  then,  to  make  sure  that  the  charge  would 
hold,  a  law  was  enacted  that  no  court  should  naturalize  them.  It  was 
charged  that  the  Chinese  sent  all  their  money  to  China,  and  thus  tended 
to  impoverish  America,  but  it  was  shown  that  out  of  $11,000,000  earned  in 
California  in  one  year,  $9,000,000  was  spent  in  this  country  and  only  $2,000,- 
000  was  sent  to  China,  and  some  of  the  same  orators  who  dwelt  on  this 
charge  against  them  commended  the  Irish  immigrants  in  this  land  for  send- 
ing  $70,000,000  to  Ireland.  And  so  with  all  the  other  charges  against  them. 
The  real  fact  in  the  case  is,  as  Dr.  Banks  says,  that  it  has  a  basis  in  race  prej¬ 
udice  and  political  schemes,  and  I  quote  further  these  stirring  words  from 
the  same  noble  representative  of  the  Pacific  Coast: 

This  legislation  does  not  represent  Christianity,  and  it  does  not  fairly  repre¬ 
sent  the  average  citizenship  of  this  country.  It  represents  the  narrow-minded  and 
vicious  elements  of  the  Pacific  Coast  population,  who  are  given  power  to  work 
this  disgrace  because  of  the  shameless  cowardice  of  political  leaders  in  all 
parties.  It  is  surely  a  time  when  Christians  and  patriots  who  value  the  honor  of 
their  country  should  speak  out  an-d  let  it  be  known  that  there  is  another  current 
of  public  sentiment  in  this  country— a  current  that  is  not  swayed  by  the  beer 
saloon  and  the  “sand  lot.”  The  outspoken  indignation  of  Christians  throughout 
the  country  will  arouse  such  a  ground-swell  of  public  sentiment  that  Congress 
will  be  compelled  to  repeal  this  infamous  law.  In  no  other  way  can  the  work  of 
our  missionaries,  accomplished  through  many  long  and  weary  years,  be  saved 
from  disaster,  our  commerce  with  China  preserved  from  annihilation,  and  our 
good  name  protected  from  ineffaceable  shame. 

The  true  course  for  us  to  take  in  this  matter  is  to  recover  from  the 
fright  into  which  we  have  allowed  political  demagogues  to  throw  us,  and  in 
a  manly  and  Christian  way  to  proceed  at  once  to  conform  our  governmental 
action  to  the  earliest  and  best  traditions  of  the  republic.  Only  in  this  way 
may  we  expect  the  blessing  of  God  and  ultimate  honor  and  success  as  a 
nation,  for  it  still  remains  true  that  “  Righteousness  exalteth  a  nation,  but 
sin  is  a  reproach  to  any  people,”  and  the  law  of  God  still  remains. 


UNIVERSAL  BROTHERHOOD. 

PKINCE  WOLKONSKY. 

Prince  Wolkonsky.  of  Russia  termed  the  subject  of  his 
address  “  A  Reply  ”  to  this  letter,  which  he  read  as  a  preface 
to  continued  remarks,  as  follows; 


650 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Chicago,  U.  S.  A.,  September  15,  1893. 

Prince  Serge  Wolkonsky.  Bear  Sir:  There  will  be  a  meeting  next  Monday, 
September  18th,  at  4  p.  m.,  in  Room  23  of  the  Art  Palace,  to  decide,  if  possible, 
upon  a  formula  which  may  servo  as  a  bond  for  universal  brotherhood. 

One  representative  of  each  faith  and  order  will  be  invited.  The  invitation  is 
hereby  extended  to  yourself.  If  you  can  not  be  present,  will  you  kindly  reply, 
stating  whether  you  regard  the  inclosed  form  as  suitable  for  the  purpose. 

Yours,  respectfully,  Theodore  F.  Seward. 

When  I  received  the  above  invitation  I  did  not  know  whether  this  would 
be  a  private  gathering  for  a  friendly  exchange  of  ideas  or  a  public  session 
with  regular  speeches  and  addresses,  but  the  appeal  touched  me  too  pro¬ 
foundly  not  to  try  to  prepare  myself  for  both.  In  the  following  lines  I  take 
the  liberty  of  setting  forth  the  ideas  which  have  been  suggested  to  me  by 
Mr.  Seward’s  kind  invitation. 

Much  has  been  spoken  of  universal  brotherhood  during  these  last  weeks, 
many  eloquent  speakers,  inspired  with  the  theme,  elicited  enthusiastic 
applauses,  thousands  of  persons  left  the  halls  of  the  congress  with  softened 
hearts  and  with  a  tirm  resolution  to  bring  the  beautiful  theories  into  their 
practical  life — and  still  a  kind  of  doubt  prevents  us  from  trusting  in  any 
palpable  result.  For  a  long  time  I  have  been  searching  for  the  reason  of 
that  doubt,  which  never  ceased  trailing  clouds  upon  the  pure  sky  that 
shone  over  those  brotherly  gatherings;  and  I  think  I  finally  have  found 
the  reason. 

We  speak  of  brotherhood  as  of  a  thing  to  be  founded;  we  look  at  it  as 
if  it  were  an  institution,  a  thing  that  had  to  be  created  and  organized,  a 
thing  that  did  not  exist  and  that  we  wanted  to  exist.  People  seemed  to 
say:  “We  are  not  brothers,  but  let  us  try  to  become  so:  Yes,  let  us  try 
to  become  brothers,  though  difficult  it  may  be;  let  us  strive,  for  we  are  civ¬ 
ilized  people,  and  there  is  no  real  civilization  without  brotherhood.  Broth¬ 
erhood  is  the  crowning  of  all  civilization.” 

Alas,  brotherhood  is  not  the  crowning — it  is  the  basis,  and  if  a  civiliza¬ 
tion  is  not  built  on  that  basis,  no  posterior  efforts  can  remedy  the  evil.  It 
is  not  to  become  brothers.  We  must  try  not  to  forget  that  we  are  brothers. 
It  is  not  because  we  are  civilized  that  we  speak  of  instituting  a  universal 
brotherhood  on  earth.  It  is  because  we  are  not — or,  far  more,  because  we 
are  wrongly  civilized  that  we  strain  our  brains  to  institute  a  condition  that 
never  ceased  to  exist.  Human  brotherhood  is  not  a  club  where  membership 
is  needed  to  enjoy  the  privileges.  Not  by  instituting  societies  or  associa¬ 
tions  shall  we  inspire  feelings  of  brotherhood,  but  in  breaking  the  exclu¬ 
siveness  of  those  which  exist. 

We  must  not  forget  that  associations  are  not  the  aim,  but  only  an  instru¬ 
ment.  If  we  regard  those  “  religious  club  ”  as  an  aim  in  themselves,  our 
membership  becomes  a  seclusion  from  the  rest  of  humanity;  it  becomes  a 
contraction  instead  of  an  expansion,  an  end  instead  of  a  beginning;  it 
generates  death  instead  of  generating  life.  It  is  not  what  we  do  when  we 
go  to  the  meeting,  nor  the  fact  of  our  going  that  is  important,  but  what  we 
do  when  we  leave  the  meeting.  When  we  believe  that  we  will  see  that  asso¬ 
ciations  and  clubs  are  not  the  principal  thing.  We  will  not  breathe  with¬ 
out  full  lungs  until  the  day  we  understand  that  human  brotherhood  is  not 
a  question  of  badge,  and  that,  if  we  really  wish  to  bring  brotherhood  in  life, 
we  have  to  turn  our  eyes  other  ways.  Where?  This  is  the  great  question. 
I  will  try  to  answer  it  as  I  understand  it. 

Our  modern  civilization — or,  rather,  let  us  not  use  this  word,  for  it  sup¬ 
poses  a  perfection,  and  hence  can  not  be  applied  to  anything  that  exists  on 
earth — no,  we  will  say  our  ways  of  teaching  and  learning,  there  is  the  evil 
we  must  fight  against  if  we  want  to  deliver  the  idea  of  human  brotherhood 
from  the  dust  and  smoke  and  mud  which  cover  it  so  that  we  are  able  to 
forget  that  it  exists,  and  speak  of  it  as  a  new  thing  to  be  instituted.  Our 
ways  of  teaching  are  the  evil,  so  I  said  and  so  I  repeat,  for  our  ways  of 


UNIVERSAL  BROTHERHOOD. 


651 


teaching  are  shameful.  From  childhood  on  we  are  taught  that  human 
beings  are  divided  as  civilized,  enlightened,  uncivilized,  barbarians,  etc. — I 
do  not  know  the  exact  definitions  used  in  American  school-books,  nor  do  I 
know  the  exact  group  to  which  I  have  to  belong,  as  being  a  Russian  —  but 
the  fact  is  that  from  our  childhood  on  we  are  trained  to  divide  those  whom 
we  call  our  brothers  into  different  categories,  according  to  their  more  or 
less  proximity  to  those  summits  of  civilization,  the  benefits  of  which  we 
enjoy,  and  the  more  learning  we  want  to  show  the  more  we  accentuate  and 
underline  these  divisions  of  humanity. 

And  when,  in  the  course  of  later  life,  a  few  of  us  get  rid  of  that  habit 
of  classifying  our  similars;  when,  under  the  influence  of  travel  or  through 
learning  foreign  languages,  or  under  the  influence  of  some  broad-minded 
representatives  of  our  churches  or  of  representatives  of  universal  science, 
we  at  last  become  aware  that  all  nations  are  composed  of  men  like  our¬ 
selves,  then  we  consider  this  conviction  as  our  highest  personal  merit  and 
the  greatest  proof  of  our  enlightenment  and  culture.  Is  it  really  to  our 
culture  we  owe  these  feelings  of  brotherhood?  Is  it  not  fai*  more  to  the 
fact  of  having  succeeded  in  shaking  off  from  our  souls  the  deposits  of  a 
wrong  education? 

Now,  I  ask  you  all,  is  that  the  spirit  which  ought  to  animate  all  edu¬ 
cation?  Just  allow  me  to  tell  you  what  happened  to  a  Russian  peasant — 
of  course  uncivilized. 

A  peasant  one  day  undertook  a  journey.  With  a  bag  on  his  shoulders 
he  started  off  and  walked  through  Germany,  France,  a  part  of  Italy,  and 
Austria  without  knowing  a  word  of  any  other  language  but  his  own.  When 
he  came  back  his  land  owner — the  civilized  man — asked  him  “  How  it  was 
possible  he  could  make  himself  understood  in  foreign  countries  among 
foreign  people?  And  the  peasant — the  uncivilized — replied  in  the  most 
genuine  way,  “Well,  why  shouldn’t  they  understand  me,  are  they  not 
human  beings  like  myself?  ” 

I  leave  you  to  decide  which  of  the  two  was  the  more  civilized  one,  and 
whether  I  am  wrong  in  affirming  that  our  modern  education  does  just  the 
contrary  of  what  it  should  do. 

To  return  to  our  subject,  we  think  that  the  question  of  universal  broth¬ 
erhood  is  an  educational  question^ — that  it  ought  to  be  put  at  the  very  bot¬ 
tom  of  the  primary  school  and  not  at  the  very  top  of  the  university.  And, 
by  the  way,  do  you  know  what  might  become  a  school  for  teaching  human 
brotherhood?  The  Midway  Plaisance  at  the  World’s  Fair.  You  hardly 
believe  that,  and  still  it  is  so,  and  if  I  tell  you  why  you  will  agree  with  me. 

The  Midway  Plaisance  is  generally  considered  as  a  resort  of  pleasure. 
For  me  it  is  the  most  sad  thing  I  know,  because  it  is  human  life  exposed 
as^  show,  human  beings  deprived  of  their  feelings  and  reduced  to  the 
state  of  a  catalogue  exhibit,  a  moving  panorama  of  human  empty  forms. 
And  we  civilized  people  who  go  and  buy  our  entrance  to  the  Cairo  Street 
or  the  Arabian  circus,  we  even  do  not  inquire  whether  these  human 
brothers  of  ours  have  a  human  soul  under  their  interesting  and  picturesque 
costumes.  We  look  at  those  Arabian  riders,  at  their  equestrian  exercises, 
the  showy  colors  of  their  dresses,  their  movings,  their  wavings,  their  cheer¬ 
ing,  and  we  stare  at  them  like  at  animals;  we  are  allowed  to  approach  for 
our  25  cents.  “  It  is  quite  safe.  Don’t  be  afraid.”  And  the  clapping  chil¬ 
dren  around  us  exclaim:  “  Oh,  mamma,  look  at  those  barbarians  !  ” 

Now,  if  “  mamma  ”  had  been  educated  on  the  basis  of  human  brother¬ 
hood,  do  you  know  what  she  would  have  answered?  She  would  say:  “No, 
my  child,  they  are  not  barbarians.  Why  do  you  think  they  are?  Is  it 
because  their  dresses  are  so  showy?  But  don’t  you  see  how  much  prettier 
they  are  than  ours,  how  much  character  they  have  —  and  they  are  dresses 
of  their  country.  Meanwhile  ours  are  but  bad  copies  of  ugly  patterns  we 
receive  from  abroad.  Why  do  you  think  they  are  barbarians?  Is  it 


652 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


because  their  faces  are  so  brown?  They  are  children  of  the  morning  land; 
they  live  in  open  air;  they  bathe  themselves  in  sunshine.  Meanwhile  we  — 
we  breathe  the  putrified  atmosphere  on  State  Street.  Is  it  because  they 
raise  much  cheers  you  think  they  are  barbarians?  My  child,  my  dear 
child;  do  not  say  so;  you  do  not  understand  them.  If  you  do  not  under¬ 
stand  what  another  man  says  it  does  not  mean  that  the  other  man  is  a 
barbarian. 

“  Their  language  is  a  beautiful  one.  It  is  a  jewel  set  in  filigree.  Their 
poetry  is  the  finest  dream  humanity  has  dreamed.  No,  my  child,  don’t  say 
they  are  barbarians ;  don’t  be  afraid  of  them ;  step  closer.  You  will  see 
they  are  men  just  as  we,  only  far  better  than  we  are,  for  they  have  pre¬ 
served  their  human  soul  in  that  purity  with  which  it  was  given  to  all  of  us 
by  the  Creator,  and  which  we  lost  so  long  ago.  They  are  the  embodiment 
of  such  high  ideas  of  chivalry  and  duty  as  we  never  had.  Don’t  be  afraid, 
my  child,  step  closer.  You  see  his  open,  honest  eyes.  He  does  not  look  at 
you  a  bit  with  the  same  mistrust  as  you.  He  knows  you  are  a  man  like 
him.” 

So  would  “mamma”  speak  had  she  been  brought  up  with  ideas  of 
human  brotherhood,  and  we  would  congratulate  her,  but  if,  instead  of  that, 
she  says  to  her  child  with  a  smile  of  motherly  satisf  actio  ' ,  “Yes,  of  course, 
he  is  a  barbarian;  but  then  we  are  civilized,  and  therefore  we  must  grant 
him  our  love,”  then  we  exclaim,  “  Away  with  such  a  brotherhood;  you 
can  not  become  a  brother  of  a  man  if  you  do  not  feel  that  you  are  his 
brother.” 

So,  if  you  really  wish  that  humanity  should  be  united  in  feeling  of  uni¬ 
versal  brotherhood,  do  not  go  to  the  meeting,  do  not  become  a  member  of 
the  association,  do  not  waste  a  dime  for  a  badge,  and,  going  home,  return 
to  your  children,  gather  them  around  you  and  tell  them:  “  Children,  let  us 
learn,  for  we  must  know  what  other  people  are,  because  other  people  are 
our  brothers,  and  we  must  know  our  brothers,  because  if  we  do  not  know 
them  we  may  not  recognize  them,  and  it  is  a  crime  not  to  recognize  one’s 
brother.  So,  children,  let  us  learn,  and  learn,  and  learn,  for  we  are,  too, 
civilized.” 

There  are  many  ideas  on  human  brotherhood.  I  am  glad  to  have  had 
the  opportunity  of  proclaiming  them  publicly;  for,  after  having  written 
this  paper,  I  did  not  go  to  that  meeting,  and  I  want  those  who  asked  me 
and  expected  me  to  go,  I  want  them  to  know  why  I  did  not  go  and  why  I 
never  will. 


A  PROTEST  AGAINST  ERRONEOUS  IDEAS. 

The  evening  session  was  called  to  order  by  Rabbi  Hirsch. 
He  said;  “  To-night  we  must  do  things  by  proxy.  The  chair¬ 
man  is  not  here.  I  act  as  his  substitute.  Most  of  the  authors 
of  the  papers  that  are  to  be  read  to-night  are  not  with  us,  and 
they  will  be  represented  by  proxy.  We  have,  however,  the 
Archbishop  of  Zante  with  us,  and  he  will  read  a  brief  protest 
against  superstitions  that  are  prevalent  in  the  East.”  His 

Grace,  the  Archbishop  of  Zante,  then  came  forward  and  said: 

Most  Honorable  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  am  not  a  Jew.  I  am  a  Chris¬ 
tian,  a  profound  believer  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel.  I  am  always  bound  to 
defend  the  truth,  and  for  this  reason  I  present  a  paper  here  to-night. 


SOME  TEACHINGS  OF  THE  KORAN. 


653 


Professor  Snell  said:  “  His  Grace,  the  Archbishop  of  Zaiite, 
has  asked  me  to  read  for  him  this  statement  regarding  the 
belief  current  in  the  Orient,  and  in  many  parts  of  Europe  to 
the  effect  that  Jewish  people  are  in  the  habit  of  catching  Chris¬ 
tian  children  and  sacrificing  them  upon  the  altar.” 

In  the  East  the  belief  is  current  among  the  ignorant  masses  of  the  pop¬ 
ulation  that  the  Jews  use  for  purposes  of  religious  rights  the  blood  of 
Christian  children,  and  in  order  to  procure  such  blood  do  not  shrink  from 
committing  murder.  In  consequence  of  this  belief  outbreaks  against  the 
Jews  are  frequent  and  the  innocent  victims  are  subjected  to  many  indigni¬ 
ties  and  exposed  to  great  danger.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  such  erroneous 
ideas  are  also  current  among  the  ignorant  of  other  countries,  and  during 
the  last  decade  both  Germany  and  Austria  were  the  scenes  of  trials  of 
innocent  Jews  under  the  accusation  of  having  committed  such  ritual  mur¬ 
der,  I,  as  a  Christian  minister,  ask  this  congress  to  record  our  conviction 
that  Judaism  forbids  murder  of  any  kind,  and  that  Done  of  its  sacred 
authorities  and  books  command  or  permit  murder  or  the  use  of  human 
blood  for  ritual  practices  or  religious  ceremonies.  The  circulation  of  such 
slander  against  the  adherence  of  a  monotheistic  faith  is  un-Christian.  The 
origin  of  the  calumny  must  be  traced  to  the  Roman  conceit  that  early 
Christians  used  human  blood  in  their  religious  observances.  It  is  not  con¬ 
sonant  with  Christian  duty  to  allow  this  horrible  charge  to  go  unrebuked, 
and  it  is  in  the  interest  of  Christianity’s  good  repute  that  I  ask  this  parlia¬ 
ment  to  declare  that  J udaism  and  the  J ews  are  innocent  of  the  imputed 
crime  as  were  the  Christians  of  the  1st  century. 


SOME  TEACHINGS  OF  THE  KORAN. 

J.  SANNA  ABOU  NADDARA. 

An  interesting  paper  prepared  by  J.  Sanna  Abou  Naddara 
of  Paris  was  read  by  Professor  Snell,  on  the  Koran  and  other 

sacred  scriptures.  The  paper  said  in  part: 

The  Koran  has  been  translated  into  all  languages.  I  shall  not  speak  of 
its  holiness,  lest  I  profane  it,  and,  besides,  I  am  not  a  Mohammedan  priest 
—  am  a  deist — a  very  faithful  believer  in  God  and  a  sincere  admirer  of  all 
those  who  make  Him  known  to  men,  and  celebrate  His  sublime  work.  The 
Koran  is  tolerant,  human,  and  moral.  The  Koran  has  mercy  upon  slaves. 
I  may  even  say  Mohammed  was  the  slave’s  friend.  Allow  me  to  show  you 
that  Mohammed  and  his  followers  are  not,  as  some  suppose  them  to  be, 
adversaries  to  instruction:  nay,  they  are  great  friends  of  knowledge.  The 
Koran  says,  “Learned  men  are  the  heirs  of  profits,”  and  that  learning  is  a 
divine  precept  that  every  Mussulman  must  fulfill.  These  words  show  us 
how  greatly  the  Prophet  of  Islam  appreciated  instruction,  as  he  bids  his 
followers  to  go  and  acquire  knowledge,  even  if  it  were  to  China,  a  very 
long  voyage  at  that  time,  when  steamboats  and  railways  were  unknown. 
Mohammed  also  said:  “Expect  no  good  from  a  man  who  is  neither  learned 
nor  a  student.”  Moslem  doctors,  philosophers,  and  poets  have  written  and 
said  much  upon  this  subject.  In  Turkey,  in  Syria,  and  in  Egypt,  not  only 
numerous  schools  for  boys  were  founded  but  for  girls  also,  as  women  are 
highly  regarded  by  the  Prophet  Mohammed  and  his  followers. 


654 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Islam  had  and  has  still  many  female  writers  and  poets.  Mohammed 
said  of  women:  “  Happy  and  fortunate  is  the  man  who  has  only  one  wife, 
pious  and  virtuous.”  This  is  favorable  to  monogamy,  otherwise  he  would 
have  said:  “Happy  is  he  who  possesses  a  good  number  of  wives.”  He  said 
also  to  his  friends:  “I  love  three  things  in  your  world — namely,  women, 
perfume,  and  prayer.”  This  denotes  that  the  Prophet  of  Islam  aijpreciates 
woman,  since  he  places  her  first  in  what  he  cherished  in  this  world.  The 
Koran  is  so  favorable  to  the  fair  sex  that  its  fourth  chapter,  which  is  long 
enough,  is  consecrated  to  woman,  whose  cause  it  gallantly  pleads,  and  in 
speaking  of  divorce,  the  apostle  of  Allah  says  that,  even  if  a  man  had  given 
his  wife  a  talent,  if  he  divorces  her  he  has  no  right  to  take  anything  back 
from  her. 

I  terminate  my  humble  words  by  calling  divine  blessings  on  the  enlight¬ 
ened  members  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions  and  by  praying  the  Lord  to 
crown  their  undertakings  with  happy  success. 


AMERICA’S  DUTY  TO  CHINA. 

DK.  W.  A.  r.  MAETIN,  PEESIDENT  OE  THE  IMPERIAL  TUNG  WEN 

COLLEGE,  PEKIN. 

Among  the  hundreds  of  inviting  themes  offered  in  the  official  programme 
1  have  selected  this  because  it  is  pregnant  with  live  issues,  and  because  in 
a  parliament  of  religions  no  subject  is  more  fitting  than  that  of  duty.  A 
religion  that  withdraws  men  from  the  active  duties  of  life  and  leads  them 
to  consume  their  brief  span  of  earthly  existence  in  fruitless  contemplation, 
or  one  that  exalts  ceremonial  observances,  at  the  expense  of  justice  and 
charity,  has  forgotten  the  mission  of  a  heaven-sent  faith.  The  seal  of 
religion  is  the  sanction  which  it  lends  to  morality.  This  is  what  St.  James 
means  when  he  says  that  “pure  and  undefiled  religion  is  to  visit  the  widow 
and  the  fatherless  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep  oneself  unspotted  from 
the  world.”  The  same  conception  is  set  forth  in  the  eighty-fifth  psalm,  in 
that  beautiful  picture  of  heaven  and  earth  combining  to  give  birth  to  truth, 
mercy,  and  righteousness. 

Mercy  and  truth  have  met  together;  righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each 
other.  Truth  springeth  out  of  the  earth.  Righteousness  hath  looked  down  from 
Heaven, 

There  is  not  a  religion  worthy  of  the  name  that  does  not  in  some  degree 
exert  this  kind  of  elevating  and  sanctifying  influence.  But  it  is  not  claim¬ 
ing  too  much  for  Christianity  to  assert  that  beyond  all  other  systems  it  has 
made  its  influence  felt  in  the  morality  of  individuals  and  of  nations.  It  is 
like  the  sun,  which  not  only  floods  the  earth  with  light,  but  imparts  the 
force  that  enables  her  to  pursue  her  pathway.  It  has  been  well  said  “  that 
it  is  one  of  the  glories  of  Christianity  that  it  has  caused  the  sentiment  of 
repentance  to  find  a  place  in  the  heart  of  nations.”  This  is  the  sentiment 
that  I  desire  to  evoke  and  I  trust  that  the  views  presented  in  this  paper 
will  in  some  measure  contribute  to  the  promotion  of  a  public  opinion,  which 
will  not  merely  check  the  prevailing  tendency  to  private  and  legislative 
outrage  on  our  Chinese  neighbors,  but  stimulate  to  increased  efforts  for 
the  promotion  of  their  welfare.  “  The  duty  of  nations,”  says  Montesquieu, 
“  is  in  peace  to  do  good  to  each  other,  and  in  war  to  do  as  little  harm  as 
possible  ” — a  maxim  which  expresses  the  essence  of  Chribtian  ethics,  and 
one  which  could  not  have  sprung  up  in  any  other  than  a  Christian  soil. 

Before  taking  up  the  discussion  of  our  specific  duties  let  us  for  a  moment 
take  a  view  of  our  own  indebtedness  to  China.  The  word  duty  in  its 
primary  sense  signifies  what  we  owe,  Gathering  a  fullness  of  meaning  and 


AMERICA'S  DUTY  TO  CHINA. 


G55 


rising  with  the  growth  of  morals  and  the  development  of  language,  it 
finally  attains  the  conception  of  what  we  ought,  signifying  in  the  first 
instance  an  obligation  to  make  a  return  for  benefits  received,  and  in  its 
higher  sense  that  which  we  are  impelled  to  do  from  any  consideration  that 
binds  the  conscience.  In  either  sphere  we  shall  discover  a  number  of 
weighty  obligations  which  we  have  to  discharge  toward  the  peojjle  of  China. 

To  begin  with  those  of  the  lower  order,  our  obligations  for  benefits 
received — rich  are  the  gifts  which  that  ancient  empire  has  poured  into  the 
lap  of  our  western  civilization;  gifts,  Vv  hich,  like  air  aiid  sunshine,  we  enjoy 
without  taking  the  trouble  to  reflect  on  their  origin,  though  their  with¬ 
drawal  would  carry  a  sense  of  grievous  loss  into  every  household.  Here, 
where  the  products  of  inventive  genius  are  so  ijrofoundly  displayed,  let  it 
not  be  forgotten  that  to  China  we  are  indebted  for  the  best  of  our  domestic 
beverages;  for  the  elegant  ware  that  adorns  our  table,  and  for  those  sjjlendid 
dress  materials  that  set  off  the  beauty  of  our  women. 

To  China  we  are  indebted  for  at  least  one  of  our  sciences — one  which  is 
doing  more  than  any  other  to  transform  and  subjugate  the  elements.  For, 
as  I  have  shown  in  a  paper  devoted  to  that  inquiry,  alchemy,  the  mother  of 
our  modern  chemistry,  though  reaching  Euroije  by  the  way  of  India, 
Byzantium  and  Arabia,  had  its  original  root  in  the  Chinese  j)hilosophy  of 
Too,  one  of  the  religions  represented  here  to-day.  Its  votaries,  seizing  on  a 
hint  of  the  transmutations  of  matter,  which  they  found  in  that  oldest  of 
the  sacred  books  2,000  years  ago,  of  their  country,  the  Yi  King,  or  Book  of 
Changes,  not  only  conceived  the  idea  of  obtaining  gold  from  baser  metals, 
but  came  to  believe  in  the  possibility  of  evolving  from  this  perishable  body 
an  imperishable  sjjiritual  existence.  Thus  at  an  early  date  we  find  among 
the  Chinese  the  search  for  the  secret  of  making  gold  and  compounding  the 
elixir  of  immortality — the  twin  pursuits  that  have  fund  the  ambition  of 
alchemists  in  all  subsequent  ages. 

Are  not  these  few  items,  if  taken  alone,  sufficient  to  warrant  the  infer¬ 
ence  that  the  nation  which  originated  such  things  is  not  undeserving  of 
respect,  or  a  benefactor  of  the  human  race? 

But  I  hasten  to  emphasize  another  obligation  which  connects  itself, 
directly  with  thegreat  event  commemorated  by  this  Columbian  Exhibition. 
For  to  China,  beyond  a  doubt,  we  are  indebted  for  the  motive  that  stimu¬ 
lated  the  Genoese  navigator  to  undertake  his  adventurous  voyage,  and  to 
her  he  was  indebted  for  the  needle  that  guided  him  on  his  way.  Being  an 
Italian,  he  was  familiar  with  the  marvelous  narrative  of  Marco  Polo’s  resi¬ 
dence  at  the  court  of  Kublar  Khan  (A.  D.  1280)  in  Combalar,  the  present 
city  of  Pekin.  His  imagination  was  tilled  with  the  splendors  of  Cathay — • 
the  name  that  Polo  gives  to  China  from  the  Kitai  Mongols,  to  whose  sway 
it  was  then  subject;  and,  be  it  remembered,  that  at  that  epoch  Europe  was 
far  in  the  wake  of  China,  both  in  wealth  and  civilization;  her  only  pre¬ 
eminence  consisting  in  the  possession  of  those  undeveloped  germs  of  relig¬ 
ion  and  science  which  since  that  day  have  transformed  the  globe. 

The  doctrine  of  the  earth’s  rotundity,  which  was  not  new,  but  which  he 
was  the  first  to  make  subservient  to  maritime  enterprise,  assured  Columbus 
that  the  ocean,  on  which  he  looked,  must  have  a  farther  shore,  and  that  by 
crossing  it  to  the  West  lie  might  arrive  at  the  Asiatic  Eldorado  after  pass¬ 
ing  the  island  empire  of  Zipangu;  never  dreaming  that  the  ocean  held  in 
its  bosom  a  new  world,  which  stretched  almost  from  pole  to  pole  and  barred 
his  western  course. 

Convinced  as  he  was  that  by  steering  to  the  West  he  might  arrive  at 
that  land  of  wealth  and  culture,  without  the  aid  of  the  mariner’s  compass 
he  would  have  been  powerless  to  pursue  such  course.  Indeed,  but  for  the 
assistance  of  that  mysterious  pilot  he  never  would  have  dared  to  leave 
behind  him  coast  and  headland  and  to  iilunge  into  a  vast  unknown  where 
clouds  and  fogs  might  deprive  him  of  sun  and  stars. 


G56 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Lons  lay  the  ocean  paths  from  him  concealed. 

Light  came  from  heaven— the  magnet  was  revealed. 

Then  first,  Columbus,  with  the  grasping  hand 
Of  mighty  genius,  weighed  the  sea  and  land.  ■ 

There  seemed  one  waste  of  waters— long  in  vain 
His  spirit  brooded  on  the  Atlantic  main. 

When  sudden,  as  creation  burst  from  naught. 

Sprang  a  new  world  through  his  stupendous  thought. 

This  heaven-sent  helper  came  to  him,  as  already  intimated,  by  way  of 
China,  for  it  was  to  the  Chinese  that  the  directive  properties  of  the  magnet 
were  first  “  revealed.”  Long  before  the  dawn  of  the  Christian  era  they 
had  made  use  of  it  in  crossing  the  treeless  prairies  of  Mongolia  and  the 
moving  sands  of  the  desert  of  Oobi.  Early  in  our  era  they  had  applied  it 
to  coastwise  navigation,  and  nothing  was  wanting  but  a  Chinese  Columbus 
to  enable  them  to  find  their  way  across  the  Pacific  and  to  preoccupy  this 
goodly  continent,  which,  by  a  special  providence,  appears  to  have  been 
reserved  for  the  people  of  Europe, 

We  know  not  the  hand  by  which  the  magic  needle  was  transmitted,  but 
it  is  morally  certain  that  it  came  from  China,  where  it  had  made  its  home 
for  at  least  two  thousand  years.  There  is  indeed  an  apparent  difference 
between  our  needle  and  that  of  China,  which  might  in  some  minds  give  rise 
to  a  doubt  as  to  their  identity.  The  Chinese  always  speak  of  theirs  as 
“  pointing  to  the  South,”  while  it  is  well-known  that  ours  points  in  the 
opposite  direction.  Matter  this  for  a  pretty  controversy — which  might  not 
have  been  easily  settled,  but  for  the  fortunate  observation  that  a  needle  has 
two  ends.  May  not  this  case  serve  as  a  hint  to  help  us  in  reconciling  some 
of  our  conflicts  of  religious  opinions?  Does  it  not  show  that  both  parties 
may  be  right,  though  the  divergency  of  their  views  appears  to  be  as  wide  as 
the  poles? 

Significant  it  is  that  the  first  European  known  to  have  employed  the 
compass  was  Gioja,  a  Neapolitan — a  countryman  of  Polo’s  and  those  other 
enterprising  Italians  who  brought  the  news  of  China  from  the  ports  of  the 
Euxine  or  sought  them  in  Tartary.  Not  merely  did  Polo’s  story  awaken 
the  aspiration  of  Columbus,  the  needle  itself  spoke  to  him  of  China,  seem¬ 
ing  to  say:  “  Fear  not  the  trackless  ocean — here  is  a  guide  that  I  have  sent 
to  conduct  you  to  my  shores.”  In  Irving’s  “  Tales  of  the  Alhambra,”  one 
of  the  Moorish  kings  comes  into  possession  of  a  wonderful  talisman — the 
image  of  a  cavalier  whose  spear  is  endowed  with  the  inestimable  quality  of 
always  pointing  in  the  direction  from  which. danger  is  to  be  apprehended. 
Would  not  the  magnetic  needle,  if  only  one  of  the  kind  had  existed,  have 
been  regarded  as  equally  mysterious?  Is  it  worthy  of  less  admiration, 
because  capable  of  being  indefinitely  multiplied?  And  is  our  debt  to  China 
the  lighter  because  the  instrument  she  has  given  us,  after  having  unveiled 
a  hidden  continent,  continues  to  direct  the  movement  of  our  ocean 
commerce? 

In  a  word — without  China  for  motive  and  without  the  magic  finger  for 
guide,  it  is  certain  that  Columbus  would  not  have  made  his  voyage;  and  it 
is  highly  probable  that  we  should  not  have  been  holding  a  world’s  fair  at 
this  time  and  place.  With  such  claims  on  our  grateful  recognition  is  it  not 
a  matter  of  surprise  that  China  is  not  found  occupying  a  conspicuous  place 
in  this  Columbian  exhibition?  Could  anything  have  been  more  fitting 
than  to  have  had  the  dragon  flag  floating  over  a  pavilion  draped  with  shin¬ 
ing  silks — with  a  pyramid  of  tea  chests  on  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  a 
house  of  porcelain  surmounted  by  a  gigantic  compass  and  a  statue  of 
China  beckoning  Columbus  to  cross  the  seas? 

As  a  matter  of  form,  our  government  did  send  an  invitation  to  China  as 
to  other  countries,  to  participate  in  a  national  capacity.  To  Chinese  eyes 
it  read  like  this: 

We  have  excluded  your  laborers  and  skilled  workmen  because  our  people 
dread  their  competition.  We  have  even  enacted  a  law  that  not  one  of  them  who 


AMERICANS  DUTY  TO  CHINA. 


657 


turns  his  back  on  our  shores  shall  be  permitted  to  re-enter  our  ports.  Still  we 
would  like  to  have  you  help  us  with  our  big  show,  and  for  this  occasion  we  are 
willing  to  relax  the  rigor  of  our  rules  so  far  as  to  admit  a  few  of  your  workingmen 
to  aid  in  arranging  your  exhibit— under  bond,  be  it  understood,  that  they  shall 
clear  out  as  soon  as  the  display  is  over. 

What  wonder  that  a  proud  and  sensitive  government  declined  the 
tempting  offer,  leaving  its  industries  to  be  represented  (if  at  all)  by  the 
private  enterprise  of  its  people  resident  in  the  United  States? 

Here  is  China’s  official  reply  as  communicated  by  Minister  Denby  in  a 
dispatch  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  Reporting  an  interview  with  the  Chi¬ 
nese  premier,  Li  Hung  Chang,  he  says: 

I  then  took  up  the  subject  of  the  Chicago  exposition  and  advised  him  to  send 
a  fleet  to  Hampton  Roads  to  show  the  world  the  great  progress  China  has  lately 
made  in  the  creation  of  a  modern  navy,  i  found,  however,  that  it  was  useless  to 
argue  the  subject  with  him.  He  said  he  would  not  send  a  fleet,  and  that  China 
would  have  no  exhibition  at  Chicago.  I  expressed  my  regret  at  this  irrational 
conclusion  and  used  some  arguments  to  make  him  recede  from  it,  but  without 
avail. 

If  our  indebtedness  to  China  is  such  that  nothing  but  ignorance  or  want 
of  thought  could  prevent  its  due  recognition;  on  the  other  hand  our  duties 
to  her  and  her  people  are  not  less  conspicuous.  In  treating  of  them  I  shall 
not  attempt  to  carry  out  the  form  of  a  debt  and  credit  account;  for  though 
our  sense  of  moral  responsibility  may  sometimes  be  quickened  by  senti¬ 
mental  consideration,  such  as  those  to  which  we  have  adverted,  our  duties 
are  of  a  higher  order  and  more  positive  character.  They  grow  not  out  of 
obligation  for  benefits,  such  as  we  have  described,  but  spring  directly  from 
the  geographical  situation  which  the  Creator  has  assigned  to  us,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  position  which  v/e  are  called  to  occupy  in  the  scale  of 
civilization. 

“Who  is  my  neighbor?”  is  a  question  which  every  human  soul  is  bound 
to  ask  in  a  world  in  which  mutual  aid  is  the  first  of  moral  laws.  The  answer 
given  by  Him,  who,  better  than  any  other,  expounded  and  exemplified  the 
laws  of  God,  is  applicable  to  nations  as  well  as  to  individuals.  It  is  an 
answer  that  sweeps  away  the  barriers  of  race  and  religion,  and  shows  us  the 
Samaritan  forgetful  of  hereditary  feuds  ministering  to  the  wants  of  the 
needy  Jew. 

Thus  China  is  our  neighbor,  notwithstanding  the  sea  that  rolls  between 
us — a  sea  which,  contrary  to  the  idea  of  the  Roman  poet,  unites  rather  than 
divides.  Yes,  China,  which  faces  us  on  the  opposite  shore  of  the  Pacific; 
China  which  occupies  a  domain  as  vast  and  as  opulent  in  resources  as  our 
own;  China,  teeming  with  a  population  five  times  as  great  as  ours  and  more 
accessible  to  us  than  to  any  of  the  great  nations  of  Christendom;  China,  I 
say,  is  pre-eminently  our  neighbor. 

What,  then,  is  the  first  of  the  duties  we  owe  to  her  ?  It  is  unquestion¬ 
ably  to  make  her  peoples  partakers  with  ourselves  in  the  blessings  of  the 
Christian  religion.  Here,  in  this  Parliament  of  Religions,  it  is  unnecessary 
to  stop  to  prove  that  religion  is  our  chief  good,  and  that  every  man  who 
feels  himself  to  be  in  possession  of  a  clew  to  guide  him  through  the  labyrinth 
of  earthly  veils  is  bound  to  offer  it  to  his  brother  man.  Who  can  deny  that 
we  may  derive  a  great  advantage  from  the  comparison  of  our  religious 
experience?  And  who  that  believes  that  (in  Buddhistic  phrase)  “he  has 
found  the  way  out  of  the  bitter  sea  ”  can  refuse  to  indicate  the  path  to  his 
brother  man?  The  latter  may  decline  to  follow  it,  but  that  is  his  look  out; 
he  may  even  feel  offended  by  an  implied  assumption  of  superiority,  but 
ought  a  regard  for  susceptibilities  of  that  sort  to  disperse  us  from  the  duty 
of  imparting  our  knowledge? 

“  Why  should  we  not  send  religions  to  your  country?  ”  once  said  to  me  a 
distinguished  Chinese  professor  in  the  Imxjerial  University  of  Pekin. 
Careful  not  to  say  that  it  was  “  because  water  does  not  flow  up  hill,”  I 
replied:  “  By  all  means;  send  them  and  make  the  experiment.” 


658 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


“  But  would  your  people  receive  them  with  favor?  ”  he  asked  again. 

“  Certainly,”  said  I;  “  instead  of  being  a  voice  crying  in  the  wilderness 
they  would  be  welcomed  in  our  city  halls,  and  their  message  would  be  heard 
and  weighed.” 

Do  you  suppose  that  my  esteemed  colleague  at  once  set  about  forming  a 
missionary  society?  He  was  proud  of  hie  ijosition  as  professor  of  mathe¬ 
matics,  and  proud  to  be  the  expositor  of  what  he  called  “  Western  learning,” 
but  his  faith  was  too  feeble  to  prompt  to  effort  for  the  propagation  of  his 
religion.  He  was  a  Confucianist,  and  believed  in  an  over-ruling  power, 
which  he  called  “  Shonyto,”  or  Tien,”  and  had  some  shadow  of  a  notion 
of  a  life  to  come,  as  evidenced  by  his  worship  of  ancestors;  but  his  religion, 
such  as  it  was,  was  wofully  wanting  in  vitality,  and  marked  by  that  Saddu- 
ceean  indifference  which  may  be  taken  as  the  leading  characteristic  of  his 
school  despite  the  excellence  of  its  ethnical  system. 

Another  religion  indigenous  to  Chiar  is  Taoism;  but  as  the  Chinese  say 
of  their  famous  Book  of  Changes  that  “  it  can  not  be  carried  beyond  the 
seas  ”  we  may  say  the  same  of  Taoism — it  has  nothing  that  will  bear  trans¬ 
portation.  Its  founder,  Lao  Tsze,  did,  indeed,  express  some  sublime 
truths  in  beautiful  language;  but  he  enjoined  retirement  from  the  world 
rather  than  persistent  effort  to  improve  mankind.  His  followers  have 
become  sadly  degenerate;  and  not  to  speak  of  achemy,  which  they  con¬ 
tinue  to  pursue,  their  religion  has  dwindled  into  a  compound  of  necromancy 
and  exorcism.  It  is,  however,  very  far  from  being  dead. 

It  has  at  its  head  a  pontiff  who  represents  a  hierarchy  as  old  as  the 
Christian  era.  From  his  palace  on  the  Tunghu  Mountains  of  Kiongsi  he 
exercises  a  serious  sort  of  spiritual  jurisdiction  over  everything  in  the 
empire,  the  tutelar  deity  of  the  city  being  by  him  selected  from  a  list  of 
dead  Mondouins.  He  is  supposed,  moreover,  to  control  all  the  bad  spirits 
that  molest  mankind  and  the  visitor  is  shown  long  rows  of  jars,  each  bear¬ 
ing  the  seal  of  the  pontiff  and  an  inscription  indicating  that  some  culprit 
was  there  confined.  Such  is  Taoism  at  the  present  day,  and  though  it 
exercises  a  tremendous  power  over  the  minds  of  the  superstitious,  its  doc¬ 
trines  and  methods  would  hardly  be  deemed  edifying  in  other  parts  of  the 
world. 

Buddhism  has  a  nobler  record.  It  imported  into  China  the  elements  of 
a  spiritual  conception  of  the  universe.  It  has  implanted  in  the  minds  of 
the  common  people  a  firm  belief  in  rewards  and  punishments.  It  has  cher¬ 
ished  a  spirit  of  charity,  and,  in  a  word,  exercised  an  influence  so  similar  to 
that  of  Christianity  that  it  may  be  considered  as  having  done  much  to 
prepare  the  soil  for  the  dissemination  of  a  higher  faith.  But  its  force  is 
spent  and  its  work  done.  Its  priesthood  has  lapsed  into  such  a  state  of 
ignorance  and  corruption  that  in  Chinese  Buddhism  there  appears  to  be  no 
possibility  of  revival.  In  fact  it  seems  to  exist  in  a  state  of  suspended 
animation,  similar  to  that  of  those  frogs  that  are  said  to  have  been  excavated 
from  the  stones  of  a  Buddhist  monument  in  India,  which  inhaling  a  breath 
of  air  took  a  leap  or  two  and  then  expired.  Of  the  Buddhism  of  Japan, 
which  appears  to  be  more  wide-awake,  it  is  not  my  province  to  speak;  but 
as  to  that  of  China  there  is  reason  to  fear  that  no  power  can  galvanize  it 
even  into  a  semblance  of  vitality. 

The  religion  of  the  state  is  a  heterogeneous  cult  made  up  of  ceremonies 
borrowed  from  each  of  these  three  systems.  And  of  the  religion  of  the 
people,  it  may  be  affirmed  that  it  consists  of  parts  of  all  three  commingled 
in  each  individul  mind,  much  as  gases  are  mingled  in  the  atmosphere,  but 
without  any  definite  proportion.  Each  of  these  systems  has,  in  its  meas¬ 
ure,  served  them  as  a  useful  discipline,  though  in  jarring  and  irreconcilable 
discord  with  each  other.  But  the  time  has  come  for  the  Chinese  to  be 
introduced  to  a  more  complete  religion — one  which  combines  the  merits  of 
all  three,  while  it  heightens  them  in  degree. 


AMERICANS  DUTY  TO  CHINA.- 


659 


To  the  august  character  of  Shongti,  the  Suprenuj  Ruler,  known  but 
neglected,  feared  but  not  loved,  Christianity  will  add  the  attraction  of  a 
tender  Father — bringing  Him  into  each  heart  and  house  in  lieu  of  fetiches 
now  enshrined  there.  Instead  of  Buddha,  the  Light  of  Asia,  it  will  give 
them  Christ,  the  “  Light  of  the  world,”  for  the  faint  hopes  of  immortality 
derived  from  Taoist  discipline  or  Buddhist  transmigration  it  will  confer  a 
faith  that  triumphs  over  death  and  the  grave;  and  to  crown  all,  bestow  on 
them  the  energy  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  quickening  the  conscience  and  sancti¬ 
fying  the  affections  as  nothing  else  has  ever  done. 

The  native  systems,  bound  up  with  the  absurdities  of  geomancy  and  the 
abominations  of  animal  worship,  are  an  anachronism  in  the  age  of  steam¬ 
boats  and  telegraphs.  When  electricity  has  come  forth  from  its  hiding 
place  to  link  the  remotest  quarters  of  their  land  in  instantaneous  sympa¬ 
thy,  ministering  light,  force,  and  healing,  does  it  not  suggest  to  them  the 
coming  of  a  spiritual  energy  to  do  the  same  for  the  human  soul? 

This  spiritual  power,  I  hold  it,  is  pre-eminently  the  duty  of  Americans 
to  seek  to  impart  to  the  people  of  China.  When  Christianity  comes  to  them 
from  Russia,  England,  and  France,  all  of  which  have  pushed  their  terri¬ 
tories  up  to  the  frontiers  of  China,  the  Chinese  are  prone  to  suspect  that 
evangelization  under  such  auspices  is  only  a  mask  for  future  aggression. 
It  is  not  Christianity  in  itself  that  they  object  to,  so  much  as  its  connec¬ 
tion  with  foreign  power  and  foreign  politics. 

Now  these  impediments  are  minimized  in  the  case  of  the  United  States 
— a  country  which,  until  the  outbreak  of  this  unhappy  persecution  of  their 
countrymen,  was  regarded  by  tbe  Chinese  as  their  best  friend,  because  an 
impossible  enemy.  Our  treaty  of  1858  gives  expression  to  this  feeling  by 
a  clause  inserted  at  the  instance  of  the  Chinese  negotiators  to  the  effect 
that  whenever  China  finds  herself  in  a  difficulty  with  another  foreign 
power  she  shall  have  the  right  to  call  on  America  to  make  use  of  her  good 
offices  to  effect  a  settlement.  America  holds  that  proud  position  no  longer. 
To  such  a  pass  have  things  come  that  a  viceroy,  who  has  always  been 
friendly  and  at  times  has  been  regarded  as  a  patron  of  missionaries,  not 
long  ago  said  to  an  American  missionary:  “  Do  not  come  back  to  China. 
Stay  in  your  own  country  and  teach  your  people  the  practice  of  justice  and 
charity.” 

This  brings  us  to  the  duties  especially  incumbent  on  our  government, 
and  the  first  that  suggests  itself  is  that  of  protecting  American  interests. 
That,  you  may  say,  is  not  a  duty  to  China,  but  one  that  it  owes  to  its  own 
people.  True,  but  Americans  have  no  interest  that  does  not  imply  a  cor¬ 
responding  good  to  the  Chinese  empire. 

Take,  for  example,  our  commerce.  Do  we  impoverish  China  by  taking 
her  teas  and  silks?  Do  we  not,  on  the  contrary,  add  to  her  wealth  by 
giving  in  exchange  the  materials  for  food  and  clothing  at  a  less  cost 
than  would  be  required  for  their  production  in  China?  The  value  of 
our  commercial  interests  in  that  empire  may  be  inferred  better  than  from 
any  minute  statistics  from  the  fact  that  within  the  last  thirty  years  they 
have  been  a  leading  factor  in  the  construction  of  four  lines  of  railway 
spanning  this  continent  and  of  three  lines  of  steamships  bridging  the 
Pacific.  What  dimensions  will  they  not  attain  when  our  States  West  of  the 
Mississippi  come  to  be  filled  with  an  opulent  population;  and  when 
the  resourcss  of  China  are  developed  by  the  application  of  Occidental 
methods? 

Had  Columbus  realized  the  grandness  of  his  discovery — and  had  he, 
like  Balboa,  bathed  in  the  waters  of  the  Pacific,  what  a  picture  would  have 
risen  before  the  eye  of  his  fervid  imagination!  A  new  land  as  rich  as 
Cathay,  and  new  and  old  clasping  hands  across  a  broad  expanse  of  ocean 
whitened  by  the  sails  of  a  prosperous  commerce.  Already  has  such  a  dream 
begun  to  be  fulfilled  and  to  the  prospective  expansion  of  our  commerce 


G60 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


fancy  can  hardly  assign  a  limit.  In  that  bright  reversion  every  son  of  our 
soil  and  every  adopted  citizen  has  a  direct  or  indirect  interest. 

But  what  has  the  government  got  to  do  with  all  that  beyond  giving  free 
scope  to  private  enterprise?  Much  in  many  ways.  But  not  to  descend  into 
particulars,  its  responsibility  consists  mainly  in  two  things,  both  negative, 
viz.,  not  by  an  injudicious  tariff  to  exclude  the  products  of  China  from  our 
markets  and  not  to  divert  the  trade  of  China  into  European  channels  by 
planting  a  bitter  root  of  hostility  in  the  Chinese. 

Let  the  Christian  people  of  the  United  States  rise  up  in  their  might  and 
demand  that  our  government  shall  retrace  its  steps — by  repealing  that 
odious  law  which  may  not  be  forbidden  by  the  letter  of  our  ConstiBition, 
but  which  three  eminent  members  of  our  Supreme  Court  have  pronounced 
to  be  in  glaring  opposition  to  the  spirit  of  our  magna  charta. 

In  September,  1888,  the  Chinese  government  had  under  advisement  a 
treaty  negotiated  by  its  minister  in  Washington  in  which,  to  escape  the 
indignity  of  an  ordinary  exclusion  act,  it  agrees  to  take  the  initiative  in 
prohibiting  the  emigration  of  laborers.  That  treaty  would  undoubtedly 
have  been  ratified  if  time  had  been  given  for  the  consideration  of  amend¬ 
ments  which  China  desired  to  propose..  But  the  exigencies  of  a  Presidential 
campaign  led  our  government  to  apply  the  “closure”  with  an  abrupt¬ 
ness  almost  unheard  of  in  diplomatic  history,  demanding  through  our  min¬ 
ister  in  Pekin  the  ratification  within  forty-eight  hours  on  pain  of  being 
considered  as  having  rejected  the  treaty.  The  Chinese  government,  not 
choosing  to  sacrifice  its  dignity  by  complying  with  this  unceremonious 
ultimatum,  our  Congress,  as  a  bid  for  a  vote  of  the  Pacific  Coast,  hastily 
passed  the  Scott  law,  a  law  which  our  Supreme  Court  has  decided  to  be  in 
contravention  of  our  treaty  engagements. 

Another  Olympiad  came  round — a  term  which  we  might  very  well  apply 
to  the  periodical  game  of  electing  a  President— and  on  the  high  tide  of 
another  Presidential  contest,  a  new  exclusion  law,  surpassing  its  prede¬ 
cessors  in  the  severity  of  its  enactments,  was  successfully  floated.  Could 
such  a  course  have  any  other  effect  than  that  of  exciting  in  the  mind  of 
China  a  profound  contempt  for  our  republican  institutions,  and  in  abiding 
hostility  to  our  people?  One  of  our  leading  journals  has  characterized  that 
law  as  “a  piece  of  buncombe  and  barbarous  legislation,”  of  which  the 
administration  would  appear  to  be  “  heartily  ashamed,”  to  judge  from  the 
excuse  they  find  for  evading  its  execution. 

Let  a  wise  diplomacy  supersede  these  obnoxious  enactments  by  a  new 
convention  which  shall  be  fair  to  both  parties  ;  then  will  our  people  be  wel¬ 
comed  as  friends,  and  America  may  yet  recover  her  lost  influence  in  that 
great  empire  of  the  East. 


WOMAN  AND  THE  PULPIT. 

REV.  ANTOINETTE  BROWN  BLACKWELL. 

Feelings  which  come  unbidden  from  the  iafluence  of  our  surroundings 
tend  to  produce  the  willing  acceptance  of  anything  to  which  we  are  accus¬ 
tomed.  We  live  so  much  more  vividly  in  the  present  than  in  the  past  or 
future  that  anything  here  and  now  seems  to  have  more  claim  upon  us  than 
higher  ideas  which  wait  to  be  realized.  Chilly  rain  falling  steadily  for  a 
day  or  two  makes  it  difficult  to  shake  off  the  feeling  that  the  same  weather 
will  continue  without  limit.  Experience  tells  us  that  warmth  and  sun¬ 
shine  will  be  here  directly,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  recall  the  sensation  pro¬ 
duced  by  cheerful,  bright  days.  If  this  is  true  of  events  to  which  we  are 
accustomed,  how  much  more,  then,  of  the  less  familiar,  larger  facts  of  his¬ 
tory.  The  present  becomes  the  instructive  measure  of  the  future. 


WOMAN  AND  THE  PULPIT. 


661 


The  tendency  is  much  more  influential  thaii  may  be  supposed  in  the 
settlement  of  many  of  the  great  problems  of  life,  and  it  forms  the  only 
justification  for  the  opposition  still  felt  by  very  excellent  persons  to  the 
presence  and  the  wise,  helpful  teaching  of  capable  women  in  the 
Christian  pulpit.  Serious  arguments  against  feminine  preaching  were 
answered  long  ago.  It  is  no  longer  believed  that  women  are  pre-emi¬ 
nently  deficient  in  mind  or  character.  Many  of  the  older  matrons  and 
unmarried  women,  and  some  even  of  the  young  mothers  have  already 
demonstrated  their  capacity  for  doing  large  amounts  of  benevolent  outside 
work  without  detriment  either  to  the  home,  to  society,  or  to  their  own 
highest  womanly  natures.  Wherever  any  of  the  fairly  acceptable  women 
preachers  are  heard  and  known  long  enough  to  make  their  speaking  and 
good  work  familiar  and  appreciated  there  it  is  already  accepted  that  the 
sex  of  the  worker  is  not  a  bar  to  good  work.  The  easy  adaptability  to  new 
duties  is  admitted  without  question.  It  makes  its  own  place  successfully 
in  the  varied  social  domain  just  as  every  tree  is  said  to  do,  let  it  be  planted 
almost  anywhere,  adding  its  own  new  charm  to  the  landscape. 

Some  one  tells  a  pleasant  story  of  the  little  boy  and  girl  of  a  clergy- 
woman  who,  like  many  other  children,  were  discussing  together  what  they 
were  going  to  do  when  they  grew  up. 

“  I’m  going  to  be  a  minister  like  mamma,”  said  the  little  girl.  “  What’ll 
you  be?” 

The  boy  reflected  awhile  dubiously,  but  the  calling  nearest  at  hand  won 
the  day.  “  I’m  doin’  to  be  a  minister,  too,”  he  said. 

Then  the  sister  put  on  her  small  thinking  cap,  but  after  a  few  minutes 
she  replied  seriously,  “  Well,  I  suppose  mans  do  preach  sometimes.” 

But  the  world  is  so  miscellaneously  broad  that  some  of  the  best  men 
never  heard  a  woman  preacher.  They  never  tried  to  apply  the  higher 
criticism  to  some  of  St.  Paul’s  much-quoted  sayings  about  women.  They 
verily  believe  that  to  hinder  “female  preaching  and  ordination”  to  the 
utmost  stretch  of  their  ability  is  doing  God’s  service.  They  tighten, 
reclasp,  and  rivet  afresh  with  more  glittering  steel  loosened  ecclesiastical 
bonds  which  belonged  to  less  enlightened  ages,  for  they  sincerely  think 
that  the  world  wide  woman  movement  is  only  a  perverse,  detestable  off¬ 
shoot  of  pernicious  infidel  tendencies. 

A  greater  intellect  blunder  than  this  timid,  illogical  assumption  has 
seldom  been  made.  Religious  creeds  have  been  shaken  to  their  founda¬ 
tions.  But  women  far  more  than  men  stood  firmly  on  the  foundation.  It 
is  they  who  were  serenely  confident,  that  true  religion,  if  tried  in  mental 
and  moral  furnaces  heated  seven  times,  will  yet  come  out  purified,  refined, 
triumphant.  It  is  they  who  latterly  gave  both  service  and  money  so  lav¬ 
ishly  for  home  and  foreign  benevolences  that  the  church  is  both  astonished 
and  bewildered,  though  it  opens  the  mouths  of  its  sacks  to  receive  the  sup¬ 
plies  and  it  establishes  unusual  church  offices,  as  that  of  deaconess,  and 
evangelist  to  afford  safe  outlets  for  quickened  womanly  zeal. 

Women  are  taking  an  active,  increasing  share  in  the  education,  the 
thought,  and  the  investigations  of  the  age  and  are  passing  into  almost  every 
field  of  work  certainly  to  no  obvious  disavantage  to  any  worthy  interest. 
This  great  Parliament  of  Religions  is  in  evidence  that  narrow  conserva¬ 
tism  is  rapidly  decreasing  and  that  our  conception  of  the  religious  pulpit 
must  widen  until  it  can  take  in  all  faiths,  all  tongues,  which  strive  to 
enforce  the  living  spirit  of  love  of  God  and  man.  But,  on  the  principle 
that  one  outside  sheep  astray  in  pastures  already  cropped  to  exhaustion  is 
more  to  be  sought  after  than  ninety-nine  in  the  fold,  this  paper,  designed 
to  be  both  a  brief  history  and  discussion  of  facts,  will  indirectly  remember 
the  unconvinced  multitude.  As  the  remoter  distances  on  the  painter’s 
canvas  are  impotent  aids  to  the  bringing  out  of  his  principal  figures,  so  the 
past  is  an  essential  background  form  the  present. 


G62 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Recently  historians  from  critical  comparative  study  have  decided  that 
in  the  progress  of  all  peoples  toward  enlightenment  there  was  a  time  when 
women  represented  the  hardship  of  the  family  and  the  tribe  or  clan  more 
exclusively  than  men  have  represented  such  hardships  under  later  civiliza¬ 
tions.  That  this  so-called  matriarchate  was  a  higher  state  of  civilization 
than  the  present  no  one  can  well  believe;  yet,  that  it  had  less  tendency  in 
any  way,  good  or  bad,  to  limit  the  freedom  of  women  is  incontrovertible. 
Progress  has  never  moved  along  all  lines  simultaneously;  an  advance  is 
sometimes  so  blunderingly  achieved  that  a  step  forward  necessitates  a 
dozen  steps  backward  to  interests  that  have  been  so  needlessly  interwoven 
that  they  are  all  pushed  violently  into  the  rear. 

If  Christianity  had  fully  decided  the  modern  status  of  society  there 
would  have  been  neither  male  nor  female  in  church,  or  state,  or  education, 
or  property,  or  influence,  or  work,  or  honor.  Choice  and  capacity  would 
have  established  all  questions  of  usefulness.  Is  God,  who  is  no  respecter  of 
persons,  a  respecter  of  sex?  Paul’s  exposition  of  practical  Christianity  is: 
“In  honor  preferring  one  another.”  As  the  heavens  are  high  above  the 
earthy  so  is  that  principle  above  those  who  have  largely  controlled  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  men  and  women.  Compare  the  bright  Ithuriel  pointing  his  sword, 
“  having  touch  of  celestial  temper,”  with  the  other  one,  “  squat  like  a  toad 
close  at  the  ear  of  Eve  ”  and  not  very  far  from  Adam. 

Under  barbarism,  when  no  child  could  inherit  except  from  the  mother, 
personal  property  and  power  were  as  yet  but  partially  separate  from  the 
community  interests.  The  tribe  or  clan  was  a  social  unit  for  offense, 
defense,  and  ownership.  Their  gods  were  tute'ary,  household,  and  tribal 
gods.  Like  other  property  safest  around  the  hearthstones,  they  or  their 
symbols  were  given  into  the  safe  keejung  of  women.  Religion  and  govern¬ 
ment  were  not  separate.  The  mothers  controlled  the  children,  took  part  in 
the  sagest  councils  of  religion,  policy,  or  war.  or  became  interpreters,  seers, 
or  priests  as  spontaneously  as  women  to-day,  having  more  leisure  tim*e  than 
men,  are  most  active  in  affairs  of  society  for  their  class  and  in  benevolences 
for  the  less  favored.  In  that  condition  of  morals  women  could  only  safely 
bequeath  wealth  as  chieftainship  to  sons  of  their  own  lineage.  That  social 
order  was  an  accepted  fact,  and  miserable  as  it  was,  it  kept  its  women  and 
its  men  side  by  side,  equals  in  the  onward  march  toward  a  better  future. 

When  property  and  power  were  gained  by  some  of  the  stronger  males, 
naturally  they  desired  to  bequeath  these  to  their  own  children.  Prom  that 
time  female  chastity  began  to  be  enforced  as  the  leading  virtue  for  the  legal 
wives  and  daughters.  In  classic  lands  we  know  that  it  was  the  wives  only 
who  were  held  to  this  most  imperative  of  all  helps  to  high  social  order  and 
equity.  Courtesans,  male  and  female,  were  still  respectable.  Priestesses 
still  held  the  high,  often  the  highest,  rank,  still  interpreted  the  oracles,  lived 
in  the  temples,  and  their  social  vices  were  not  only  sanctioned  but  enjoined 
by  their  religion.  The  legal  adoption  of  heirs  to  share  with  or  supersede 
children  born  in  wedlock  was  an  accepted  custom.  Unnatural  vices  also 
were  made  honorable. 

The  ruder  frank  savagery  of  the  matriarchate  was  considerate  of  women 
because  it  had  not  found  any  way  how  even  to  attempt  to  be  successful 
otherwise.  The  infamous  schemes  which  have  baffled  every  subsequent 
civilization,  which  have  destroyed  many,  and  which  must  destroy  all  if  not 
repudiated,  the  futile  schemes  for  securing  virtuous  wives  and  legitimate 
children  without  entirely  discontinuing  a  wide  license  for  husbands,  fathers, 
sons,  had  not  arisen  for  these  simpler  heathen  folks. 

Too  much  is  at  stake  here  to  allow  anything  but  plain  speaking.  God 
forbid  that  I  should  charge  all  good  men  and  women  with  willingly 
upholding  this  basest  of  all  injustice.  We  inherit  our  early  environments. 
Custom  binds  us  to  the  ethics  which  we  accept  while  life  is  roseate;  but 
the  men  and  women  of  this  parliament  can  afford  to  look  all  facts  in  the 


WOMAN  AND  THE  PULPITo 


663 


face.  The  later  enforced  civil  inferiority  of  women,  their  legal  pauperism 
from  the  day  when  they  became  wives,  the  church’s  solemn  requirement  of 
wifely  obedience,  the  husband’s  custody  of  the  wife,  the  entire  education 
for  debilitating,  seclusive  timidity  and  dependence,  all  sprang  from  the 
same  baneful  root.  It  has  demoralized  even  our  idea  of  a  strong,  beautiful 
womanhood.  And  woman’s  long  exclusion  from  the  pulpit,  from  the  most 
consecrated  place  which  Christianity  has  kept  for  its  supposed  best  and 
noblest,  is  the  outgrowth  of  the  same  basal  iniquity. 

Is  this  a  hard  saying?  No  living  historian  who  takes  as  his  search-light 
modern  methods  of  studying  sacred,  secular,  domestic,  and  civil  society  in 
mutual  dependence  can  question  this  conclusion.  No  other  explanation  is 
adequate  to  the  various  facts.  The  East  adopted  close  veiling  and  almost 
literal  imprisonment  of  high-class  and  favorite  women.  Why,  if  not  to 
enforce  wifely  chastity?  Even  the  small  feet  of  the  best  classes  of  Chinese 
women  have  an  equally  probable  origin.  Helplessness  was  security.  The 
lower  class  could  be  left  in  greater  freedom.  But  mental  fetters  are  more 
potent  than  physical  bonds.  Two  antipodal  religions,  Mohammedanism  and 
the  Latter  Day  Saints,  bound  the  consciences,  befogged  the  intellects,  and 
crucified  the  souls  of  women  to  give  religious  sanction  to  polygamy  for  men. 
One  high  moral  standard  was  not  adopted.  There  were  but  two  alternatives 
— either  plural  wives  whose  supposed  welfare  in  time  and  eternity  was  hung 
upon  the  skirts  of  exalted  husbands,  or  Christendom’s  half-disguised,  cruel 
separation  of  feminine  humanity  into  two  divisions,  the  sheltered  monog¬ 
amous  wives  and  those  unwedded  others.  Of  the  two  plans,  which  is  the 
most  un-Christian,  let  the  casuists  decide. 

The  highest  code  of  morals  is  not  elastic,  but  both  men  and  women  must 
look  aloft  before  they  can  cordially  appreciate  its  teachings.  To  be  hedged 
about  by  conventions  is  not  to  learn  a  self-reliant  rectitude.  Was  there 
ever  a  reason  why  capable,  good  women  should  not  have  continued  to  be 
expounders  of  the  highest  truth  to  which  their  era  could  attain?  They 
have  always  manifested  a  special  aptitude  for  religious  devotion.  About 
twice  as  many  women  as  men  are  members  of  churches  in  all  sects,  whose 
ministers  are  received  by  vote,  and  they  are  more  persistent  in  their  attend¬ 
ance  on  religious  services  everywhere.  This  has  always  been  largely  true. 
Has  it  ever  been  wise  to  fetter  conscience,  or  to  nourish  a  weak  self-con¬ 
sciousness  in  the  illumined  presence  of  a  great  hope  which  points  on  to  an 
endless  triumphant  feature? 

Must  female  modesty  be  taught  to  shrink  from  the  public  eye  as 
ashamed  of  the  womanhood  God  has  bequeathed  it  in  His  wisdom?  Dare 
one  allow  a  poor,  shrinking  timidity  to  be  pitted  against  sweet,  retiring 
solemn  consolations  and  inspirations  which  comfort  and  strengthen  needy 
humanity?  Can  we  think  of  Jesus  as  possibly  hindered  by  modesty  from 
proclaiming  to  sin-laden  multitudes,  “  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart, 
blessed  are  the  peacemakers?  ”  Can  we  say  the  One  who  counted  not  His 
own  life  here  in  the  service  of  others  indorsed  a  self-consciousness  so  mon¬ 
strous  as  to  absorb  and  stifle  the  divine  proclamations  of  good  will  to  men? 
His  twelve  disciples  were  not  women;  but  He  went  about  doing  good  and 
had  not  where  to  lay  His  head.  Women  could  hardly  share  his  full  pil¬ 
grimages.  But  who  were  his  personal  friends?  Did  He  not  say,  “  Mary 
has  chosen  that  good  part  which  shall  not  be  taken  away  from  her?  ”  It 
was  not  Jesus  who  established  the  apostolic  succession. 

If  only  superficial  feminine  propriety  build  up  the  walls  between  women 
and  the  most  consecrated  work,  such  walls  will  tumble  down  without  even 
the  blowing  of  a  horn.  The  real  proprieties  will  be  preserved.  There  is  no 
impropriety  in  proclaiming  truth  from  the  highest  housetop.  The  most 
consecrated  pulpit  is  less  sacred  than  the  living  principle.  If  reverent  lips 
proclaim  holiness  and  truth,  the  gaze  of  the  thousands  who  listen  can  brush 
no  down  from  the  cheek  of  maidenhood  or  wifehood.  Our  ancestors  took 


664 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


their  lives  in  their  hands  when  they  came  to  colonize  this  country.  Their 
daughters  took  the  approval  of  their  own  consciences  and  the  betterment 
of  the  lives  of  others  into  their  hearts  when  they  stepped  unheralded  upon 
the  open  platform  and  into  the  Christian  pulpit.  Their  perils  were  not 
largely  physical,  but  there  was  a  good  deal  of  sore  stepping  upon  the  pricks 
of  public  opinion  and  some  walking  among  the  heated  plowslnncp  of  intem¬ 
perate  disapproval.  All  that  has  melted  away  like  black  clouds  in  the 
morning  sunrise,  and  the  cheerful  colors  alone  remain.  The  fitness  of  the 
primary  educators  of  the  race  to  be  moral  and  religious  teachers  has  easily 
demonstrated  itself.  It  was  inevitable. 

In  1853  an  orthodox  Congregational  church  called  a  council  and 
ordained  three  women  pastors,  who  had  been  already  settled  among  them 
for  six  or  eight  months.  Then  followed  a  long  waiting  of  ten  years.  In 
1863  two  women  were  ordained  by  the  Universalist  Church,  Rev.  Olympia 
Brown,  one  of  the  speakers  on  this  platform,  and  Dr.  Augusta  J.  Chaikin, 
the  first  woman  to  be  honored  in  this  year  of  grace  as  D.  D.,  who  is  also 
chairman  of  the  woman’s  branch  of  this  parliament.  In  that  second 
decade  so  far  as  yet  ascertained,  three  other  women  received  ordination — 
only  five  in  all.  In  the  third  decade  thirty  or  forty  were  ordained,  and  in 
the  fourth  decade  about  two  hundred  have  received  ordination  from  many 
denominations — Congregationalists,  Universalists,  Christian,  Unitarian, 
Protestant  Methodists,  Free  Baptists,  and  many  other  sects. 

Numbers  of  our  most  earnest  religious  speakers  have  not  chosen  to  seek 
ordination.  Most  of  these  women  are,  or  have  been,  stated  preachers  or 
pastors  of  churches,  and  are  believed  to  have  proved  themselves  to  be  suc¬ 
cessful  above  the  average  in  promoting  the  religious  welfare  of  the  church 
and  community.  This  memorable  and  commemorative  season’s  succession 
of  congresses  in  this  place,  dedicated  first  to  progress  then  to  art,  is  an 
excellent  gauge  of  to-day’s  opinion.  Even  this  temple  has  not  felt  itself 
to  be  profaned  by  the  platform  presence  of  women,  and  it  is  believed  that 
the  hundred  of  feminine  voices  which  have  been  heard  will  leave  no  dis¬ 
cordant  echo  behind.  This  annealing  world’s  Parliament  of  Religions 
welcomes  half  a  score  of  women  to  share  in  the  presentation  of  compara¬ 
tive  religions. 

The  sympathetic  recognition  of  the  magnetic  influence  of  the  sex  as 
teachers  is  recognized,  the  need  of  representation  for  the  protection  of 
material  interests  is  conceded,  but  who  anticipates  that  the  entrance  of 
another  type  of  humanity  actively  into  the  world’s  thought,  with  its  modi¬ 
fied  insights  and  inspiration,  must  widen  the  spiritual  horizon.  Women 
are  needed  in  the  pulpit  as  imperatively  and  for  the  same  reason  that  they 
are  needed  in  the  world — because  they  are  women.  Women  have  become — 
or  when  the  ingrained  habit  of  unconscious  imitation  has  been  superseded, 
they  will  become — indispensable  to  the  religious  evolution  of  the  human 
race.  Every  religion  for  the  people  must  be  religion  sought  after  and 
interpreted  by  the  people.  So  only  can  it  become  adequate  mentally  and 
spiritually  to  the  universal  needs  and  to  the  intelligent  acceptance  of  a 
whole  humanity.  Every  teacher,  having  taken  into  his  own  heart  a  cen¬ 
tral  principle,  around  which  clusters  a  kindred  group  of  ideas,  all  bap¬ 
tized  in  the  light  of  his  believing  soul,  brings  to  us  vividly  the  fullness 
of  his  personal  convictions.  His  words  are  in  light  with  his  thought,  are 
warm  with  his  feeling,  are  alive  with  his  life.  To  me,  the  pulpit  of  the 
future  will  be  a  consecrated  platform,  upon  which  may  stand  every  such 
soul,  and  freely  proclaim  those  best  and  highest  convictions  which  most 
convince,  strengthen,  comfort,  and  elevate  his  own  mental  and  spiritual 
being. 


RELIGIONS  AND  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION. 


GG5 


THE  VOICE  OF  THE  MOTHER  OF  RELIGIONS  ON 

THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION. 

RABBI  H.  BERKOWITZ,  D.  D.,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

The  paper  was  read  by  Dr.  Joseph  Stolez  of  Chicago. 

Here,  in  the  assembly  of  so  many  of  her  spiritual  children,  in  the  midst 
of  the  religions  which  have  received  from  her  nurture  and  loving  care, 
Judaism,  the  fond  mother,  may  well  lift  up  her  voice  and  be  heard  with 
reverent  and  affectionate  attention.  It  has  been  asked,  “What  has  Judaism 
to  say  on  the  social  question?  ” 

From  earliest  days  she  has  set  the  seal  of  sanctity  on  all  that  question 
involves.  From  the  very  first  she  proclaimed  the  dignity,  nay  the  duty  of 
labor  by  postulating  God,  the  Creator,  at  work  and  setting  forth  the  divine 
example  unto  all  men  for  imitation,  in  the  command:  “  Six  days  shalt  thou 
labor  and  do  all  thy  work.”  Industry  is  thus  hallowed  by  religion  and  relig¬ 
ion  in  turn  is  made  to  receive  the  homage  of  industry  in  the  fulfillment  of 
the  ordinance  of  Sabbath  rest.  Judaism  thus  came  into  the  world  to  live 
in  the  world,  to  make  the  world  more  heavenly.  Though  aspiring  unto  the 
heavens  she  has  always  trodden  firmly  upon  the  earth,  abiding  with  men  in 
their  habitations,  ennobling  their  toils,  dignifying  their  pleasures.  Through 
all  the  centuries  of  her  sorrowful  life  she  has  steadfastly  striven  with  her 
every  energy  to  solve,  according  to  the  eternal  law  of  the  Eternal  Right¬ 
eous,  every  new  phase  of  the  every  recurring  problems  in  the  social  relation¬ 
ships  of  men. 

When  the  son  of  Adam,  hiding  in  the  dismfd  covert  of  some  primeval 
forest,  heard  the  accusing  voice  of  conscience  in  bitter  tones  upbraiding 
him,  he  defiantly  made  reply:  “Am  I  my  brothers  keeper?  ”  Then  the 
social  conflict  began.  To  the  question  then  asked,  Judaism  made  stern 
reply  in  branding  with  the  guilt-mark  of  Cain  every  transgression  of  human 
right.  From  then  until  now,  unceasingly  through  all  the  long  and  trying 
centuries,  she  has  never  wearied  in  lifting  up  her  voice  to  denounce  wrong 
and  plead  for  right,  to  brand  the  oppressor  and  uplift  the  oppressed.  Pages 
upon  pages  of  her  scriptures,  folio  upon  folio  of  her  massive  literature  are 
devoted  to  the  social  question  in  its  whole  broad  range,  and  full  of  maxims, 
precepts,  injunctions,  ordinances,  and  laws  aiming  to  secure  the  right 
adjustment  of  the  affairs  of  men  in  the  practical  concerns  of  every  day. 

In  the  family,  in  the  community,  in  the  State,  in  all  the  forms  of  social 
organization,  inequalities  between  man  and  man  have  arisen  which  have 
evoked  the  contentions  of  the  strong  and  the  weak,  the  rich  and  the  poor, 
the  high  and  the  low.  Against  the  iniquity  of  self-seeking  Judaism  has 
ever  protested  most  loudly,  and  none  the  less  so  against  the  errors  and 
evils  of  an  unjust  self-sacrifice.  “Love  thyself,”  she  says;“  this  is  natural, 
this  is  axiomatic,  but  remember  it  is  never  of  itself  a  moral  injunction.  Ego¬ 
ism  as  an  exclusive  motive  is  entirely  false,  but  altruism  is  not  therefore 
exclusively  and  always  right.  It  likewise  may  defeat  itself,  may  work 
injury,  and  lead  to  crime.  The  worthy  should  never  be  sacrificed  for  the 
unworthy  It  is  a  sin  for  you  to  give  your  hard-earned  money  to  a  vaga¬ 
bond,  and  thus  propagate  vice,  as  much  as  it  is  sinful  to  withhold  your  aid 
from  the  struggling  genius  whose  opportunity  may  yield  to  the  world 
undreamed-of  benefits.” 

In  this  reciprocal  relation  between  the  responsibility  of  the  individual 
for  society  and  of  society  for  the  individual  lies  one  of  Judaism’s  prime 
characteristics.  She  has  pointed  the  ideal  in  the  conflict  of  social  principles 
by  her  golden  precept:  “  Thou  shall  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself — I  am 
God.”  (Lev.  xix.,  18.)  According  to  this  precept  she  has  so  arranged  the 


060 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


inner  affairs  of  the  family  that  the  purity,  the  sweetness,  and  tenderness  of 
the  homes  of  her  children  have  become  proverbial. 

Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother.  (Ex.  xx.,  12.) 

The  widow  and  the  orphan  thou  shall  not  oppress.  (Ex.  xxii.,  22.) 

Before  the  hoary  head  shalt  thou  rise  and  shalt  revere  the  Lord  thy  God.  (Lev. 
xix.,  32.) 

And  thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto  thy  children.  (Deut,  vi.,  7.) 

These  and  hundreds  of  like  injunctions  have  created  the  institutions  of 
loving  and  tender  care  which,  secure  the  training  and  nurture,  the  educa¬ 
tion  and  rearing  of  the  child,  which  sustain  the  man  and  the  woman  in 
rectitude  in  the  path  of  life  and  with  the  staff  of  a  devout  faith  guide  their 
downward  steps  in  old  age  to  the  resting  place  “  over  which  the  star  of 
immortality  sheds  its  radiant  light.” 

Judaism  sets  education  before  all  things  else  and  knows  but  one  word 
for  charity — zedakah,  i.  e.,  justice.  She  has  made  the  home  the  basis  of 
the  social  structure,  and  has  sought  to  supply  the  want  of  a  home  as  a  just 
due  to  every  creature,  guarding  each  with  this  motive,  from  the  cradle  to 
the  grave.  With  her  sublime  maxim,  “  Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself — I  am 
God,”  Judaism  set  up  the  highest  ideal  of  society  as  a  human  brotherhood 
under  the  care  of  a  divine  fatherhood.  According  to  this  ideal,  Judaism 
has  sought,  passing  beyond  the  environments  of  the  family,  to  regulate  the 
affairs  of  human  society  at  large.  “This  is  the  book  of  the  generations  of 
men,”  was  the  caption  of  Genesis,  indicating,  as  the  Rabbins  taught,  that 
all  men,  without  distinction  of  race,  caste,  or  other  social  difference,  are 
entitled  to  equal  rights  as  being  equally  the  children  of  one  Creator.  The 
social  ideal  was  accordingly  the  sanctification  of  men  unto  the  noblest  in 
the  injunction  to  the  “ priest-people” — “Holy  shall  ye  be,  for  I,  the  Lord 
your  (Jod,  am  holy.”  (Ex.  xix.,  22.) 

The  freedom  of  the  individual  was  the  prime  necessary  consequence  of 
this  precept.  Grandly  and  majestically  the  Mosaic  legislation  swept  aside 
all  the  fallacies  which  had  given  the  basis  to  the  heartless  degradation  of 
man  by  his  fellowman.  Slavery  stood  forever  condemned  when  Israel  w'ent 
forth  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt.  Labor  then  for  the  first  time  asserted  its 
freedom,  and  assumed  the  dignity  which  at  last  the  present  era  is  vindicat¬ 
ing  with  such  fervor  and  power.  Judaism  established  the  freedom  to  select 
one’s  own  calling  in  life,  irrespective  of  birth  or  other  conditions.  For  each 
one  a  task  according  to  his  capacities  w^as  the  rule  of  life.  The  laborer  was 
never  so  honored  as  in  the  Hebrew  commonwealth.  The  wage  system  was 
inaugurated  to  secure  to  each  one  the  fruits  of  his  toil.  It  was  over  the 
work  of  the  laboring  man  that  the  master  had  control,  not  over  the  man. 
Indeed,  the  evils  of  the  wage  system  were  scrupulously  guarded  against  in 
that  the  employer  was  charged  by  the  law  as  by  conscience  to  have  regard 
for  the  physical,  moral,  and  spiritual  well-being  of  his  employes  and  their 
families. 

To  the  solution  of  all  the  problems,  which  under  the  varying  conditions 
of  the  different  lands  and  different  ages  always  have  arisen  nnd  always  will 
arise,  the  Jewish  legislation  in  its  inception  and  development  affords  an 
extraordinary  contribution.  It  has  studiously  avoided  the  fallacies  of  the 
extremists  of  both  the  communistic  and  individualistic  economic  doctrines. 
Thus  it  was  taught;  He  that  saith,  “  What  is  mine  is  thine,  and  what  is 
thine  is  mine”  (communism),  he  is  void  of  a  moral  concept.  He  that  saith, 
“  What  is  mine  is  mine,  and  what  is  thine  is  thine,”  he  has  the  wisdom  of 
prudence.  But  some  of  the  sages  declare  that  this  teaching,  too  rigidly 
held,  oft  leads  to  barbarous  cruelties.  He  that  saith,  “  What  is  mine  is 
thine,  and  what  is  thine  shall  remain  thine,”  he  has  the  wisdom  of  the 
righteous.  He  that  saith,  “  What  is  mine  is  mine,  and  what  is  thine  is 
also  mine,”  he  is  utterly  godless.  (Pirque  Aboth  v.,  13.) 

Judaism  has  calmy  met  the  wild  outbursts  of  extremists  of  the  anti¬ 
poverty  nihilistic  types  with  the  simple  confession  of  the  fact  which  is  a 


EELIGIONS  AND  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION. 


667 


resultant  of  the  imperfections  of  human  nature.  “  The  needy  will  not  be 
wanting  in  the  land.”  (Deut.  xv.,  11.)  The  brotherly  care  of  the  needy  is 
the  common  solicitude  of  the  Jewish  legislatures  and  people  in  every  age. 
Their  neglect  or  abuse  evoke  the  wrath  of  prophet,  sage,  and  councilor 
with  such  a  fury  that  even  to-day  none  but  the  morally  dead  can  with¬ 
stand  their  eloquence.  The  effort  of  all  legislation  and  instruction  was 
directed  to  a  harmonization  of  these  two  extremes. 

The  freedom  of  the  individual  was  recognized  as  involving  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  unlike  capacities.  From  this  freedom  all  progress  springs.  But 
all  progress  must  be  made,  not  for  the  selfish  advantage  of  the  individual 
alone,  but  for  the  common  welfare,  “that  thy  brother  with  thee  may  live.” 
(Lev.  XXV.,  36.)  Therefore  private  projjerty  in  land  or  other  possessions  was 
regarded  as  only  a  trust,  because  everything  is  God’s,  the  Father’s,  to  be 
acquired  by  industry  and  perseverance  by  the  individual,  but  to  be  held  by 
him  only  to  the  advantage  of  all. 

To  this  end  were  established  all  the  laws  and  institutions  of  trade,  of 
industry,  and  of  the  system  of  inheritance,  the  code  of  rituals,  the  Jubilee 
year  that  every  fiftieth  year  brought  back  the  land  which  had  been  sold 
into  the  original  patrimony,  the  seventh,  or  Sabbatical  year,  in  which  the 
lands  were  fallow,  all  produce  free  to  the  consumer,  the  tithings  of  field 
and  flock,  the  loans  to  the  brother  in  need  without  usury,  and  the  magnifi¬ 
cent  system  of  obligatory  charities,  which  still  hold  the  germ  of  the  wis¬ 
dom  of  all  modern  scientific  charity.  “  Let  the  poor  glean  in  the  fields  ” 
(Lev.  xix.,  10),  and  gather  through  his  own  efforts  what  he  needs,  i.  e.,  give 
to  each  one,  not  support,  but  the  opportunity  to  secure  his  own  support. 

A  careful  study  of  these  Mosaic-Talmudic  institutions  and  laws  is  bound 
more  and  more  to  be  recognized  as  of  untold  worth  to  the  present  in  the 
solution  of  the  social  question.  True,  these  codes  were  adapted  to  the 
needs  of  a  peculiar  people,  homogeneous  in  character,  living  under  certain 
conditions  and  environments  which  probably  do  not  now  exist  in  exactly 
the  same  order  anywhere.  We  can  not  use  the  statutes,  but  their  aim  and 
spirit,  their  motive  and  method  we  must  adopt  in  the  solution  of  the  social  . 
problem  even  to-day.  Consider  that  the  cry  of  woe  which  is  ringing  in  our 
ears  now  was  never  heard  in  Judea.  Note  that  in  all  the  annals  of  Jewish 
history  there  are  no  records  of  the  revolts  of  slaves  such  as  those  which 
afflicted  the  world’s  greatest  empire,  and  under  Spartacus  threatened  the 
national  safety,  nor  any  uprisings  like  those  of  the  Plebeians  of  Rome,  the 
Demoi  of  Athens,  or  the  Helots  of  Sparta;  no  wild  scenes  like  those  of  the 
Paris  Commune;  no  procession  of  hungry  men,  women,  and  children  cry¬ 
ing  for  bread,  like  those  of  London,  Chicago,  and  Denver.  Pauperism,  that 
specter  of  our  country,  never  haunted  the  ancient  land  of  Judea.  Tramps 
were  not  known  there. 

Because  the  worst  evils  which  afflict  the  social  body  to-day  were 
unknown  under  the  Jewish  legislation  we  may  claim  that  we  have  here  the 
pattern  of  what  was  the  most  successful  social  system  that  the  world  has  ever 
known.  Therefore  does  J udaism  lift  up  her  voice  and  call  back  her  spirit¬ 
ual  children,  that  in  her  bosom  they  may  find  comfort  and  rest.  “Come 
back  to  the  cradle  of  the  world,  where  wisdom  first  spake,”  she  cries,  “  and 
learn  again  the  message  of  truth  that  for  all  times  and  unto  all  generations 
was  proclaimed  through  Israel’s  jirecept,  “Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself, 
for  I  am  God.”  (Lev.  xix.,  18.) 

The  hotly  contested  social  questions  of  our  civilization  are  to  be  settled 
neither  according  to  the  ideas  of  the  capitalist  nor  those  of  the  laborer, 
neither  according  to  those  of  the  socialist,  the  communist,  the 
anarchist,  nor  the  nihilist,  but  simply  and  only  according  to  the 
eternal  laws  of  morality  of  which  Sinai  is  the  loftiest  symbol.  The 
guiding  principles  of  all  true  social  economy  are  embodied  in  the  simple 
lessons  of  Judaism.  As  the  world  has  been  redeemed  from  idolatry  and 


668 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


its  moral  corruption  by  tho  vital  force  of  Jewish  ideas  so  can  it  likewise  be 
redeemed  from  social  debasement  and  chaos. 

Character  is  the  basic  precept  of  Judaism.  It  claims,  as  the  modern 
philosopher  declares  (Herbert  Spencer),  that  there  is  no  political  alchemy 
by  which  you  can  get  golden  conduct  out  of  leaden  instincts.  Whatever 
the  social  system  it  will  fail  unless  the  conscience  of  men  and  women  are 
quick  to  heed  the  imperative  orders  of  duty  and  to  the  obligations  and 
responsibilities  of  power  and  ownership.  The  old  truth  of  righteousness  so 
emphatically  and  rigorously  insisted  on  from  the  first  by  Judaism  must  be 
the  new  truth  in  every  changing  jihase  of  economic  and  industrial  life. 
Only  thus  can  the  social  questions  be  solved.  In  her  instance  on  this 
doctrine  Judaism  retains  her  place  in  the  yan  of  the  religions  of  humanity. 

Let  the  voice  of  the  mother  of  religions  be  heard  in  the  Parliament  of 
all  Religions.  May  the  voice  of  the  mother  not  plead  in  vain.  May  the 
hearts  of  the  nations  be  touched,  and  all  the  unjust  and  cruel  restrictions 
of  ages  be  removed  from  Israel  in  all  lands,  so  that  the  emancipated  may 
go  in  increasing  colonies  back  to  the  native  pursuits  of  agriculture,  and  the 
industries  so  long  denied  them.  May  the  colonies  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  Argentine,  and  Palestine  be  an  earnest  to  the  world  of  the  purity 
of  Israel’s  motives;  may  the  agricultural  and  industrial  schools,  maintained 
by  the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle,  the  'Baron  de  Hirsh  Trust,  and  the 
various  Jewish  organizations  of  the  civilized  world  from  Palestine  to  Cali¬ 
fornia  prove  Israel’s  ardor  for  the  honors  of  industry;  may  the  wisdom  of 
her  schools,  counsel  of  her  sages,  the  inspiration  of  her  law-givers,  the  Elo¬ 
quence  of  her  prophets,  the. rapture  of  her  psalmists,  the  earnestness  of  all 
her  advocates  increasingly  win  the  reverent  attention  of  humanity  to,  and 
fix  them  unswervingly  upon,  the  everlasting  laws  of  righteousness,  which 
she  has  set  as  the  only  basis  for  the  social  structure. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


FOURTEENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  24th. 

Large  audiences  assembled  at  the  two  sessions  of  the  con¬ 
gress  this  day.  Minute  parliaments  of  religion  were  held  in 
several  churches,  which,  however,  did  not  interfere  with  the 
interest  taken  in  the  great  parliament  itself.  The  papers  sub¬ 
mitted  follow: 


HOW  AMERICAN  CIVILIZATION  HAS  BEEN 
AFFECTED  BY  CHRISTIANITY. 

PROF.  THOMAS  O’OORMAN. 

By  right  of  discovery  and  possession,  dating  back  almost  900  years, 
America  is  Christian.  On  the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan,  close  to  the  Con¬ 
vent  of  La  Rabida,  are  moored  three  Spanish  caravels  and  a  little  further 
away  one  Viking  ship.  All  three — convent,  caravels,  and  Scandinavian 
craft — are  evidences  of  an  acquaintance  between  America  and  the  church 
in  times  when  the  only  Christianity  in  existence  was  Catholic.  This  fact 
is  sufficient  justification  for  a  change  I  have  allowed  myself  to  make.  In 
the  programme  this  paper  has  for  title,  “Relation  of  the  Catholic  Church 
to  America.”  For  wider  latitude  and  juster  account  I  make  it  “  Relation 
of  Christianity  to  America.” 

The  strange  Viking  boat  carries  the  relation  to  a  period  antedating 
Columbus  by  almost  five  hundred  years.  About  the  year  1000  Christian 
colonists  from  Norway  founded  in  Greenland  a  Christian  community,  which 
for  400  years — that  is,  almost  down  to  the  days  of  Columbus — possessed  a 
body  of  Catholic  priests  and  a  continuous  line  of  bishops  in  communion 
with  the  popes  of  Rome.  From  Greenland,  traders  and  missionaries  pushed 
westward  to  the  mainland.  Trading  posts  and  mission  stations,  if  not  per¬ 
manent  settlements,  arose  on  the  coasts  of  New  England  and  the  natural 
products  of  this  country  found  their  way  to  Europe  and  even  to  Rome,  the 
capital  of  Christendom,  as  payment  of  the  Peter  pence  from  the  Catholic 
people  of  far-away  Greenland  and  Vinland.  In  the  show-cases  of  the  Con¬ 
vent  of  La  Rabida  in  your  White  City  are  some  of  the  many  contemporary 
documents  which  prove  these  facts  and  imply  a  relation,  existing  long  before 
Columbus  between  Rome  and  the  land  that  was  to  become  in  later  ages 
the  cradle  of  the  American  Republic.  For  reasons,  which  it  is  not  my  pres¬ 
ent  task  to  indicate,  the  intercourse  had  gradually  grown  intermittent 
and  had  all  but  ceased  vffien  Columbus  appeared.  At  any  rate,  it  had 
never  dawned  on  the  mind  of  Europe  that  the  far-away  Scandinavian  col¬ 
ony  was  in  a  new  continent.  Greenland  and  Vinland  were  supposed  to  be 

6G9 


G70 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


connected  in  some  way  with  Northern  Europe,  and  to  be  a  southern  dip  of 
the  known  continent  into  habitable  western  latitudes  from  inhabitable 
polar  regions.  So  much  for  the  older  acquaintance  between  the  church 
and  America.  • 

The  Spanish  convent  and  caravels  indicate  a  relation  that  began  400 
years  ago;  a  relation  which  was  to  Europe  the  revelation  of  a  New  World, 
what  the  Scandinavian  relation  had  not  been;  a  relation  that  has  not 
ceased  since,  as  had  the  Scandinavian;  a  relation  that  at  first  fitted  like 
some  distant  dream  before  the  eyes  of  Spain  in  the  solemn  halls  of  Sala¬ 
manca,  that  gradually  took  on  some  faint  reality  beneath  the  walls  of 
Granada,  in  the  quiet  port  of  Palos,  that  finally  became  fact  on  the  newly 
found  shores  of  San  Salvador,  in  the  shadow  of  the  cross  raised  on  Ameri¬ 
can  soil  by  the  successful  discoverer.  The  books,  pamphlets,  lectures,  and 
articles  written  in  this  Columbian  anniversary  prove  beyond  a  candid 
doubt  that  the  discovery  of  America  was  eminently  a  religious  enterprise, 
and  that  the  desire  to  spread  Christianity  was,  I  will  not  say  the  only  but 
the  principal  motive  that  prompted  the  leaders  engaged  in  that  memorable 
venture.  Before  you  can  strip  the  discovery  of  its  religious  character  you 
must  unchristen  the  admiral’s  fiagship  and  tear  from  her  bulwarks  the 
painting  of  the  patroness  under  whose  auspices  the  gallant  craft  plowed 
her  way  through  the  terrors  of  the  unknown  ocean. 

The  inspiration  that  gave  the  Old  World  a  new  continent  was  also  the 
cause  of  its  colonization  and  civilization.  Various  popes  from  Alexander 
VII.,  1493,  to  Leo  XI.,  1514,  approved  and  legalized  discovery  and  occupa¬ 
tion  in  America.  The  purpose  of  their  bulls  was  to  prevent  or  settle  diffi¬ 
culties  and  wars  between  rival  claimants  to  the  new  lands.  The  indirect 
results  of  their  intervention  were  of  untold  benefit  to  humanity.  That  inter¬ 
vention  promoted  the  geographical  study  and  knowledge  of  the  globe,  insti¬ 
gated  Magellan’s  voyage  around  the  world,  created  the  partition  of  the 
continent,  and  hence  also  the  colonial  system  out  of  which  this  great  nation 
is  born. 

When  I  say  that  religion  was  the  primary  motive  in  the  maKing  of  the 
American  nations,  I  make  all  due  allowance  for  subsidiary  and  lower 
motives,  for  greed  and  cruelty,  and  all  the  baser  passions  which  in  all  things 
human,  alas,  accompany  and  follow  the  nobler  virtues  and  higher  intentions, 
and  seem,  when  they  alone  are  looked  at,  to  overshadow  and  damn  Chris¬ 
tian  civilization.  Yet,  granting  all  this,  it  is  true  to  say  that  religion  often 
originated,  always  upheld  and  blessed  the  colonization  of  this  continent, 
and  the  founding  of  the  great  commonwealths  that  to-day  make  America 
the  admiration  of  the  world,  and  to-morrow  may  make  it  the  world’s 
master. 

In  the  North  our  missionaries  softened  the  nature  and  manners  of  the 
aborigines  and  prepared  them  for  the  civilization  into  the  possession  of 
which  the  United  States  is  leading  them  slowly  but  surely.  If  you  would 
know  our  Indian  ward  such  as  he  was  before  he  came  into  contact  with 
our  religion,  read  the  Jesuit  Relations  or  Parkman’s  historical  works.  If 
you  would  know  the  benefit  he  has  gained  by  the  contact,  study  the  Indian 
of  a  later  period,  consider  him  as  he  is  to-day,  when  he  is  so  surrounded  by 
our  civilization  that  he  can  not  but  breathe  in  its  influence.  I  do  not  deny 
the  evils  which  Christians,  untrue  to  their  religious  creed,  have  inflicted  on 
the  native  races,  but  I  do  say  that  on  the  whole  they  have  been  benefited 
by  Christianity  and  that  the  government  of  this  country  intends  and 
steadily  seeks  their  greater  good  in  spite  of  the  obstacles  that  contending 
churches  and  still  more  contending  politicians  raise  against  its  benign 
desires  and  efforts.  The  improvement  of  a  race,  like  the  improvement  of  a 
man,  is  always  at  the  cost  of  cruel  experiences;  such  is  the  price  of 
evolution. 

In  South  America  Christianity  has  swent  away  pagan  civilizations,  fail 


AMERICAN  CIVILIZATION  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


671 


in  appearance,  but  reeking  with  slavery  and  human  sacrifices,  and  has  fash¬ 
ioned  into  Christian  life  the  millions  of  natives  who  compose  in  very  great 
part  the  republics  of  that  half  of  our  continent.  There  are  disorders  there,  I 
confess,  in  state  and  church,  whicli  we  in  the  North  have  happily  escaped; 
disorders  in  the  state  which  are  the  striving  after  that  purer  and  more  solid 
democracy,  which  was  our  dower  from  the  cradle,  and  was. sealed  to  us  as 
an  heirloom  once  for  all  by  the  blood  shed  in  the  first  successful  assertion 
of  our  independence;  disorders  in  the  church  which  are  the  fatal  outcome 
of  a  civilization  not  yet  perfected,  and  above  all  of  a  union  with  the  state 
which  hampers  the  free  and  natural  working  of  the  church.  Yet,  despite 
all  this,  we  may  safely  predict  that  there,  as  here,  as  in  our  motherland, 
Europe,  in  past  ages,  Christianity,  if  you  but  give  her  time,  will  beget  a  perfect 
civilization,  and  that  the  republics  of  the  South  will  move  up  to  the  first 
ranks  in  the  grand  march  of  humanity  to  the  goal  of  Christian  progress. 
Thus,  by  her  action  on  the  native  races  of  the  New  World,  an  action  which 
may  be  said  to  begin  only,  and  can  not  be  judged  fairly  at  this  stage  of  its 
working,  Christianity  has  made  large  additions  to  the  family  of  civilized 
man,  and  has  given  birth  to  communities  that  may  yet  play  an  important 
part  in  the  future  history  of  the  world. 

But  the  field  of  my  study  is  not  so  much  all  this  continent  as  that  por¬ 
tion  of  it  which  we  inhabit,  and  which  is  allowed  by  common  consent,  on 
account  of  its  superiority  in  all  that  makes  civilization,  to  be  called  par 
excellence  America.  Here  was  a  virginal  soil,  sterilized  so  to  speak,  of  all 
the  germs  of  the  politics  of  the  old  world.  Here  was  an  asylum  lying  open 
to  the  peoples  of  the  earth;  here  was  to  grow  a  new  nation  made  of  contri¬ 
butions  from  all  the  nations,  constituted  in  a  political  structure  that  had 
been  unknown,  or  at  le..ast  untried,  by  mankind  in  the  past.  In  what  rela¬ 
tion  does  this  republic  stand  to  Christianity?  That  is  the  question  before 
us. 

It  was  religion  that  wafted  the  first  colonists  to  our  shores.  They  came 
to  seek  liberty  of  worship,  and  some  of  them,  while  finding  that  boon  for 
themselves,  refused  it  to  others.  But  there  came  to  Maryland  a  band  of 
emigrants  who,  by  the  original  design  of  their  founder.  Lord  Baltimore, 
and  later  by  their  own  legislative  enactment  in  colonial  assembly,  erected 
into  law  within  their  province  civil  and  religious  liberty  for  all  Christians. 
The  first  Marylanders  were  Catholics,  and  to  them  belongs  the  glory  of 
that  which  is  the  proudest  boast  of  the  American  citizen,  freedom  of  relig¬ 
ion.  When  the  colonies  entered  into  federation  and  formed  the  United 
States,  the  Maryland  enactment  became  part  of  our  Constitution.  Relig¬ 
ious  equality  came  to  us  as  the  natural  and  necessary  result  of  political 
development. 

If  the  original  States  were  born  of  the  divisions  of  Christianity,  the 
Union  of  the  States  was  born  of  the  sinking  of  those  divisions  in  religious 
equality.  This  is  secured  by  two  provisions  in  the  Constitution.  “No 
religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any  office  or  public 
trust  under  the  United  States.”  This  excludes  the  establishment  of  any 
particular  church  by  doing  away  with  the  religious  tests  which  had  been 
required  in  the  colonies  for  the  holding  of  office.  “  Congress  shall  make  no 
law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise 
thereof.”  This  enactment  constitutes  a  bill  of  rights,  guarantees  to  all 
churches  fnll  liberty  and  forbids  Congress  ever  to  abridge  that  liberty.  It 
is  a  denial  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government  of  control  over  religion,  an 
acknowledgment  that  it  is  incompetent  in  the  matter.  The  line  marked  out 
by  those  two  provisions  was  the  only  one  left  open  to  the  fathers  of  the 
Republic. 

They  were  not  creating  a  nation  out  of  nothing;  they  were  unifying  into 
a  nation  isolated,  independent  communities  having  established  churches. 
The  recognition  of  any  one  church  would  have  made  the  unification 


672 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


impossible;  it  was  possible  only  by^^he  equality  of  all  before  the  government. 
The  necessities  of  the  situation  imposed  this  relation  and  emphasized  to 
the  world  the  providential  destiny  of  the  United  States,  which  is  to  be  a 
home  to  all  nations  and  creeds. 

American  Christianity,  therefore,  is  a  self-supporting,  self-governing 
religion  in  independent  but  friendly  relation  to  the  civil  power.  Both  are 
equally  necessary  to  constitute  an  organic  nation,  as  soul  and  body  to  con¬ 
stitute  a  man;  both  meet  on  questions  of  public  morality,  without  which 
there  is  no  society.  The  church  gives  stability  and  strength  to  the  founda¬ 
tions  of  the  state;  the  state  protects  the  church  in  her  property,  legisla¬ 
tion,  and  liberty. 

This  is  quite  different  from  the  red  republican  theory  of  Europe.  With 
us,  separation  of  church  and  state  rests  on  respect  for  the  church,  since  the 
state  owns  to  be  incompetent  in  the  religious  sphere.  With  them  the  sep¬ 
aration  rests  on  indifference,  not  to  say  hatred,  since  they  exclude  the 
church  from  the  common  rights  with  which  the  moral  as  well  as  the  i)hys- 
ical  individual  is  endowed  by  nature;  in  truth  their  separation  is  not  pro¬ 
tection  but  persecution.  Religious  liberty  is  freedom  in  religion,  not  from 
religion,  as  civil  liberty  is  freedom  in  and  under  law,  not  from  law.  Much 
as  religion  needs  the  protection  of  the  State  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  ina¬ 
lienable  rights  granted  by  the  Creator  to  the  religious  society  as  well  as  to 
the  individual  man,  the  state  is  more  in  need  of  the  support  of  religion. 

The  omission  of  God’s  name  from  the  Constitution  was  not  an  intended 
slight,  nor  is  it  the  denial  of  His  sovereignty.  As  well  say  that  the  omis¬ 
sion  of  God’s  name  from  the  Book  of  Esther  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  makes 
them  atheistic.  Our  political  charter  presupposes  God  and  Christianity, 
presupposes  the  main  facts  and  the  past  history  of  Christianity,  and  is 
bound  to  them  by  discovery  and  colonization.  The  oath  required  from  all 
officers  of  the  Federal  Government,  the  exemption  of  Sunday  from  their 
working  days,  the  subscription  “  In  the  year  of  our  Lord,  ”  are  a  recogni¬ 
tion  of  God  and  imply  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  turning  point  of 
humanity,  the  source  and  beginning  of  a  new  order.  The  statement  that 
our  government  is  based  on  and  has  its  spring  from  the  people  does  not 
exclude  the  higher  scriptural  statement  that  all  power  is  from  God,  for  the 
derivation  may  well  be,  and  in  fact  is,  from  God  to  the  people,  from  the  peo¬ 
ple  to  their  chosen  governors. 

Look  at  the  fundamental  articles,  the  formative  principles  of  the  Repub¬ 
lic — “all  men  are  created  equal;  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with 
certain  inalienable  rights;  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness;  to  secure  these,  just  governments  are  instituted  among  men, 
deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed.”  These  are 
Christian  principles  asserting  God,  creation,  the  rights  of  the  creature,  and, 
by  implication,  the  duties  that  are  correlative  to  those  rights.  To  these 
principles  the  Catholic  Church  gave  an  impregnable  foundation  when,  in 
the  council  of  Trent,  she  defined  that  reason  is  not  totally  obscured  and 
will  is  not  totally  depraved.  How  can  the  capacity  of  self-government  be 
predicated  of  a  being  in  total  depravity?  And  as  the  church  by  her  teach¬ 
ing  concurred  in  the  foundation,  so  she  also  concurred  in  the  preservation 
^of  this  republic  by  the  devotion  of  her  children,  especially  in  the  two  wars 
for  independence  and  union. 

Think  you  there  was  insincerity  in  the  admiration  of  Leo  XIII.  so  often 
expressed  for  our  Constitution,  and  notably  when,  on  the  occasion  of  his 
sacerdotal  jubilee  five  years  ago,  he  was  presented  by  President  Cleveland 
with  a  gift  that  was  prized  above  the  jewels  of  European  potentates,  a  copy 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States?  Think  you  it  was  blasphemy  his 
Legate,  Archbishop  Satolli,  proffered  in  this  hall  the  other  day,  when  he 
exclaimed:  “Catholics  of  America,  go  forward  with  the  gospel  of  truth  in 
one  hand  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  the  other?  ” 


AMERICAN  CIVILIZATION  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


G73 


We  may  truly  say  that  with  us  separation  of  church  and  state  is  not 
separation  of  the  nation  from  religion.  The  American  conception  is  that  the 
religious  character  of  the  nation  consists  mainly  in  the  religious  belief  of 
the  individual  citizen  and  the  conformity  of  conduct  to  that  belief.  “There 
is  no  country  in  the  whole  world,”  said  De  Tocqueville,  “  in  which  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion  retains  a  greater  influence  over  the  souls  of  men  than  in 
America;  it  directs  the  manners  of  the  community,  and  by  regulating 
domestic  life  it  regulates  the  state.  I  am  certain  that  Americans  hold 
religion  to  be  indispensable  to  the  maintenance  of  republican  institutions.” 

Let  me  enumerate  some  evidences  of  the  influence  of  Christianity  on 
individuals  and  domestic  society,  and,  through  them,  on  the  organic  nation, 
or  the  state:  Respect  for  the  clergy  and  voluntary  support  generously 
given  them;  multiplication  and  maintenance  of  churches,  private  schools, 
Sunday  schools.  Young  Men’s  Christian  Associations,  benevolent  and  char¬ 
itable  societies,  religious  associations  for  the  relief  of  every  misery,  physical 
and  spiritual,  to  which  humanity  is  liable;  co-operation  of  men,  irrespect¬ 
ive  of  creeds,  in  issues  of  public  morality,  reform,  or  charity,  and  the  con¬ 
sequent  softening  of  sectarian  prejudices;  obser^*ance  of  Sunday,  not  only 
by  rest  from  ordinary  work,  but  by  attendance  at  public  worship;  labors 
and  contributions  for  missions,  especially  for  the  Christianizing  of  our 
African  and  Indian  neighbors;  zeal  and  practical  w’ork  for  temperance  aud 
social  purity;  respect  for  woman,  and  the  opening  to  her  of  new  avenues 
and  fields  of  occupation,  the  giving  to  her  a  vote  in  questions  that  come 
close  to  her  as  wife  and  mother,  such  as  temperance  and  education;  the 
movement  to  make  the  punishment  of  crime  reformatory;  finally,  the  gen¬ 
eral  interest  taken  in  the  development  of  religion,  the  evolution  of  its  teach¬ 
ing,  the  interior  life  of  its  churches,  and  the  connection  of  all  social  and 
philanthropic  progress  with  religion. 

Such  a  wide  and  deep  Christian  life  in  the  component  parts  of  the  state 
can  not  but  influence  the  state  itself;  of  what  I  should  call  the  states’ 
Christianity,  I  give  the  following  evidence: 

1.  Not  only  does  the  Federal  Government  make  Sunday  a  legal  day  of  rest  for 
all  its  officials  but  the  States  have  Sunday  laws,  which  do  not  enforce  any 
specific  worship,  but  do  guard  the  day’s  restfulness.  Moreover,  certain  religious 
holidays  are  made  legal  holidays. 

2  Presidents  and  governors  in  official  documents  recognize  the  dependence 
of  the  nation  on  God  and  the  duty  of  gratitude  to  Him.  As  notable  examples 
I  will  cite  Washington’s  first  and  last  addresses,  Lincoln’s  second  inaugural 
and  Gettysburg  speech,  and  Cleveland’s  second  inaugural. 

3.  Our  courts  decide  questions  of  church  discipline  and  property  that  come 
before  them  according  to  the  charter  and  the  constitution  of  the  church  in 
litigation. 

4.  The  action  of  Congress  in  regard  to  Mormonism  is  an  upholding  of  the 
Christian  marriage  and  in  all  the  States  bigamy  is  a  crime.  Immorality  is  not 
allowed  by  the  civil  power  to  flaunt  itself  in  public,  but  is  driven  to  conceal¬ 
ment  and  the  Decalogue,  inasmuch  as  it  relates  to  the  social  relations  of  man, 
is  enforced. 

5.  Celebrations  of  a  public  and  official  character,  sessions  of  State  Legisla¬ 
tures  and  congresses  are  opened  with  prayer.  Chaplains  are  appointed  at  public 
expense  for  Congress,  the  army,  the  navy,  the  military  and  naval  academies,  the 
State  Legislatures  and  institutions.  "When  Franklin  moved  for  prayer  in  the  Fed¬ 
eral  convention  he  gave  the  following  reason:  “  How  has  it  happened  that  we 
have  not  hitherto  once  thought  of  humbly  applying  to  the  Father  of  Lights  to 
illuminate  our  understandings?  The  longer  1  live  the  more  convincing  proofs  I 
see  of  this  truth,  that  God  governs  the  affairs  of  men.” 

G.  More  than  once  it  has  been  decided  by  courts  that  we  are  a  Christian  peo¬ 
ple,  and  that  Christianity  is  part  of  our  unwritten  law,  as  it  is  part  of  the  com¬ 
mon  law  of  England. 

Such,  briefly,  is  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  the  American  Republic, 
when  we  consider  only  its  internal  life.  Are  we  not  justified  in  concluding 
that  here  Christianity  has  added  to  her  domain  a  nation  which  is  the  most 
active,  the  most  progressive,  and  not  the  least  intellectual  in  this  19th 
century? 

And  now  a  few  words  as  to  the  religious  character  of  the  external  life 


674 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  the  Republic,  by  which  I  mean  the  relations  of  this  nation  with  other 
nations.  The  Christian  religion  is  the  Gospel  of  peace  to  men,  and  its 
founder  is  the  Prince  of  Peace.  It  is  the  slow  work  of  an  ever  ascend¬ 
ing  evolution  to  bring  about  the  abolition  of  war  in  the  world,  the  triumph 
of  Christianity,  the  climax  of  her  development  shall  be  the  substitution  of 
right  for  might,  of  reason  for  violence,  of  charity  for  force  in  the  adjust¬ 
ment  of  disputes  among  nations.  Happy  the  day  for  humanity  when  all 
people  shall  be  federated  in  the  acknowledgment  of  a  Supreme  Court  provi¬ 
dentially  raised  above  all  national  jealousies  and  territorial  interests  for 
the  final  settling  of  their  quarrels!  We  see  the  dawning  of  that  day,  and 
the  dawn  is  in  the  skies  of  this  Reijublic. 

As  early  as  1832,  the  Senate  of  Massachusetts  adopted  resolutions 
expressing  “  that  some  mode  should  be  established  for  the  amicable  and 
final  adjustment  of  all  international  disputes  instead  of  a  resort  to  war.” 
Various  other  legislatures  gave  expression  to  the  same  sentiment,  and  the 
sentiment  grew  apace  on  the  Nation.  In  1874  a  resolution  in*favor  of  gen¬ 
eral  arbitration  was  passed  by  the  House  of  Representatives.  The  move¬ 
ment  spread  to  other  countries.  In  1888,  233  members  of  the  British  Parlia¬ 
ment  sent  a  communication  to  the  President  and  Congress  urging  a  treaty 
between  England  and  the  United  States,  which  should  stipulate  that  any 
differences  or  disputes  arising  between  the  two  governments  which  cannot 
be  adjusted  by  diplomatic  agency  shall  be  referred  to  arbitration.  In  the 
same  year  the  government  of  Switzerland  proposed  to  the  United  States 
the  conclusion  of  a  convention  for  thirty  years,  binding  the  contracting 
parties  to  submit  their  mutual  differences  t<>  arbitration.  The  noblest 
spectacle  of  modern  times  was  given  to  the  world  when  two  great  and  pow¬ 
erful  nations,  England  and  the  United  States,  showed  in  the  settlement  of 
the  Alabama  claims  that  the  magnitude  of  a  controversy  and  the  heat  of 
public  feeling  were  not  an  insuperable  barrier  to  a  peaceful  settlement  by 
arbitration. 

The  best  known,  as  it  is  the  latest  arbitration  treaty,  is  the  one  for¬ 
mulated  by  the  International  American  Conference,  under  the  secretaryship 
of  Mr.  Blaine,  whereby  the  Republics  of  North,  Central,  and  South  America 
adopt  arbitration  as  a  principle  of  American  international  law  for  the 
settlement  of  disputes  that  may  arise  between  two  or  more  of  them.  They 
characterized  this  in  the  preamble  of  the  proposed  treaty  as  the  only 
Christian  and  rational  procedure,  as  between  individuals  so  also  between 
nations.  Transmitting  this  proposal  to  Congress,  President  Cleveland,  in 
his  message,  remarks  that  the  ratification  of  the  measure  would  constitute 
one  of  the  hajjijiest  and  most  hopeful  incidents  in  the  history  of  the  Wes  ern 
Hemisphere. 

Since  the  establishment  of  our  government,  the  United  States  has 
entered  into  forty-eight  agreements  for  international  arbitration,  has  acted 
seven  times  as  arbitrator  between  other  governments,  has  created  thirteen 
tribunals  under  its  own  laws  to  determine  the  validity  of  international 
claims.  Most  oE  the  questions  thus  arbitrated  involved  national  rights  and 
honor,  and  might  have  been  considered  as  just  and  necessary  causes  of 
war.  “Though  I  have  been  traine  1  as  a  soldier,”  said  General  Grant,  “and 
have  participated  in  many  battles,  there  never  was  a  time,  in  my  opinion, 
when  some  way  could  not  have  been  found  of  preventing  the  drawing  of 
the» sword.  I  look  forward  to  an  epoch  when  a  court,  recognized  by  all 
nations,  will  settle  internaciona.'  differences,  instead  of  keeping  large 
standing  armies  as  they  do  in  Europe.” 

I  will  add  the  words  of  Lord  Hobhouse:  “The  more  I  have  studied 
history  the  stronger  has  my  conviction  become  that  many  wars  are  caused 
by  the  stupidity  or  ambition  of  a  few  persons,  many  by  a  false  sense  of 
honor,  many  by  misunderstanding  the  fact.” 

If  peace  with  honor  be  the  motive  and  end  of  war,  can  not  that  be 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  HAS  WROUGHT  FOR  AMERICA.  675 


secured  more  efficaciously  and  nobly  by  arbitration  at  the  bar  of  reason? 
Shall  not  future  ages  look  upon  the  wars  of  the  past  as  the  relics  of  barba¬ 
rism  clinging  to  men  still  striving  up  the  path  of  progress  and  not  fully 
imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity? 

From  our  review  of  the  relations  between  religion  and  the  republic,  we 
may  conclude  that  this  is  not  an  irreligious  nation;  we  are  encouraged  to 
hope  for  its  steady  progress  in  all  that  is  noble  and  elevating,  and  to  pre¬ 
dict  for  it  the  grandest  future  reserved  to  any  race  of  the  present  day. 
Our  roots  are  in  the  good,  our  upgrowth  must  needs  be  toward  the  better. 
The  affirmation  of  any  one  truth,  logically  followed  out,  leads  to  the  knowl¬ 
edge  and  affirmation  of  all  truth.  The  American  Republic  began  in  the 
affirmation  of  certain  fundamental  evident  truths  of  reason;  our  dominant 
tendency,  therefore,  the  law  of  our  progression,  is  toward  complete  truth, 
if  we  but  remain  true  to  the  spirit  that  called  us  into  being  and  still,  thank 
God,  animates  our  present  living. 

We  believe  that  divine  providence  led  to  the  discovery  of  this  conti¬ 
nent,  and  directed  its  settlement,  and  guided  the  birth  of  this  nation  for  a 
new  and  more  complete  application  to  political  society  of  the  truths 
affirmed  by  reason  and  Christian  revelation,  for  the  upbuilding  of  a  nation 
as  great  religiously  as  it  is  politically,  of  a  nation  that  shall  tind  its  perfec¬ 
tion  in  Catholic  Christianity.  With  that  freedom  allowed  every  speaker  in 
this  parliament  of  religions,  I  affirm  my  sincere  conviction  that  Catholic 
Christianity  is  the  fullness  of  truth,  natural  aad  supernatural,  rational  and 
revealed;  that  Catholic  Christianity  is  the  strongest  bulwark  of  law  and 
order  in  this  Republic.  If  ever  our  country  should  fail  and  fall,  it  is  not 
from  the  Catholic  Church  that  shall  come  the  shout  of  triumph  at  the 
failure  and  fall,  for  never  has  she  had  a  fairer  field  of  work  than  the  United 
States  of  America. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  HAS  WROUGHT  FOR 

AMERICA. 

DAVID  JAMES  BUERELL,  D.  D.,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

God  be  praised  for  this  Congress  of  Religions!  Never  before  has  Chris-* 
tianity — the  one  true  religion — been  brought  into  such  close,  open,  and 
decisive  contrast  with  the  other  religions  of  the  world.  This  is,  indeed,  the 
Lord’s  controversy.  The  altars  are  built,  the  bullocks  slain,  the  prayers 
offered,  and  the  nations  stand  beholding.  Now,  then,  the  god  that 
answereth  by  fire,  let  Him  be  God! 

The  Christian  religion  makes  an  exclusive  claim.  It  is  not  first  among 
equals,  but  the  only  one.  Upon  that  arrogant  claim  it  stands  or  falls.  The 
one  trust  which  it  holds  in  common  with  all  other  religions  is  the  being  of 
God.  Its  differentiating  truth  is  God  manifested  in  flesh,  as  it  is  written: 
“God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son,  that  whoso¬ 
ever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.”  By  that 
truth  Christianity  is  separated  from  all  other  religions  by  an  infinite  and 
bridgeless  gulf.  If  that  be  false,  Christianity  is  as  foundationless  as  the 
stuff  that  dreams  are  made  of;  if  that  be  true,  Christianity  stands  solitary 
and  alone  as  the  religion  that  has  power  to  save.  We  believe  in  God,  but 
in  that  God  alone  who  once  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us.  Christ  is 
everything  to  us — first,  last,  midst,  and  all  in  all. 

But  how  shall  the  validity  of  that  truth  be  demonstrated?  By  its 
influence  upon  individual  and  national  character.  The  world  will  ulti¬ 
mately  believe  in  the  religion  that  produces  the  highest  type  of  government 
and  the  best  average  man.  All  religions  must  submit  to  that  criterion.  By 
their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  Daniel  Webster  said: 


676 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


I  have  been  able  to  hold  my  own  in  controversy  with  mere  theologians,  but 
there  is  one  thing  that  silences  me.  I  have  an  old  uncle,  John  Colby,  up  among 
the  New  Hampshire  hills,  whose  simple  Christian  life  puts  all  my  arguments  to 
shame. 

This  is  indeed  the  crucial  test.  The  God  that  answereth  by  fire — the 
fire  that  burns  up  impurity  and  selfishness — let  Him  be  God! 

A  like  result  is  obtained  when  a  frank  comparison  is  instituted  between 
Christian  and  non-Christian  nations.  It  is  enough  to  say  that,  without  a 
solitary  exception,  the  most  highly  civilized  and  humanized  nations  are 
such  as  lie  within  the  sunlit  circle  of  Christendom.  For  our  present  pur 
pose,  however,  we  must  concentrate  our  thought  upon  America,  the  young¬ 
est  of  the  sisterhood,  a  mere  infant  of  days. 

Ours  is  distinctly  a  Christian  nation.  President  Dwight  of  the  Colum¬ 
bia  Law  School— than  whom  there  is  no  more  competent  authority  in  these 
premises — says:  “  It  is  well  settled  by  decision  of  the  courts  of  various 
States  that  Christianity  is  a  part  of  our  common  law.”  We  need  not,  how 
ever,  fall  back  upon  the  rulings  of  courts  and  Legislatures.  The  history  of 
America  gives  proof  on  every  page  that  the  gospel  of  the  crucified  Naza- 
rene  is  interwoven  with  our  entire  national  fabric. 

If  it  be  objected  that  the  name  of  God  is  not  in  our  national  symbols, 
we  answer:  “  Would  that  it  were  there;  but  its  omission  is  of  little  prac¬ 
tical  moment,  so  long  as  God  Himself  can  be  shown  to  rule  in  the  genius  of 
our  government,  in  its  management  of  civil  affairs,  and  in  the  life  and 
character  of  the  people.  In  humble  recognition  of  the  divine  favor  this 
claim  is  fearlessly  made. 

The  discovery.  At  the  very  outset  we  trace  the  hand  of  Providence  in  the 
discovery  of  this  land.  All  things,  in  the  divine  economy,  occur  in  fullness 
of  time.  Up  and  down  along  the  coast  of  this  Western  world  cruised  many 
a  bold  mariner;  but  the  terra  incognita  was  waiting  for  its  hour.  When 
all  the  burdened  lands  were  groaning  for  deliverance  from  their  surjjlus 
populations,  the  hour  struck;  the  hour  struck,  and  God’s  man  appeared, 
bearing  in  His  hand  the  red-cross  banner.  The  cruise  of  Columbus  was  a 
missionary  enterprise.  The  conquest  of  America  was  a  conquest  for  Christ. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  conjecture  what  would  have  been  the  result 
had  the  Celts  or  the  Norsemen,  Eric  the  Red,  or  the  hardy  sons  of  Sigraat, 
been  permitted  to  effect  a  landing  and  rear  their  pagan  altars  along  the 
Atlantic  coast.  This,  however,  could  not  be. 

God  moves  in  all  things;  all  obey 
His  first  propulsion  from  ihe  night. 

The  hand  of  Providence  is  traced  in  the  settlement  of  the  country  and 
in  the  development  of  our  American  life  and  character.  In  glancing  at  the 
successive  migrations  hitherward,  one  is  reminded  of  that  old  time  Pente¬ 
cost,  when  strangers  came  from  everywhere — Parthians,  Medes,  and 
Elamites,  Greeks,  Arabians,  and  dwellers  in  Mesa^jotamia,  all  seeking  the 
place  of  worship.  It  is  our  humble  prayer  that  the  baptism  of  heavenly 
fire  and  power  may  rest  upon  then^  all. 

The  place  of  honor  is  accorded  to  the  Puritan,  to  the  Huguenots,  and  the 
beggars  of  Holland,  all  of  whom  were  fugitives  from  civil  and  religious 
oppression.  The  influence  of  their  sturdy  devotion  to  truth  and  righteous¬ 
ness  has  been  a  potent  influence  among  us. 

Aye,  call  it  holy  ground. 

The  ground  whereon  they  trod. 

They  left  unchanged  what  there  they  found — 

Freedom  to  worship  God. 

The  people  of  America  are  a  distinct  people.  A  conglomerate  formed  of 
the  superflux  of  the  older  lands.  If  ever  it  was  proper  to  characterize  this 
people  as  English  or  Anglo-Saxon,  it  is  certainly  no  longer  so.  The  Anglo- 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  HAS  WROUGHT  FOR  AMERICA.  077 


Scixoa  element  ia  our  population  is  relatively  slack.  The  mingling  of  many 
bloods  has  produced  a  new  ethnic  product  which  can  be  aptly  designated 
only  as  American.  The  piocess  of  assimilation  still  goes  on.  The  seas  are 
dotted  with  ships  from  every  quarter  of  the  globe,  bringing  the  poor  and 
weary  and  disappointed,  eager  to  i  enew  their  hojjes  and  rebuild  their  fort¬ 
unes  in  the  land  which  gives  no  ungrudging  welcome  to  the  oppressed  of 
all  nations.  And  surely  this  is  not  without  the  gracious  ken  and  purpose 
of  God. 

The  bridge  of  an  ocean  steamer  affords  a  standpoint  from  which,  look¬ 
ing  down  into  the  steerage,  one  may  behold  at  a  glance  the  most  serious 
problems  of  American  politics.  Here  is  our  hope  and  here  is  our  danger — 
the  source  of  our  national  strength  and  of  our  utmost  weakness.  The  best 
and  worst  are  gathered  here.  Youth  and  vigor  in  quest  of  golden  opjjortu- 
nities.  Poverty  and  decrepitude  fleeing  from  the  ills  they  have  had  to 
others  that  they  know  not  of.  In  view  of  the  possibilities  thus  suggested, 
we  should  indeed  be  at  our  wits’  ends  were  it  not  for  our  confidence  in  the 
God  who  has  made  and  preserved  us  as  a  nation.  In  Him  we  trust. 

It  is  a  fact  of  prime  importance,  furnishing,  perhaps,  a  key  to  the  prob¬ 
lem,  that,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  the  dominant  races  of  history  have 
been  of  mixed  blood.  Such  as  the  Germans,  the  Romans,  and  the  Anglo- 
Saxons.  Proceeding  from  this  fact,  Herbert  Spencer  has  ventured  to 
express  the  hope  that  out  of  our  conglomerate  population  may  be  evolved 
in  process  of  time  the  ultimate  ideal  man.  If  so,  however,  it  must  be 
brought  about  through  the  assimilating  power  of  human  equality,  which 
has  its  reason  in  our  filial  relations  with' God.  In  other  words,  religion 
furnishes  the  only  guaranty  of  our  national  welfare  and  prosperity. 

At  *a  critical  period  in  the  history  of  France,  a  member  of  the  Corps 
Legislatif  arose  and  said:  “Fellow-citizens,  I  offer  this  resolution  :  ‘There 
is  no  God.’”  The  cry  was  caught  up  and  echoed  by  the  populace :  “  No 
God;  no  God  ”  It  was  shouted  by  the  surging  mobs  along  the  streets. 
God  was  violently  disowned,  and  his  ordinances  tumultuously  swept  away. 
A  woman  of  the  demi-monde  was  carried  in  triumphal  procession  to  Notre 
Dame  and  enthroned  as  Goddess  of  Reason.  Liberty,  Equality,  and 
Fraternity  glared  meanwhile  in  grim  satire  from  the  dead  walls.  That 
night  the  reign  of  terror  began,  and  the  gutters  of  Paris  ran  red  with  blood. 
One  such  experiment  will  answer  for  all  time.  It  was  a  true  word  that, 
Mirabeau  uttered :  “  God  is  as  necessary  as  freedom  to  the  welfare  of  a 
popular  government.” 

The  whole  world  has  learned  that  freedom  is  an  empty  sound  if  truth 
and  duty  have  no^part  in  it.  Therefore,  we  are  wont  to  say,  in  a  broad  but 
real  sense,,  ours  is  a  Christian  nation.  The  heterogeneous  multitude  have 
come  hither  to  rest  beneath  the  asgis  of  the  great  truth  which  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  proclaimed  when,  with  His  face  toward  the  West,  He  stretched 
forth  His  pierced  hands  as  if  to  gather  all  the  scattered  peoples  unto  Him. 
“I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,”<said  He,  “will  draw  all  men  unto  Me.” 

The  life-blood  of  popular  government  is  equality.  In  this  lies  the 
rationale  of  individual  and  civil  freedom.  But  equality  is  only  another 
namef  for  the  brotherhood  of  man,  and  the  brotherhood  of  man  is  an  empty 
phrase  unless  it  flnds  its  original  grounds  and  premise  in  the  Fatherhood 
of  God. 

The  earliest  formulation  of  this  principle  is  in  the  preamble  of  our  Dec¬ 
laration  of  Independence,  which  declares  that  all  men  are  boru  free  and 
equal  and  with  certain  inalienable  rights.  Between  the  lines  of  that  virile 
pronouncement  one  may  easily  read  St.  Paul’s  manifesto  to  the  Athenian 
philosophers :  “  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to 
dwell  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.”  God,  the  All-Father,  revealing  His 
impartial  love  in  the  cross,  becomes  the  great  leveler  of  caste.  In  the 
light  of  His  countenance,  shining  from  Golgotha,  the  mountains  are 


G78 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


brought  low  and  the  valleys  are  exalted.  Back  of  Runnymede  and  the 
Reformation  is  the  voice  of  the  divine  oracle.  The  accursed'  tree  is  the 
Charter  Oak  of  popular  rights.  Among  the  relics  of  our  early  struggle  for 
freedom  is  a  bell  inscribed  with  the  legend:  “Proclaim  liberty  throughout 
all  the  earth,  unto  all  the  inhabitants  thereof.”  Our  fathers  deliberated  long 
and  anxiously  over  the  truth  which  it  rang  forth.  While  they  were  sitting 
in  council,  the  old  sexton  waited  in  the  belfry  above  with  his  hand  upon 
the  rope.  A  lad  stood  in  the  doorway  ready  to  give  the  signal.  As  the 
day  wore  on  the  bell-ringer’s  heart  misgave  him.  “Alas,  they  dare  not,”  he 
said;  “  the  great  truth  falters  on  their  lips;”  but  presently 'the»deed  was 
done,  for  God  presided  in  those  councils.  The  lad  ran  out  upon  the  broad 
steps  and  shouted,  “Ring,  ring!”  Then  the  sexton  pulled  with  all  his 
might  and  sent'the  clangor  around  the  world. 

The  principle  wrought  out.  The  truth  thus  formulated  was,  however, 
not  made  operative  for  almost  a  hundred  years.  The  curse  of  human 
bondage  was  among  us.  Here  was  a  curious  anomaly,  involving  an  irre¬ 
pressible  conflict.  A  free  people,  claiming  equality  as  their  birthright,  held 
4,000,000  of  their  fellows  in  chains.  But  God  reigneth,  and  the  hearts  of 
the  nations  are  in  His  hand  asithe  rivers' of  water.  One  Sunday  in  1863,  in 
the  City  of  Washington,  a  congregation  of  colored  people  were  engaged  in 
worship  when  a  man  .entered,  strode- down  the  middle  aisle,  and  endeavored 
to  speak.  His  hands  were  raised  above  his  head,  his  lips  moved,  but  his 
tongue  clave  to  the  roof  of  his  mouth.  The  preacher  paused  in  his  dis¬ 
course,  the  people  gazed  and  wondered.  At  length  the  man  found  utter¬ 
ance,  “  Men  and  brethren,  we  are  all  free  this  day  before  God.”  The  President 
had  signed  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  and  the  colored  people  of 
America  were  “  free  and  equal  ”  at  last. 

Expressed  in  the  ballot — this  truth,  conceived  in  our  revolutionary  war, 
and  born  out  of  the  travail  pains  of  our  great  rebellion,  finds  its  ultimate 
expression  in  the  ballot. 

*  *  *  a  weapon  strange  yet 
Better  than  the  bayonet; 

A  weapon  that  comes  down  as  still 
As  snowflakes  fall  upon  the  sod. 

And  executes  a  freeman’s  will 
As  lightning  does  the  Will  of  God. 

Our  election  franchise  rests  in  the  fundamental  truth  of  equality.  One 
man  is  as  good  as  another.  One  man,  one  vote;  by  eternal  right  no  more 
and  no  less.  There  is  no  primogeniture  in  the  great  family.  We  are  free 
and  equal  because  we  are  all  divinely  born.  It  was  a  great  truth,  and  far 
beyond  his  time,  when  Tarquin  the  Proud  announced,  when,  being  asked 
the  secret  of  safe  government,  he  walked  up  and  down  his  garden,  scepter 
in  hand,  uttering  not  a  word,  but  whipping  off  the  tallest  poppies’  heads. 
It  was  the  same  truth  which  pious  Melville  afterward  set  forth  when  remon¬ 
strating  with  his  sovereign  in  behalf  of  the  popular  right  of  assemblage: 

Your  majpsty  must  needs  be  reminded  that  there  is  a  king  born  in  Scotland 
before  whom  James  VI.  and  all  must  bow. 

And  who  is  that,  sir? 

King  People,  sire! 

This  is  distinctly  a  religious  principle.  Wherever  a  constitutional  gov¬ 
ernment  has  ignored  its  birthright — to  wit,  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  express¬ 
ing  itself  in  the  brotherhood  of  man,  through  the  gospel  of  that  only 
begotten  Son  who  is  Brother  of  all — it  has  had  but  a  brief  and  troubled 
life.  Republicanism  is  anarchy  with  a  latent  Reign  of  Terror  in  it,  unless 
this  truth  is  at  its  center,  shining  like  God’s  face  through  the  mists  and 
darkness  of  chaos.  A  common  birth  is  the  sure  ground  of  mutual  respect. 
All  adventitious  conditions  go  for  naught. 

The  rank  is  but  the  guinea’s  stamp; 

The  man’s  the  gowd. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  HAS  WROUGHT  FOR  AMERICA.  679 


No  man  can  trace  a  prouder  lineage  than  the  believer  in  a  true  democ¬ 
racy,  for  he  is  “  the  son  of  Seth,  who  was  the  son  of  Adam,  who  was  the 
son  of  God.” 

In  pursuance  of  this  underlying  fact  of  the  divine  paternity,  our  laws 
are  intended  to  be  so  framed  as  to  give  no  man  an  advantage  over  bis 
fellow.  The  jurisprudence  of  America  is  essentially  biblical.  It  gets 
its  form  and  spirit  from  the  Decalogue  on  the  one  hand,  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  on  the  other,  and  the  character  of  Jesus  as  the  living  exponent 
of  both.  Thus  the  Kepublic,  to  the  very  breath  in  its  nostrils,  is  Christian. 
Its  ideal  is  suggested  by  its  earliest  name,  San  Salvador. 

A  free  Republic,  whore,  beneath  the  sway 
Of  mild  and  equal  laws,  framed  by  themselves. 

One  people  dwell  and  own  no  lord  save  God. 

Institutions.  If  we  turn  now  to  the  distinctive  institutions  of  oui 
country,  we  shall  lind  them,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  bearing  the  sign 
manual  of  Christ.  First  of  all,  the  American  home,  where  all  men  are 
sovereigns,  all  homes  are  palaces.  The  hut  becomes  a  cottage  where  there 
is  no  feudal  mansion.  There  are  lands  where  homes  are  merely  dorma- 
tories  and  refectories;  where  social  clubs  and  gardens  supplant  the  higher 
functions  of  domestic  life.  But  the  American  lives  at  his  home.  It  is  his 
castle  and  his  paradise.  The  humblest  toiler,  when  his  day’s  work  is  over, 
makes  it  his  El  Dorado. 

His  wee  bit  ingle  blinking  bonnie. 

His  clean  hearthstone,  his  thrifty  wife’s  smile. 

The  lisping  infant  prattling  on  his  knee. 

Do  a’  his  weary  carking  cares  beguile, 

And  make  him  quite  forget  his  labor  and  his  toil. 

The  heart  of  domestic  life  is  the  sanctity  of  wedlock  as  a  divine  ordi¬ 
nance.  It  may  be  noted  that  in  lands  where  God  and  the  Bible  are  rever¬ 
enced,  wife  and  mother  and  home  are  sacred  words.  The  influence  of 
religion  may  be  but  an  imperceptible  factor  in  the  peace  and  happiness  of 
many  homes,  yet  the  gospel  of  their  roof  tree  and  their  purest  happiness  is 
but  a  breath  from  the  garden  before  that  home  at  Nazareth,  where  the 
mother  of  all  mothers  ministered  to  her  divine  child. 

The  next  of  our  American  institutions  which  finds  sanctity  in  religion  is 
our  public  schools.  The  distinctive  feature  of  our  national  system  of  edu¬ 
cation  is  civil  control.  This,  in  the  necessity  of  the  case,  as  every  American 
child  is  a  sovereign  in  his  own  right,  born  to  his  apportionate  share  of  the 
government,  it  is  primarily  important  that  he  should  be  educated  for  his 
place.  John  Milton,  in  the  days  of  the  English  commonwealth,  wrote: 

There  is  a  poor  blind  Samson  in  this  land. 

Shorn  of  his  strength  and  bound  with  bands  of  steel. 

Who  may  in  some  grim  revel  raise  his  hand. 

And  shake  the  pillars  of  the  common  weal. 

The  blind  Samson  of  America  is  enfranchised  ignorance.  It  was  in  wise 
apprehension  of  this  danger  that  our  Puritan  forefathers  required  every 
fifty  families  to  hire  a  pedagogue,  and  every  hundred  to  build  a  schoolhouse. 
The  teaching  of  religion  was  compulsory  in  these  early  schools,  but,  as  a 
rule,  under  such  conditions  as  abated  all  danger  of  denominational  bias. 

There  were  I  no  godless  schools.  Indeed  it  may  be  seriously  questioned 
whether  at  this  stage  of  Christian  civilization  there  can  be  any  such  thing 
as  a  godless  school.  Remove  the  Bible  from  curriculum  if  you  will,  you  can 
not  eliminate  God  from  history  and  science.  His  name  shines  from  the  cur¬ 
rent  pages  of  our  text-books  like  the  sun  reflected  from  the  heavens  on  a 
starry  night. 

It  is  obvious  that,  as  the  education  of  the  masses  is  necessary  to  the 


G80 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


public  weal,  the  state  can  not  safely  farm  out  the  contract  to  anybody 
whatsoever,  religious  or  otherwise.  By  a  wise  provision  of  its  constitution, 
it  can  not  lend  itself  or  any  portion  of  its  funds  to  the  fostering  of  a  sect. 
Neither  can  it  tolerate  for  an  hour  any  ecclesiastical  interference  from  any 
quarter,  at  home  or  abroad,  with  its  own  management  of  the  public  educa¬ 
tion.  Here  is  a  prerogative  absolute  and  inalienable,  growing  out  »of  the 
nation’s  right  of  self-preservation.  The  public  school  is  one  of  the  great 
pillars  of  our  government.  Withered,  therefore,  be  the  hand  that  is  raised 
to  destroy  it! 

Still  another  of  our  institutions  having  distinctive  teachers  and  borrow¬ 
ing  them  from  the  sanctions, of  Christian  religion  is  the  workshop.  We  have 
no  caste,, no  titled  orders,  no  aristocracy,  save  that  of  brains  and  industry. 
The  American  toiler' is  the  peer  of  all  his  fellow-citizens.  The  highest 
places  of  honor  and  emolument  are  wide 'open  before  him.  The' father  of 
our  country  was  once  a  surveyor’s  apprentice.  A  farmer,  a  flatboatman,  a 
journeyman  tailor,  a  tanner,  and  a  canal  boy  have  followed  one  another  in 
quick  succession  in  the  chief  magistracy.  Manhood  goes  for  more  than  blue 
blood.  What  a  man  is  and  does,  not  what  his  father  was  and  owned  before 
him,  is  the  criterion  of  popular  regard.  Whether  this  could  be  the  case 
in  any  other  than  a  Christian  land  is  greatly  to  be  doubted.  It  never  has 
been;  it  remains  to  be  proved  that  it  could  be. 

A  just  recognition  of  the  dignity  of  labor  is  a  necessary  inference  from 
the  light  and  teachings  of  the  carpenter  of  Nazareth.  That  “best  of  men 
that  ever  wore  flesh  about  him”  toiled  in  the  shop,  with  chips  and  shavings 
about  his  feet  and  the  implements  of  his  trade  on  the  bench  before  him, 
so  entering  into  sympathy  with  the  cares  and  struggles  of  workingmen. 
That  sympathy  is  the  most  potent — though  oft  unrecognized — facto  in 
the  adjustment  of  the  industrial  problems  of  our  time.  He  taught  fair 
wages  for  honest  toil.  His  “  golden  rule  ”  is  the  effective  remedy  for'tetrikes 
and  lockouts.  Hood’s  “Song  of  the  Shirt”  and  Mrs.  Browning’s  “ Cry  of 
the  Children  ’’  are  but  paraphrases  of  a  good  Samaritan.  Wherever  the 
mind  that  was  in  Christ  Jesus  prevails  the  man  and  his  master  are  bound 
to  see,  face  to  face  and  eye  to  eye.  And  nowhere,  as  we  believe,  has  that 
consummation  been  more  nearly  reached  than  in  the  industrial  conditions 
of  the  New  World.  Indeed  “man”  and  “master”  are  here  invidious  terms. 
The  man  is  his  own  master.  There  is  no  employer' in  the  land  who  dare 
strike  or  wantonly  affront  his  humblest  employe.  A  common  birthright  of 
the  great  Father  blots  out  all  mastership,  and  a  fellow-feeling  toward  the 
elder  brother  has  made  us  wondrous  kind.  Not  that  all  things  are  as  they 
should  be.  The  millennium  is  still  a  good  ways  off.  There  are  wrongs  to 
be  righted  and  middle  walls  of  separation  to  be  broken  down.  But  so  long 
as  the  leaven  is  in  the  meal  there  is  hope  that  the  lump  may  be  leavened. 
And  however  the  American  workman  may  at  times  complain  of  his  lot — 
toil  being  ever  a  burden  and  the  want  of  it  a  greater- -he  would  not  for  a 
moment  consent  to  an  exchange  of  place  with  any  other  workman  on  the 
earth.  He  owns  himself;  as  a  rule,  he  owns  his  home  and  he  still  owns,  in 
fee  simple,  one-seventh  of  his  time.  The  thing  that  was  written  of  “  The 
Village  Blacksmith  ”  may  be  said  of  a  million  others: 

His  brow  is  wet  with  honest  sweat. 

He  earns  whate’er  he  can; 

He  looks  the  whole  world  in  the  face. 

For  he  owes  not  any  man. 

It  remains — in  thus  briefly  canvassing  our  national  indebtedness  to 
religion — to  speak  of  the  establishment.  If  other  nations  had  their  way  of 
expressing  the  religious  preference  of  the  people,  we  more.  A  national 
church,  indeed,  we  have  not;  but  we  have  that  which  is  deemed  incom¬ 
parably  better,  religious  freedom.  This  is  the  American  establishment, 
freedom  of  heart  and  conscience,  freedom  to  believe  what  we  will  respecting 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  HAS  WROUGHT  FOR  AMERICA,  G81 


tne  great  problems  of  the  endless  life,' freedom  to  consult  our  personal  con 
viction  as  to  whether,  or  where,  or  how  we  will  worship  God. 

This  involves  an  absolute  divorcement  of  church  and  state.  At  this 
point  the  unanimity  of  sentiment  within  the  church  is  as  entire  as  without 
it.  We  want  no  national  church;  we  want  no  clergy  feeding  at  the  public 
crib.  Our  experiment  has  been  tried  for  100  years  and  is  fully  vindicated. 
Its  opposite,  the  union  of  church  and  state,  was  long  ago  characterized  by 
our  famous  Irish  orator:  “That  foul  and  adulterous  connection  which 
pollutes  the  purity  of  heaven  with  the  abomination  of  earth,  and  hangs  the 
tattered  rags  of  political  piety  on  the  insulted  cross  of  a  crucified 
Redeemer.”  This  arraignment  is  severe,  but  just.  Since  the  day  when  the 
theocracy  was  merged  in  the  gospel  commonwealth  there  never  has  been  a 
national  church  which  has  not  demonstrated  two  things,  to- wit:  That  the 
church  itself  was  enfeebled  by  the  union,  and  that’  the  state  would  have 
gotten  on  better  without  it.  Wherefore,  at  this  moment,  would  that  this 
establishment  was  upon  the  docket  every  where.  Welcome  the  day  when, 
the  round  world  over,  no  man  shall  be  answerable  for  his  creed  save  at  the 
judgment  bar  of  God! 

Observe,  however,  it  is  not  proposed  to  alienate  religion  •from  national 
affairs.  On  the  contrary,  by  their  mutual  interdependence,  the  wise  and 
effective  influence  of  each  upon  the  other  must  be  greatly  enlarged.  It 
could  not  be  otherwise.  True  religion  is  all-pervasive;  it  touches  life  at 
every  point  in  its  circumference,  physically  and  intellectually,  socially  and 
politically,  every  way.  As  the  atmosphere  presses  upon  the  human  body 
with  a  force  of  fifteen  pounds  to  the  square  of  surface,  so  religion  presses 
upon  the  body  politic,  and  all  the  more  if  it  be  free  as  air.  The  estab¬ 
lishment  as  usually  found  represents  not  religion  in  a  larger  sense  but  only 
a  small  denominational  part  of  it.  What  right  has  a  sect  to  grow  fat  at  the 
expense  of  the  great  body  of  religionists?  Every  farthing  taken  from  the 
national  exchequer  to  foster  an  establishment  of  this  sort  is  a  wrong  against 
the  public  conscience. 

The  just  attitude  of  the  government  toward  all  religious  bodies  whose 
tenets  do  not  contravene  its  welfare  is  impartial  sufferance  and  protection. 
Church  and  state  are  co-ordinate  power,  each  supplementing  and 
upholding  the  other,  and  both  alike  ordained  of  God.  It  is,  therefore,  the 
duty  of  all  religionists  to  sustain  the  government,  to  obey  dignities  and  ‘ 
recognize  the  authority  of  the  powers  that  be.  We  are  bound  to  “render 
unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar’s.”  On  this  the  church  recog¬ 
nizes  the  function  of  the  civil  administration  as  the  impartial  champion  of 
the  religious  rights  of  all. 

In  this  view  of  the  inter-relation  of  church  and  state  lies  the  function 
of  all  moral  legislation.  The  Sabbath  law,  for  example,  is  defended  on  the 
ground  of  the  individual  right  to  rest  and  worship  without  disturbance. 
By  the  recognition  of  this  principle  the  influence  of  the  churches  is  enlisted 
in  civil  reform.  Under  it  has  grown  up  the  organized  charities  which 
cover  the  land.  The  church  withholds  her  grasp  from  the  public  treasury; 
the  state  confiscates  no  ecclesiastical  holdings.  The  humblest  body  of 
believers  is  secure  in  its  rights.  The  government  is  bound  to  defend  it  in 
the  exercise  of  its  religion,  however  peculiar,  so  long  as  this  is  not  in  con¬ 
travention  of  the  fundarhental  principle  of  the  state  or  dangerous  to  its 
welfare.  This  is  involved  in  the  very  thought  of  religious  freedom.  And 
these  are  the  boundaries  of  the  American  establishment,  which,  when 
realized,  must  furnish  force,  as  we  believe,  the  theocracy  of  the  golden 
age,  the  commonwealth  of  God. 

Thus  we  close  where  we  began,  with  Christianity  at  the  center.  Christ, 
the  great  leveler,  is  king  over  all.  The  cross,  the  great  evangelizer,  throws 
its  luminous  shadow  over  courts  and  legislatures,  homes,  workshops  and 
schoolhouses,  from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf,  from  Sandy  Hook  to  the  Golden 


682 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Gate.  San  Salvador  is  our  country’s  name;  land  of  the  Savior  may  it 
ever  be! 

Our  citizens  are  free  men,  with  that  freedom  wherewith  Christ’s  truth 
makes  free.  If  our  country,  in  one  brief  century,  has  advanced  from  insig¬ 
nificance  to  an  honorable  place  among  the  great  powers,  it  is  because  a 
kind  Providence  has  most  signally  favored  us.  If  we  entertain  the  hope 
of  a  still  more  glorious  future,  it  is  because  we  are  confident  that  our  prin¬ 
ciples  of  civil  and  religious  freedom  rest  in  the  unimpeachable  sanction  of 
divine  right. 


PRESENT  OUTLOOK  OF  RELIGIONS. 

KEY.  GEORGE  T.  PENTECOST  OF  LONDON. 

Rome  was  the  center  of  the  world’s  political  power,  as  it  was  the  chief 
seat  of  the  world’s  religious  philosophies.  There  was  the  throne  of  the 
Cassars;  there  the  Pantheon  with  its  many  gods,  and  there  the  famous 
schools  of  philosophy.  There,  also,  was  a  small  Christian  church — com¬ 
posed  of  a  few  believing  Jews,  a  larger  number  of  poorfreedmenand  slaves, 
with  here  and  there  an  “honorable”  person,  and  some  servants  of  Caesar’s 
household — the  fame  of  whose  faith  had  been  spread  abroad,  until  Paul, 
whose  habit  it  was  never  to  build  on  another  man’s  foundation,  came  to 
desire  greatly  to  visit  that  church  and  himself  gain  some  fruit  also  in  the 
world’s  capital.  He  had  often  intended  to  visit  Rome,  but  had  been 
hindered.  So,  for  the  present,  he  betakes  himself  to  his  pen  and  informs 
these  Christians  of  his  desire  and  purpose,  and  anticipates  his  work  in 
person  by  writing  the  most  massive  exposition  of  the  gospel  which  the 
Christian  church  possesses.  This  epistle  has  been  rightly  designated  the 
Magna  Charta  of  the  Christian  faith.  It  is  certainly  an  unfolding  of 
the  doctrines  of  Christ.  It  is  an  epistle  in  which  alone  may  be  found  every 
fundamental  of  our  faith  and  practice. 

In  visiting  Rome,  the  world’s  seat  of  empire,  religion,  and  learning,  what 
hope  had  Paul  of  gaining  a  hearing  for  the  gospel  of  the  Crucified  One? 
What  rational  hope  was  there  that  he  could  successfully  compete  with  the 
triple  power  of  Rome,  and  win  men  and  women  to  Christ  by  means  of  the 
foolishness  of  preaching  Christ  and  Him  crucified? 

How  could  he  hope  to  win  even  the  common  people  from  the  age  of  old 
religions  of  the  heathen  world,  which  still  held  the  masses  in  the  shackles 
of  superstition  ;  how  overcome  the  aristocratic  infiuence  of  the  philoso¬ 
phers,  who  still  dominated  the  cultured  portion  of  the  empire  ;  and  espe¬ 
cially  how  could  he  hope  to  exalt  into  some  supreme  power  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  under  the  very  throne  from  whose  authority  went  forth  the  sentence 
of  death  against'  Christ  Himself,  at  the  same  time  branding  him  as  an 
impostor  and  traitor?  All  these  things  were,  no  doubt,  in  Paul’s  mind,  and 
gave  color  to  this  ringing  declaration:  “I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel 
of  Christ,  for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  everyone  that 
believeth.” 

Here  is  sublime  faith  and  courage  in  what  seemed  to  the  world  a  mad¬ 
man’s  dream.  His  reasons  for  his  faith  are  crowded  into  this  single  sen¬ 
tence,  in  which  he  contrasts  God’s  power  with  the  powers  of  the  world. 
Here  is  a  universal  good,  offered  in  competition  with  those  philosophies 
which  are  kept  exclusively  for  men  of  wealth,  culture,  and  leisure,  and 
which,  at  best,  were  cold,  speculative  theories. 

In  respect  of  the  conquest  of  the  world,  or  what  remains  of  it  among 
those  nations  to  which  the  preachers  of  the  gospel  have  gone  forth,  we  are 
occupying  much  the  same  standpoint  as  did  Paul.  We  are  not  ashamed  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  are  ready  to  preach  it  and  vindicate  it  in  the  face 


PRESENT  OUTLOOK  OF  RELIGIONS. 


683 


of  all  the  world  by  every  reason  which  appeals  alike  to  the  intellect,  heart, 
and  the  conscience. 

The  powers  of  the  world  do  not  daunt  us;  nor  are  we  ashamed  to  dis¬ 
pute  with  the  wise  men  and  scribes  of  the  school,  nor  to  contend  with  the 
darkest  superstitions  which  enthralls  the  minds  of  millions  yet  unenlight¬ 
ened  by  the  cross  of  Christ.  In  this  regard  it  is  a  great  privilege  for  us 
Christians  to  meet  face  to  face  in  this  parliament  the  representatives  of 
many  ancient  religions  and  equally  ancient  philosophies;  to  give  to  them 
a  reason  for  the  faith  and  hope  that  is  in  us  and  show  them  the  grounds 
upon  which  we  base  our  contention  that  Christianity  is  the  only  possible 
universal  religion,  as  it  is  certainly  the  only  complete  and  God-given 
revelation. 

Happily,  there  is  in  this  gi'cat  country  no  political  power  to  hinder  us 
or  make  us  afraid  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  our  own  con¬ 
science.  Demanding  absolute  liberty  for  ourselves,  we  are  no  less  strenu¬ 
ous  in  our  demand  that  they  of  other  faiths  shall  enjoy  the  like  freedom. 

When  Paul  ceclared,  “I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,”  he 
meant  to  say  “There  is  nothing  in  the  gospel  of  Christ  which  causes  me 
to  blush  or  drop  my  eyes  in  the  face  of  any  man  or  of  all  men.  I  do  not 
have  to  apologize  for  believing  the  gospel  or  preaching  it,  as  if  there  were 
anything  in  it  or  about  it  that  can  not  bear  the  closest  scrutiny  froi  i  every 
point  of  view,  either  respecting  its  historical  basis  of  fact,  its  divine 
rationality,  its  ethical  system,  or  its  power  to  bestow  salvation  upon  man. 
The  more  light  that  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  gospel  the  less  I  am 
ashamed  of  it;  the  more  closely  it  is  examined  in  all  its  parts  the  better 
pleased  I  will  be.  I  am  ready  to  come  to  Rome  and  in  the  presence  of 
politicians,  philosophers,  and  priests  of  superstition  open  up  and  defend 
the  gospel  of  Christ.”  (The  word  translated  “  ashamed  ”  also  bears  the 
meaning  of  being  “  disappointed,”  as  in  Romans  v.,  5.) 

That  is  to  say,  Paul’s  position  is  this:  “Feeble  and  foolish  as  the  men 
of  this  world  may  deem  the  gospel  of  Christ,  great  as  are  the  forces— polit¬ 
ical,  religious,  and  philosophical— arrayed  against  it,  I  am  not  fearful  of  the 
final  outcome  of  the  conflict  of  Christianity  with  the  religions  and  philos¬ 
ophies  of  Paganism,  nor,  indeed,  with  the  strong  arm  of  the  world’s  polit¬ 
ical  power.  The  gospel  of  Christ  is  founded  upon  a  rock  and  made  one  with 
its  foundation,  so  that  not  even  the  gates  of  death  shall  prevail  against  it. 
The  power  of  God  is  greater  than  all  possible  opposing  powers.  “  All  power 
has  been  given  into  the  hands  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  propagation  and 
defense  of  His  gospel  and  to  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  believe  in  Him.” 

Let  us  now  give  our  attention  to  the  first  of  these  propositions:  “  I  am 
not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.” 

We  are  not  ashamed  of  its  antiquity:  Some  of  the  religions  of  the 
Roman  empire  boasted  of  great  antiquity.  Indeed,  they  based  their  relig¬ 
ions  on  myths  whose  fancied  existence  antedated  history.  This  is  an  easy 
way  to  secure  antiquity  for  any  faith.  There  are  those  among  us  that,  as 
compared  with  their  faiths,  hold  faiths  but  as  the  infant  of  days.  The 
Brahman  will  tell  us  that  for  4,000  years  his  Aryan  ancestors  have  wor¬ 
shiped  the  Indian  triad  on  the  banks  of  the  Ganges  and  at  Jumna;  that 
the  holy  city  of  Benares  was  the  flourishing  seat  of  their  faith  before  Abra¬ 
ham  left  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  and  that  it  has  had  an  unbroken  municipality 
ever  since.  Peculiarly  destitute  of  the  historical  sense,  millions  of  years 
are  as  easily  managed  by  the  Orientals  as  decades  are  with  us.  Claiming 
eternity  for  their  Badas  and  their  Puranic  heroes,  they  easily  antedate  ali 
other  faiths  by  this  convenient  method. 

In  our  prosaic  century,  however,  these  magnificent  claims  for  an  antiq¬ 
uity  which  antedates  historic  times  by  millions  of  years  go  for  nothing. 

On  the  other  hand,  Christianity  is  peculiarly  buttressed  by  historic  facts. 
We  are  often  charged  by  Orientals  with  being  the  propagators  of  a  modern 


684 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


faith,  because,  by  our  own  claims,  Jesus  Christ  did  not  appear  until  the 
comparatively  recent  time  of  two  millenniums  ago..  The  Hindu  faith  was 
then  already  hoary  with  age.  But  Christianity  does  not  date  from  the 
birth  of  Christ.  Christ  crucified  2,000  years  ago  was  only  the  culmination 
in  time,  and  to  our  sense,  of  a  revelation  already  ages  old. 

Abraham  believed  in  Christ,  and  rejoiced  to  see  His  day  approaching. 
Christ  was  believed  on  in  the  wilderness  when  Moses  was  bringing  the 
children  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt ;  for  “  the  gospel  was  preached  to  them  as 
well  as  to  us.”  Nay,  we  need  only  to  read  the  first  simple  records  of  our 
historic  faith  to  learn  that,  no  sooner  did  man  sin  and  fall  from  communion 
in  righteousness  with  God,  and  ere  there  was  yet  a  man  born  unto  the 
world,  than  God  gave  to  the  primeval  pair  a  promise  of  salvation  through 
Christ.  Since  that  day  faith  and  hope  in  Christ,  “  the  seed  of  the  woman  ” 
who  should  deliver  the  world  from  sin,  like  two  mighty  torches  have  been 
held  aloft  by  prophet,  sage,  and  psalmist,  flinging  their  bright,  prophetic 
rays  down  the  vista  of  the  ages,  until  they  were  gathered  up  in  and  flung 
out  again  ujion  the  whole  world  in  fullness  of  glory  by  the  coming  ot  Him 
who  is  the  true  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world. 

If  this  statement  is  deemed  to  be  overdrawn,  we  are  prepared  to  com¬ 
pare  the  literature  of  Christianity  with  that  of  all  other  religions;  I  mean 
its  foundation  literature,  and  trace  back,  step  by  step,  checking  it  with  his¬ 
torical  records  of  the  past,  written  in  books  with  the  pen,  graven  in  the 
rock,  and  contained  in  monumental  ruins  either  above  ground  or  under 
the  mounds  of  past  ages.  But  we  claim  no  revelation  given  before  the  age 
of  our  race,  and  put  forth  no  myth  which  antedates  the  history  of  earth  and 
man.  As  far  back  as  history  goes  the  records  of  our  faith  are  found. 
Every  turn  of  the  archaeologist’s  faith  confirms  the  truth  of  them.  In  this 
respect  we  are  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel.  Its  historical  antiquity  stands 
unrivaled  among  the  religions  of  the  world. 

We  are  not  ashamed  of  its  prophetic  character.  This  point  I  have 
almost  anticipated  by  a  remark  just  now  made,  yet  it  is  worth  while  to 
devote  a  sentence  more  to  it.  Christ’s  appearance  in  this  world  nineteen 
centuries  ago  was  not  an  unexpected  event.  For  centuries,  even  from  the 
beginning  of  man’s  spiritual  need.  He  had  been  looked  and  longed  for,  fore¬ 
told  in  a  hundred  predictions,  uttered  by  prophets  of  many  ages  and  of  dif¬ 
ferent  types  of  mind  and  in  many  countries;  gazed  upon  in  spiritual  vision, 
and  sung  forth  by  psalmists  of  many  centuries;  his  coming  is  set  in  symbol 
and  sacrifice,  in  type  and  ceremony.  An  entire  nation,  whose  wonderful 
people  are  still  scattered  amongst  all  nations  had  its  origin,  development, 
and  marvelous  history  in  the  hope  of  His  coming. 

Therefore,  says  Paul:  “  I  am  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  separated  unto 
the  gospel  of  God,  which  He  had  afore  promised  by  His  holy  prophets  in 
the  scriptures,  concerning  His  Son,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  which  was 
made  of  the  seed  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh,  and  declared  to  be  the 
Son  of  God  with  power  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness  by  the  resur¬ 
rection  from  the  dead.” 

Every  detail  of  His  advent  was  predicted  ages  before  He  came;  every 
circumstance  and  characteristicof  His  ministry  was  the  subject  of  prophecy. 
His  resurrection  predicted  the  spread  of  His  gospel  among  all  nations  fore¬ 
told.  In  this  respect  the  gospel  stands  without  a  rival  upon  the  fact  of  the 
world. 

The  heroes  of  the  world’s  religions  have  been  either  myths  oi- unlooked- 
for  men  springing  up  among  their  fellows,  for  whom  their  disciples  neither 
looked  nor  were  prepared.  Who  prophesied  the  coming  of  Confucius,  or 
Zoroaster,  or  Krishna,  or  Buddha?  Moreover,  none  of  these  heroes  or  leaders 
of  men  was  in  any  sense  a  savior.  They  were,  at  best,  teachers,  throwing 
their  followers  back  upon  themselves  to  work  out  their  own  salvation  as 
they  best  might.  Jesus  stands  on  an  entirely  different  platform,  declaring 


PRESENT  OUTLOOK  OF  RELIGIONS. 


685 


Himself  to  be  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Light.  And  so  at  His  birth 
the  angels  heralded:  “  For  unto  you  is  born  this  day,  in  the  city  of  David, 
a  Savior  which  shall  be  unto  all  people.” 

Christianity  is  not  belief  in  a  doctrine  nor  primarily  a  life-work,  but  it 
consists  in  a  living  union  with  a  living  Savior. 

If  we  consult  the  bibles  of  the  world’s  religions  we  find  the  same 
absence  of  pathetic  sequence.  There  is,  indeed,  growth  of  a  kind  seen  in 
the  ancient  scriptures  of  the  Hindus,  but  no  living  evolution  from  pathetic 
seed  to  fruitful  branch  of  promises  fulfilled.  Thegreat  truth  of  Christianity 
alone  appealed  to  previous  promises  and  prophecies.  In  every  development  of 
fact  and  doctrine  in  the  Christian  religion  this  is  the  appeal  made,  ‘‘  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  scriptures,”  or,  “as  God  had  afore  promised,”  or,  “thus  it  is 
written  and  thus  it  behooved.”  Christianity  was  planted  a  promise  in 
the  soil  of  human  nature  so  soon  as  man  appeared  on  the  earth,  and  has 
grown  steadily  without  check  or  deviation,  until  this  mighty  tree  of  life  has 
spread  its  branches  throughout  the  world,  and  lifted  them  high  up  against 
the  sky.  The  naturalists  tell  us  that  the  topmost  leaf  on  the  outermost 
branch  of  any  tree  may  be  traced  backward  and  downward  by  a  living  fiber 
until  it  finds  its  beginning  in  the  roots  deep  under  the  ground.  So  it  is  with 
the  facts  and  doctrines  of  Christianity.  The  tree  of  life  in  the  Paradise  of 
God,  as  seen  in  the  revelation,  sends  its  living  threads  downward  through 
the  writings  of  apostles  and  prophets  until  we  unearth  them  in  the  Garden 
of  Eden. 

We  are  not  ashamed  of  the  divine  author  of  Christianity.  Whether  we 
consider  the  character  of  Jehovah-God  of  the  Old  Testament — or  of  the 
Jesus-God  of  the  New  Testament — there  is  nothing  that  suffers  by  the 
highest  ethical  criticism  which  may  be  applied  to  them.  In  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  from  the  beginning,  God  proclaims  Himself  in  love,  holiness,  right¬ 
eousness,  truth,  and  mercy.  One  passage  out  of  hundreds  will  suffice  for 
an  illustration  of  this.  When  God  gave  to  Moses  the  tables  of  stone,  on 
which  He  had  written  His  law.  He  “descended  in  a  cloud  and  stood  with 
him  there  and  proclaimed  the  name,”  that  is,  the  character  of  God.  “  And 
the  Lord  passed  before  him  and  proclaimed,  the  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merci¬ 
ful  and  gracious,  long-suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth,  keep¬ 
ing  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity  and  transgression  and  sin,  and 
that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty.” 

We  might  well  challenge  comparison  to  this  passage,  in  which  God 
reveals  His  character,  from  the  pages  of  any  religious  writing  or  philosoph¬ 
ical  speculation  extant  in  the  world.  As  concerning  Jesus— the  incarnate 
God  of  the  New  Testament — “  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  and  separate  from 
sinners,”  “  touched  with  every  feeling  of  our  informity,”  and  “  tempted  in 
all  points  like  as  we,  yet  without  sin,”  the  “Friend  of  publicans  and  sin¬ 
ners  ”  coming  into  the  world  to  seek  and  save  that  which  was  lost,  to  call 
sinners  rather  than  righteous  men  to  repentance — He  stands  without  a 
peer  among  men  or  gods. 

The  moral  glory  of  His  character  lifts  Him  head  and  shoulders  above 
that  of  all  men  or  beings,  ideal  or  real,  with  which  we  are  acquainted. 
Nineteen  centuries  of  study  have  only  served  to  increase  His  glory  and 
confirm  and  deex)en  His  divine  human  influence  over  men;  even  His  worst 
enemies  are  among  the  first  to  lay  at  His  feet  a  tribute  to  His  greatness, 
goodness,  and  glory.  He  is,  indeed,  in  the  language  of  a  distinguished 
Hindu  gentleman  and  scholar,  ut.tered  in  my  presence  in  the  old  Mahratta 
city  of  Rome  and  before  an  audience  of  1,000  of  his  Brahmanical  fellows, 
“  the  peerless  Christ.” 

To  compare  Him  to  any  of  the  gods  worshiped  by  the  Hindus  is  to  mock 
both  them  and  Him;  to  compare  Him  with  any  of  the  great  religious  teach¬ 
ers  and  philosophers  of  the  world,  who,  while  not  claiming  for  themselves 
divinity,  are  put  forth  by  their  followers  as  the  highest  and  brightest 


686 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


examples  of  human  wisdom  and  character,  is  only  to  dazzle  their  wisdom, 
dwarf  their  character,  and  reveal  their  thousand,  and  sometimes  nameless, 
thoughts  in  the  resplendent  brightness  of  His  glory. 

Before  Jesus  came  into  the  world  it  was  the  custom  of  religious  men  to 
create  an  ideal  character  upon  which  to  model  life.  No  such  ideal  character 
ever  satisfied  the  demands  of  the  moral  consciousness  of  the  ancient  world. 
Since  Jesus  came,  no  further  attempt  has  been  made  to  idealize  human 
nature,  for  one  is  here  whose  moral  glory  shines  and  glows  upon  the  pages 
of  the  gospels  with  a  brightness  and  perfection  which  leaves  room  only  for 
admiration,  wonder,  and  worship. 

It  is  the  moral  glory  of  character  that  has  compelled  the  homage  of 
those  even  who  blindly  reject  His  supernatural  origin,  compelling  flippant 
Strauss  to  say:  “  Jesus  represents  within  the  sphere  of  religion  and  the 
culminating  point,  beyond  which  posterity  can  never  go,  yea,  which  it  can 
not  even  equal.  He  remains  the  highest  model  of  religion  within  the  reach 
of  our  thought,  and  no  perfect  piety  is  possible  without  His  presence  in  the 
heart.” 

Renan  says:  “  Whatsoever  may  be  the  surprises  of  the  future,  Jesus 
will  never  be  surpassed.  His  worship  will  grow  young  without  ceasing. 
All  ages  will  proclaim  that  among  the  sons  of  men  there  is  none  born 
greater  than  Jesus.”  Goethe,  the  father  of  the  modern  school  of  high 
culture,  in  one  of  his  utterances,  expresses  the  conviction  “  that  the  human 
mind,  no  matter  how  much  it  may  advance  in  intellectual  culture  and  the 
extent  and  depth  of  the  knowledge  of  nature,  will  never  transcend  the 
high  moral  culture  of  Christianity  as  it  shines  and  glows  in  the  canonical 
gospels.”  Napoleon  the  Great  declared:  “I  will  search  in  vain  in  history 
to  find  one  equal  to  Jesus  Christ  or  anything  which  can  approach  the  gos¬ 
pel.  Neither  history,  nor  humanity,  nor  the  ages,  nor  nature  afford  me 
anything  with  which  I  am  able  to  compare  or  by  which  to  explain  it.” 

These  are  not  the  testimonies  of  devoted  but  prejudiced  disciples  of  Jesus 
and  Christianity,  but  the  voluntary  testimony  of  men  who  could  do  naught 
else,  though  they  rejected  Him  as  their  personal  Savior.  Why  is  it  that 
“  rationalism  to-day  can  not  look  at  Him  closely  except  on  its  knees  ?” 
Simply  because  of  the  infinite  perfection  and  moral  glory  of  His  character, 
which  stamps  itself  upon  all  His  teaching,  and  without  which  the  demands 
which  He  makes  upon  His  disciples  to  follow  Him  and  to  believe  unhesi¬ 
tatingly  all  His  words  would  have  long  ago  been  repudiated  by  the  world. 
There  is  no  such  discrepancy  between  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  the  char¬ 
acter  of  Jesus  as  is  generally  manifest  between  the  teachings  of  Hinsua 
in  the  Geta,  and  the  character  of  Hinsua  as  set  forth  in  the  Parana. 

We  are  not  ashamed  of  the  ethical  basis  of  the  gospel.  Without  deny¬ 
ing  that  there  is  to  be  found  ethical  teaching  of  great  beauty  in  the  non- 
Christian  religions  of  the  world,  it  is  still  true  that  these  religions  lay  their 
stress  upon  their  cults  rather  than  upon  moral  culture.  Among  most  of 
them  there  is  a  striking  divorce  between  religion  and  morals;  if,  indeed, 
these  are  ever  found  joined  together.  But  in  the  gospel  we  find  that  the 
final  test  of  Christianity  is  in  its  power  to  regenerate  and  sanctify  man. 

The  moral  basis  of  Christianity  may  be  found  throughout  the  scriptures; 
but,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  we  take  only  two  examples. 

The  first  is  that  code  of  righteousness  revealed  by  God  to  Moses,  and 
which  we  commonly  speak  of  as  the  Ten  Commandments.  It  is  strikingly 
significant  that  this  wonderful  moral  law  was  communicated  at  a  period 
when  ethical  truth  among  the  then  existing  nations  was  at  its  lowest  point, 
and  the  morals  of  the  people  lower  than  the  teaching — midway  between 
Egypt  (luxurious  and  dissolute)  and  the  nations  dwelling  in  and  about 
Canaan,  whose  moral  vileness  was  so  great  that  the  very  land  was  ready  to 
vomit  them  out. 

God  halted  the  Israelites  to  declare  to  them  not  only  his  character,  but 


687 


Present  outlook  of  religions. 


to  lay  down  for  them  a  law  of  righteousness  in  the  keeping  of  which  there 
was  life,  and  in  the  disregard  of  which  there  was  death.  With  the  excep¬ 
tion  of  the  single  commandment  in  respect  to  the  Sabbath  day,  consecrated 
to  the  worship  of  God,  every  one  of  them  bears  directly  on  personal  morality 
and  righteousness.  We  need  not  stop  to  discuss  the  unmeasured  superi¬ 
ority  of  these  ten  words  to  any  code  of  morals  which,  up  to  that  time,  the 
world  had  ever  known.  Nor  need  we  do  more  than  remark  that,  after 
nearly  4,000  years,  tested  by 'every  intervening  age  and  the  most  rigid  criti¬ 
cism  which  the  advancing  moral  sense  of  man  (largely  developed  by  the 
power  of  this  very  law),  these  words  still  stand  unrivaled.  Who  has  ever 
proposed  an  amendment,  either  by  addition  or  elimination,  to  this  matchless 
moral  code? 

Passing  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New,  we  have  only  to  call  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  These,  of  Jesus,  spoken  to  His  disciples, 
are  but  the  transfiguration  of  the  ten  words  given  by  God  to  Moses.  Jesus 
declared  that  He  came  not  to  relax  or  destroy  the  moral  teachings  of  either 
the  law  or  the  prophets,  but  to  fulfill  them.  Therefore,  in  speaking  to  His 
disciples.  He  first  ratified  the  ancient  code  and  then  expounded  it.  In  the 
law  we  see  the  trunk  of  a  tree,  but  in  the  gospel  the  Tree  of  Life  from  its 
base  upward  is  unfolded.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  digged  up  its  very 
roots  and  exposed  the  hidden  life  to  view.  The  law  deals  with  actionsj.^  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  character.  We  may  be  permitted  to  make 
the  same  remark  of  these  wonderful  words  of  Jesus  that  we  did  respecting  the 
Ten  Commandments:  Who  has  ever  assumed  to  revise  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  in  order  to  eliminate  that  which  is  not  good  or  add  to  it  that  which 
it  lacked  in  the  way  of  moral  teaching?  And  may  we  not  ask  where  can 
there  be  found  in  religious  literature  a  code  of  morals  with  which  this  Ser¬ 
mon  on  the  Mount  may  be  compared?  It  has  been  urged  against  this  claim 
that  Jesus  was  not  altogether  an  original  teacher;  that  some,  if  not  many, 
of  His  most  beautiful  sayings  are  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  most  ancient 
teachers.  Notably,  it  has  been  declared  that  the  beautiful  maxim  of 
Christ  known  as  the  Golden  Rule  was  borrowed  by  Jesus  from  some  relig¬ 
ious  predecessor.  But  even  a  casual  comparison  of  the  sayings  of  Christ 
with  those  of  other  teachers  will  show  a  vast  difference.  Truths  partially 
uttered  of  old,  when  taken  up  and  stated  by  our  Savior,  are  lifted  out  of 
the  dark  and  negative  surroundings  into  their  positive  and  unselfish  full¬ 
ness.  They  are  energized  and  filled  with  the  fullness  of  His  own  life,  hence¬ 
forth  going  forward  unfettered  to  their  mission  of  regenerating  the  world 
of  fallen  humanity.  Is  it  that  the  truths  or  partial  truths  spoken  by  the 
ancients,  dead  and  powerless  for  ages,  were  raised  to  life  and  given  to  the 
world  with  all  the  freshness  and  power  of  an  original  revelation  from  God 
in  the  lips  of  Jesus?  How  is  it  that,  while  hardly  anybody  besides  the 
scholar  knows  of  these  sayings  of  the  ancient,  every  child  knows  and  feels 
the  power  of  the  Golden  Rule  of  Jesus?  Is  it  not  because  one  class  of 
maxims  contains  but  partial  or  half  truths,  while  the  sayings  of  Jesus  are 
the  truth  and  that  Jesus  embodied  them  in  His  own  light? 

But,  beyond  the  ethical  teachings  of  Christ,  which  are,  without  ques¬ 
tion,  far  in  advance  of  all  statements  which  the  world  had  ever  had,  and 
which  stand  to-day  upon  the  outermost  confines  of  possible  statement, 
Jesus  has  brought  to  us  a  revelation  of  God  Himself,  not  only  as  to  the  fact 
of  His  being  but  as  to  His  nature  and  the  love  and  grace  of  His  purpose 
toward  men.  Moreover,  He  has  shown  in  us  what  we  are  ourselves,  from 
whence  we  are  fallen,  and  unto  what  the  purpose  of  God  designs  to  lift  us, 
together  with  all  the  necessary  truth  concerning  human  sin;  how  it  is  to 
be  put  away  and  man  set  free  from  its  intolerable  guilt  and  bondage. 
Beside  this,  again,  the  misery  of  death  is  unfolded,  while  life  and  immor¬ 
tality  are  brought  to  light.  All  these  questions  have  been  matters  of  phil¬ 
osophical  inquiry,  albeit  the  inquiry  has  confessedly  been  made  in  the  dark. 


688 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  latest  utterances  from  scientific  headquarters  have  declared  that  con¬ 
cerning  them  science  is  agnostic,  without  knowledge  or  the  power  to  know. 
But  J esus  handled  these  mighty  questions  with  a  master’s  hand  and  fioods 
them  with  the  clear  light  of  midday  revelation. 

We  are  not  ashamed  of  its  doctrines  or  salvation.  The  Gospel  is  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation.  For  our  present  purpose  I  may  mention 
these  following:  Incarnation,  atonement,  regeneration,  and  resurrection. 
It  will  be  observed  that  these  great  doctrines  are  all  inseparably  associated 
with  facts  and  life.  In  other  words  Christianity  is  a  history,  a  doctrine, 
and  a  life.  History  back  of  its  doctrine,  doctrine  growing  out  of  its  his¬ 
tory,  and  life  springing  from  these.  The  final  test  of  the  truth  of  the 
history  and  the  doctrine  is  the  life  which  results  from  them.  Let  me  briefiy 
summarize  these: 

By  the  incarnation,  roughly  speaking,  we  mean  that  revelation  which 
God  made  of  Himself,  in  Jesus  Christ.  All  natural  religions  and  philoso¬ 
phies  show  us  man  seeking  after  God  if  happily  he  may  find  Him,  but  here 
only  do  we  see  God  seeking  after  man.  The  incarnation  shows  us  not  only 
God  seeking  after  man  but  identifying  Himself  with  man,  not  simply 
acting  in  grace  toward  him  but  by  taking  his  very  nature  into  union  with 
Himself,  and  by  that  union  crowning  him  with  glory  and  honor.  Origi¬ 
nally  made  lower  than  the  angels,  we  see  him  in  Christ,  carried  through 
eve%  stage  of  existence  and  seated  at  last  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

The  incarnation  shows  us  what  God’s  thought  was  in  his  creation — 
the  broken  image  of  God  as  seen  in  man  is  more  than  restored  in  Christ, 
who  is  the  express  image  of  the  Father — the  demonstration  of  God’s  char¬ 
acter,  and  the  very  brightness  of  His  glory.  This  not  only  in  respect  of  the 
risen  glorified  Christ,  but  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus  as  He  lived  and  moved 
among  men.  What  shall  we  say  of  that  matchless  life,  its  purity,  its  power, 
and  its  divine  benevolence?  Do  men  scoff  at  the  miracles  of  mercy 
wrought  by  Christ  as  being  fables  and  inventions  of  the  religious  imagina¬ 
tions?  Do  they  compare  them  with  the  fabulous  and  mythical  stories  of  the 
gods  and  heroes  of  the  Orient?  When  preaching  to  the  educated  English 
gentlemen  of  India  I  was  often  confronted  with  the  statement  that  “  the 
gods  and  heroes  of  India  wrought  more  and  greater  miracles  than  Jesus; 
they,  too,  fed  the  multitudes,  opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind  and  healed  the 
sick.”  When  I  asked  for  the  proof  they  had  none  to  give  except  the  Pur- 
anic  stories. 

When  they  in  turn  challenged  me  for  proof,  I  simply  said:  “Look 
around  you,  even  here  in  India.  The  reported  miracles  of  your  gods  and 
heroes  stand  only  in  stories,  but  each  miracle  of  Christ  was  a  living  seed  of 
power  and  love  planted  in  human  nature,  and  has  sprung  up  and  fiourished 
again,  bringing  forth  after  its  kind  wherever  the  gospel  is  preached.  Who 
cares  for  the  lepers;  who  for  the  sick  and  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the 
maimed?  Till  Christ  came  to  India  these  were  left  to  die  without  care  or 
help,  but  now  every  miracle  of  Christ  is  perpetuated  in  some  hospital 
devoted  to  the  care  and  cure  of  those  who  are  in  like  case  with  the  suffer¬ 
ers  whom  Christ  healed.” 

This  is  the  difference  between  the  fables  of  the  ancients  and  the  living 
wonders  wrought  by  the  living  Christ.  He  Himself,  the  embodiment  of 
righteousness,  love,  pity,  tenderness,  gentleness,  patience,  and  all  heavenly 
helpfulness,  being  the  greatest  miracle  of  all — Jesus  among  men,  as  we 
see  Him  in  the  gospels,  is  God’s  image  restored  to  us,  and  through  Him 
acting  in  grace  toward  men. 

“  Sir,”  said  an  old  gray-haired  Brahman  to  me  one  day,  “  I  am  a  Hindu 
and  always  shall  be,  but  I  can  not  help  loving  Him.  The  world  never 
knew  the  like  of  Him  before.  When  I  think  of  Him  I  am  ashamed  of  our 
gods.” 

In  the  Doctrine  of  Atonement  we  see  the  solution  of  one  of  the  oldest 


PRESENT  OUTLOOK  OF  RELIGIONS. 


689 


and  most  stressful  questions  of  the  human  mind.  How  God  may  still  “  be 
just  and  yet  the  justifier  of  the  ungodly.”  How  in  forgiving  transgression, 
iniquity,  and  sin,  He  establishes  and  magnifies  the  law. 

This  is  the  very  heart  of  the  gospel.  Here  is  no  doctrine  of  vengeance 
exacted  by  a  vindictive  God,  but  the  voluntary  sacrifice  which  eternal  love 
makes,  to  win  and  bring  back  to  God  a  lost  son,  who  has  by  sin  come  under 
just  condemnation.  Here  is  another  statement  of  the  same  great  doctrine 
by  the  same  apostle:  “  But  now  the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  by  faith 
of  Jesus  Christ,  unto  all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe;  for  there  is  no 
difference;  for  all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God;  being 
justified  freely  by  His  grace  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus, 
whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  and  His  blood; 
to  declare  His  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through 
the  forbearance  of  God,  that  He  might  be  just  and  yet  the  justifier  of  him 
that  believeth  in  Jesus.” 

In  connection  with  this  righteousness  for  us  by  Jesus  Christ  there  is  a 
righteousness  in  us  by  regeneration,  wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that 
every  saved  man  becomes  a  new  creature  in  Christ.  Thus,  with  righteous¬ 
ness  imparted  freely  by  grace,  and  righteousness  imparted  freely 
through  faith  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  man  stands  free  from 
sin  and  its  penalties  and  is  panoplied  with  a  new  spiritual  nature. 
He  is  enabled  not  only  to  apprehend  an  ideal  character  of  holiness,  but  to 
attain  to  such  a  character  through  the  further  sanctification  of  the  spirit 
and  belief  of  the  truth.  By  the  gospel,  man,  a  wanderer  and  alien  from 
God  and  an  enemy  by  wicked  works,  becomes  a  son  filled  with  the  mind  of 
Christ,  living  and  walking  in  fullest  fellowship  with  God  and  with  man. 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead  has  solved  the  problem 
of  immortality,  not  by  argument,  but  by  demonstration,  and  has  guaranteed 
to  us  a  like  immortality,  not  of  the  soul,  but  of  the  whole  man — spirit,  soul, 
and  body;  for  even  these  bodies  of  ours,  now  humiliated  and  dishonored  by 
sin,  and  too  often  yielding  themselves  instruments  of  unrighteousness  unto 
sin,  shall  be  changed  and  fashioned  like  unto  His  glorious  body,  according 
to  the  working  of  that  mighty  power  that  worketh  in  us  by  Jesus  Christ. 
Here  is  a  salvation,  not  for  a  surviving  spirit,  but  for  the  whole  man.  The 
body  is  not  a  vile  encasement  of  matter  essentially  gross  and  sinful,  to  be 
gotten  rid  of,  but  a  temple  to  be  purged  of  its  defilement  and  become  the 
dwelling  place  and  instrument  of  the  regenerated  spirit  of  man  and  the 
permanent  tabernacle  of  God. 

In  these  great  central  doctrines  of  the  gospel  we  have  a  true  knowledge 
of  God,  peace  for  our  conscience,  new  strength  for  our  moral  responsibifi- 
ties  and  an  assured  victory  over  death,  by  an  immortality  which  reaches 
beyond  the  grave  into  the  infinite  future,  not  an  absorption  into  the  original 
God,  not  an  extinction  in  eternal  unconsciousness.  This  goal  not  reached 
by  a  series  of  transmigrations  almost  endless  in  extent,  but  at  a  bound 
when  the  summons  comes  for  us  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ  which  is  far 
better,  and  in  the  subsequent  resurrection  and  translation  of  the  body.  In 
the  proclamation  and  defense  of  these  doctrines,  no  matter  in  presence  of 
what  audience,  or  in  debate  whom  for  antagonists,  we  are  not  ashamed  of 
the  gospel. 

The  unity  of  God  and  of  the  race,  and  the  consequent  brotherhood  of 
man,  as  suggested  in  Paul’s  great  speech  on  Mars  Hill,  is-a  statement  that 
causes  us  to  blush  for  shame,  and  I  may  say  that  it  is  a  teaching  unique  in 
Christianity.  It  is  not  found  in  the  Hindu  Buddhistic  Bible.  The 
unknown  God  whom  those  two  superstitious  Athenians  worshiped  is  our 
God,  who  “  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all 
the  face  of  the  earth,  and  hath  determined  the  times  before  appointed,  and 
the  bounds  of  their  habitation,  that  they  should  seek  the  Lord  if  haply 
they  might  feel  after  Him  and  find  Him,  though  He  be  not  far  from,  any  one 


690 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  UB.”  Christ  the  Son  of  God  and  of  man,  in  His  incarnation,  joined  Himself 
to  the  race  by  a  clean  descent  from  Adam,  so  that  His  salvation  has  intro¬ 
duced  brotherhood  in  the  highest  and  best  sense  into  the  unity  of  race 
relationship.  A  brotherhood  real  in  every  respect,  making  every  man 
equal,  before  God,  with  every  other  man,  and  placing  woman  where  she 
belongs,  at  the  man's  side,  neither  slave  nor  inferior,  but  companion,  wife, 
and  helpmeet. 

While  it  thus  equalizes  all  men  before  God,  it  recognizes  those  necessary 
and  inevitable  distinctions  which  must  needs  be  among  men  in  order  to 
the  development  and  consecration  of  the  human  family.  In  these  human 
relations,  all  sanctified  by  the  indwelling  spirit  of  Christ,  the  believer  gives 
due  honor  to  all  men,  from  the  station,  place,  and  calling  wherewith  he  is 
called.  The  master  must  remember  that  the  servant  is  also  the  free  man 
of  Christ,  and  the  servant  must  remember  that  in  the  service  that  he  ren¬ 
ders  to  his  earthly  master  he  is  honoring  God.  The  wife  is  obedient  to  her 
husband,  and  the  husband  must  reverence  and  love  his  wife  as  his  own 
body.  Children  must  obey  their  parents  in  the  Lord,  and  the  parent 
must  see  to  it  that  he  does  not  provoke  his  son  to  wrath  by  any  unjust  use 
of  his  parental  power.  The  poor  must  discharge  their  services  to  the  rich 
patiently,  giving  due  and  honest  labor  for  due  and  honest  wages,  and  the 
rich  must  look  to  it  that  they  do  not  keep  back  the  laborer’s  hire,  nor  grind 
the  faces  of  the  poor,  for  God  is  their  avenger  and  will  exact  it  of  them. 


GOVERNMENT  CENSUS  OF  CHURCHES. 

EEV.  H.  K.  CARKOLL,  D.  D. 

The  first  impression  one  gets  in  studying  the  results  of  the  government 
census  of  the  churches  is  that  there  is  an  infinite  variety  of  religion  in  the 
United  States.  We  have  churches  small  and  churches  great;  churches 
white  and  churches  black;  churches  high  and  churches  low;  Christian  and 
pagan,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  liberal  and  conservative,  orthodox  and 
heterodox,  Calvanistic  and  Armenian,  trinitarian  and  Unitarian,  native 
and  foreign.  All  phases  of  thought  are  represented  by  them;  all  possible 
theologies,  all  varieties  of  polity,  ritual,  usage  and  forms  of  worship. 

In  our  economical  policy  as  a  nation  we  have  emphasized  the  impor¬ 
tance  of  a  varied  industry.  We  like  the  idea  of  manufacturing  or  pro¬ 
ducing  just  as  many  articles  of  merchandise  as  possible.  We  have  invented 
more  curious  and  useful  things  than  any  other  nation.  In  matters  of  relig¬ 
ion  we  have  not  been  less  enterprising  and  productive.  We  seem  to  have 
about  every  variety  known  to  other  countries  with  not  a  few  peculiar  to 
ourselves.  Our  native  genius  for  invention  has  exerted  itself  in  this  direc¬ 
tion  also,  and  worked  out  some  curious  results.  The  American  patent 
covers  no  less  than  two  original  Bibles— the  Mormon  and  Oahsape — and  more 
brands  of  religion,  so  to  speak,  than  I  can  now  stop  to  enumerate. 

There  are  so  many  religious  bodies  that  it  is  desirable,  if  we  would  get 
a  comprehensive  idea  of  them,  to  arrange  them,  first  in  grand  divisions, 
second  in  classes,  and  third  in  families. 

I  would  specify  three  grand  divisions:  First,  the  Christian;  second, 
the  Jewish;  third,  miscellaneous.  Under  the  last  head  come  the  Chinese, 
Buddhists,  the  theosophists,  the  ethical  culturists,  some  communistic 
societies,  and  pagan  Indians.  The  Jewish  division  embraces  simply  the 
orthodox  and  reformed  Jews.  The  Christian  division  contains,  of  course, 
the  great  majority  of  denominations  and  believers,  Catholics,  Protestants, 
Latter  Day  Saints — all  bodies  not  Jewish,  pagan,  or  anti-Christian. 

We  commonly  divide  the  Christian  bodies  into  classes,  as  Catholic  and 


GOVERNMENT  CENSUS  OF  CHURCHES. 


691 


Protestant,  Evangelical  and  non-Evangelical.  In  the  Catholic  classes 
there  are  seven  representatives  in  this  country— the  Roman  Catholic,  the 
United  Greek  Catholic,  the  Russian  orthodox,  the  Greek  orthodox,  the 
Armenian,  the  old 'Catholic,  and  the  Reformed  Catholic.  The  Reformed 
Catholics  are  Catholic  only  in  name  and  origin,  being  thoroughly  Protestant 
in  belief  and  practice.  The  Roman  Catholics  and  the  United  Greek 
Catholics  are  substantially  one.  The  latter  acknowledge  the  sovereignty  of 
the  Pope,  but  are  allowed  to  use  a  Greek  ritual,  to  have  a  married  clergy,  and 
to  give  the  cup  in  communion  to  the  laity  as  well  as  to  the  clergy.  All  the 
Catholic  bodies,  except  the  Roman,  are  small  and  unimportant  as  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  United  States,  ranging  in  numbers  of  communicants  from 
100  to  less  than  14,000. 

It  was  an  American  Presbyterian,  in  the  great  gathering  of  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  numerous  Presbyterian  branches  of  all  lands,  in  Belfast,  Ire¬ 
land,  some  years  ago,  who  exclaimed:  “We  are  little  better  than  a  lot  of 
split  peas.”  His  observation  might  be  given  a  much  wider  range.  It  is 
much  more  applicable  to  Protestants  than  to  Presbyterians — we  are  “  a  lot 
of  split  peas.”  If  there  were  in  Milton’s  day  “  subdichotomies  of  petty 
schisms,”  wonder  what  phrase  that  great  master  of  vivid  expression  would 
coin  to  fit  the  numberless  divisions  and  subdivisions  into  which  Protestant¬ 
ism  has  fallen  since.  We  no  longer  classify  these  divisions  as  units,  but  as 
families  of  units. 

The  Presbyterians  are  not  simply  one  of  these  divisions,  but  a  whole  fam¬ 
ily.  The  Methodists,  who  were  a  sort  of  ecclesiola  in  ecclesia  in  Wesley’s  day 
in  England,  are  now  an  ecclesia  ecclesiarum  the  world  over.  According  to 
the  scientists,  no  atom  is  so  small  that  i !:  may  not  be  conceived  of  as  con¬ 
sisting  of  halves.  It  may  be  divided  into  halves,  and  these  ha’  /es  may  in 
turn  be  divided,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum.  No  denomination  has  thus  far 
proved  to  be  too  small  for  division.  Denominations  appear  in  the  census 
returns  with  as  few  as  twenty-five  members.  I  was  reluctantly  compelled 
to  exclude  one  with  twenty-one  members.  The  reason  was  that  while  they 
insisted  that  they  were  a  separate  body  and  did  not  worship  with  other 
churches,  they  had  no  organized  church  of  their  own.  Twelve  of  them 
were  in  Pennsylvania,  divided  between  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg,  six 
were  in  Illinois,  and  three  in  Missouri.  They  were  so  widely  scattered  they 
could  not  maintain  public  worship.  They  called  themselves  Reformed 
Presbyterians. 

These  divisions  and  their  causes  and  results  would  make  a  very  interest¬ 
ing  study  if' it  were  not  so  beset  with  difficulty.  The  anxious  student  finds 
himself  in  a  maze  of  meaningless  titles  at  the  very  threshold  of  his  labors. 
No  worse  puzzle  was  ever  invented  than  that  which  the  names  of  the 
various  denominations  constitute.  We  have,  for  example,  the  “Presby¬ 
terian  Church  in  the  United  States,”  and  the  “  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America”;  the  “Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States,” 
and  the  “  Reformed  Church  in  America.”  Which  is  which?  I  believe  there 
are  many  members  of  these  bodies  who  could  not  tell.  The  only  apparent 
distinction  in  each  of  these  cases  is  geographical. 

But  what  is  the  difference  between  the  “  United  States”  and  the 
“United  States  of  America?”  How,  in  the  name  of  goodness,  is  anybody 
to  distinguish  between  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  and 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America?  It  is  said  that 
there  is  a  theological  distinction  between  the  “  Reformed  Church  in  the 
United  States”  and  the  “Reformed  Church  in  America.”  One  is  supralap- 
sarian — I  forgot  which — and  the  other  is  sublapsarian,  and  I  do  not  know 
that  I  could  tell  now  the  precise  differences  which  these  terms  indicate. 
I  presume  the  learned  theologians  of  the  two  churches  understand  whether 
they  are  supralapsarians  or  sublapsarians;  but  what  about  the  poor  lay¬ 
men?  Do  they  know?  Can  they  be  expected  to  know?  The  way  we  learn 


692 


THE  PARLIAMENT  QF  RELIGIONS. 


to  distinguish  between  the  two  churches  is  by  identifying  the  Reformed 
Church  in  America  as  the  “Dutch”  body,  and  the  Reformed  Church  in  the 
United  States  as  the  “German”  body,  and  so  whe-i  w,e  want  to  use  these 
titles  intelligently  we  bracket  the  words  “Dutch”  and  “  German  ”  in  con¬ 
nection  with  them. 

Of  Presbyterians  there  are  four  bodies  of  the  reform  variety.  I  have 
always  had  great  difficulty  in  distinguishing  between  them.  One  is  called 
the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
another  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  in  North  America.  One  has  a 
synod  and  the  other  a  general  synod.  I  have  found  in  their  monthly 
organs  a  more  sure  method  of  distinction.  One  of  these  has  a  blue  and 
the  other  a  pink  cover.  The  blue-cover  organ  represents  the  general  synod 
and  the  general  synod  represents  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  of 
North  America.  The  pink-covered  organ  represents  the  synod  and  the 
synod  represents  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America. 

There  are  twelve  bodies  of  Presbyterians  to  be  distinguished  and  seven¬ 
teen  bodies  of  Methodists,  and  Methodist  titles  are  scarcely  more  helijful 
than  Presbyterian.  We  have  the  Methodist  Episcopal,  which  is  recog¬ 
nized  as  the  parent  body,  and  which  we  sometimes  distinguish  as  the 
Northern  Church,  though  it  coyers  the  South  as  well  as  the  North.  We 
have  the  Methodist  Episcopal  South,  which  resulted  from  the  division  in 
1844.  We  have  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal,  Zion,  the  Colored  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal,  the  Union  American  Methodist  Episcopal,  the  African  Union 
Methodist  Protestant,  the  Zion  Union  Apostolic,  and  the  Evangelist  Mis¬ 
sionary — all  colored  bodies.  We  have  also  three  bodies  of  Congregational 
Methodists,  none  of  which  is  congregational  in  fact,  with  Free,  Independ¬ 
ent,  Protestant,  Primitive,  and  other  varieties  of  Methodists,  the  why  of 
which  must  forever  remain  an  inscrutable  mystery  to  the  mass  of 
mankind. 

Of  Baptist  bodies  we  count  thirteen,  including  the  Regular,  North, 
South,  and  Colored;  the  Freewill  in  two  varieties;  the  General,  Separate, 
United,  Six  Principle,  Seventh  Day,  Primitive,  and  Old  Two-Seed-in-the- 
Spirit  Predestinarian;  also  the  Baptist  Church  of  Christ,  which  claims  to 
have  descended  direct  from  the  apostles.  Beginning  with  the  three  prin¬ 
cipal  bodies,  called  “  Regular,”  we  might,  following  the  old  classification  of 
verbs,  describe  the  Baptists  as  “  regular,  irregular,  redundant,  and  defect¬ 
ive.”  The  most  curious  of  all  Baptist  bodies  is  the  Old  Two-Seed-in-the- 
Spirit  Predestinarian.  Here  we  have  a  title  that  is  definitive.  It  describes 
and  distinguishes. 

These  Baptists  are  predestinarian.  They  believe  that  every  action,  whether 
good  or  bad,  of  every  person  and  every  event  was  predestined  from  the 
beginning;  not  only  the  initial  sin  of  Eve  and  the  amiable  compliance  of 
Adam  and  the  consequent  fall  of  man  but  the  apostasy  of  Satan.  They 
are  thoroughly  predestinarian;  and  are  not  only  predestinarian,  but  they 
are  Old  Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit  Predestinarian.  The  two  seeds  are  good  and 
evil;  and  one  or  the  other  of  them  will  spring  up  into  eternal  life  or  eternal 
death,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  predestination  decreed  in  each 
particular  case. 

There  are  four  bodies  of  brethren  who  object  to  any  other  designation. 
They  are  properly  known  as  (Plymouth)  Brethren.  By  putting  the  word 
Plymouth  in  parentheses  we  can  distinguish  them  from  other  bodies  of 
Brethren;  but  how  shall  we  distinguish  each  of  these  four  bodies  of  (Ply¬ 
mouth)  Brethren  from  the  other  three?  The  device  I  was  led  to  adopt  for 
the  census  was  that  of  Roman  numerals,  thus; 

(Plymouth)  Brethren  I. 

(Plymouth)  Brethren  II. 

(Plymouth)  Brethren  III. 

(Plymouth)  Brethren  IV. 

The  word  Plymouth  in  parentheses  in  each  case. 


GOVERNMENT  CENSUS  OF  CHURCHES. 


693 


We  count  in  all  143  denominations  in  the  United  States,  besides  150  or 
more  congregations  which  are  independent  or  unassociated  with  any  church. 
Of  the  143  separate  denominational  bodies  six  are  Adventist,  thirteen  Bap¬ 
tist,  three  (River)  Brethren,  four  (Plymouth)  Brethren,  seven  Catholic,  two 
Christian  Connection,  nine  Communistic,  four  Dunkard,  four  Quaker,  two 
Jewish,  two  Mormon,  sixteen  Lutheran,  twelve  Mennonite,  seventeen 
Methodistr  twelve  Presbyterian,  two  Episcopalian,  two  Reformed,  and  two 
United  Brethren,  with  twenty-three  single  denominations,  such  as  the 
Congregationalists,  Moravians,  Disciples  of  Christ,  Christadelphians,  Chris¬ 
tian  Scientists,  and  Salvation  Army. 

Many  of  the  143  separate  bodies  are  very  small  and  unimportant.  We 
can  pick  out  ninety-seven,  of  which  no  one  has  as  many  as  25,000  communi¬ 
cants.  Seventy-five  have  less  than  10,000  communicants  each;  fifty-four 
less  than  2,500,  and  thirty-two  less  than  1,000.  Of  bodies  having  25,000  and 
upward  there  are  only  forty-six,  or  about  one-third  of  the  whole  number. 
The  other  two-thirds  are  made  up  of  denominations  having  from  20,000  to 
25,(X)0.  It  is  the  little  bodies,  therefore,  that  give  religion  in  the  United 
States  such  a  divided  aspect.  If  most  of  them  were  blotted  out  we  should 
lose  little  that  is  very  valuable,  but  much  that  is  queer  in  belief  and 
practice. 

For  example,  Theosophists,  who  believe  that  by  cultivating  the  plane 
of  consciousness  which  lies  between  the  spirit  and  the  mind  things  which 
men  call  “  miraculous  ”  can  be  accomplished;  and  Shakers,  who  practice 
religious  dances  and  hold  that  God  is  both  male  and  female;  the  Church 
Triumphant,  who  look  upon  their  leader  as  Christ;  the  Koreshans,  who 
hold  that  immortality  is  possible  to  their  disciples  here  on  earth;  the 
Christian  Scientists,  who  believe  that  good  and  health  are  real,  and  evil 
and  disease  unreal — imaginings  of  the  mind — and,  therefore,  curable  by 
mental  instead  of  spiritual  processes;  and  the  Harmonyites,  who  believe 
that  those  who  marry  may  be  saved,  after  a  probation  of  purification,  who 
are  noted  for  the  whisky  they  make  at  the  “  Golden  Rule  ”  Distillery. 

What  is  it  has  caused  these  numerous  divisions?  The  differences  in 
some  cases  between  branches  bearing  the  same  generic  name  are  important, 
but  in  others  they  are  not.  How  shall  we  explain  the  fact  that  there  are 
six  kinds  of  Adventists,  thirteen  kinds  of  Baptists,  seventeen  kinds  of 
Methodists,  twelve  kinds  of  Presbyterians,  and  so  on  through  the  list?  Let 
us  take  the  Methodist  family  and  inquire  how  so  many  branches  arose. 

There  are  no  doctrinal  differences  in  Methodism  to  accountfor  its  divis¬ 
ion.  They  are  all  Armenian  in  theology,  agreeing  in  their  opposition  to 
the  Calvanistic  decrees.  They  emphasized  the  points  of  doctrine  which 
Wesley  made  distinctive,  and  they  agree  generally  in  the  minor  matters  of 
usage.  They  are  one  in  spirit,  and  each  has  the  family  resemblance  in  many 
respects. 

They  differ,  first,  in  church  government.  Some  are  Episcopal,  others 
Presbyterian,  with  presidents  of  conferences  instead  of  bishops,  and  one  is 
independent.  The  oldest  of  the  existing  divisions,  the  Methodist  Protest¬ 
ant,  became  separated  from  the  parent  body  upward  of  sixty  years  ago  in 
a  controversy  over  the  admission  of  laymen  into  the  governing  body  of  the 
church.  Those  who  espoused  this  reform  believed  that  bishops  and  presiding 
elders  were  autocratic,  and  when  they  formed  a  system  of  their  own  they 
brought  the  laymen  to  the  front,  and  sent  bishops  and  presiding  elders  to 
the  rear.  This  was  a  divison  on  principles  of  government. 

Eight  of  the  branches  became  such  because  of  the  color  or  race  differ¬ 
ence.  All  these,  I  believe,  except  one,  separated  from  a  white  body.  Two 
other  divisions,  the  American  Wesleyan  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  South, 
were  due  to  the  slavery  question,  which  has  been  one  of  the  most  prolific 
causes  in  the  history  of  the  last  fifty  years  of  ecclesiastical  controversy  and 
secessions.  Another  body,  the  Free  Methodists,  was  the  result  of  too 


694 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


little  forbearance  and  too  harsh  exercise  of  discipline  on  the  one  side,  and 
of  extravagances  of  preaching  and  behavior  on  the  other.  In  other  words, 
there  was  a  misunderstanding,  a  quarrel,  and  a  separation.  There  are 
three  Congregational  Methodist  branches,  two  of  which  have  had  a  similar 
origin,  and  none  of  which,  strange  to  say,  is  really  congregational  in  form 
of  government.  The  primitive  branch  comes  to  us,  not  by  division  but 
from  England  through  Canada.  To  summarize,  ten  of  the  seventeen  divis¬ 
ions  were  due  to  the  race  or  the  slavery  question,  and  six  to  controversies 
over  practical  questions.  The  other  was  imported. 

Of  the  twelve  Presbyterian  bodies,  all  are  consistently  Calvanistic  but 
two,  the  Cumberland  and  the  Cumberland  Colored,  which  hold  to  a  modi¬ 
fied  Calvanism.  All  use  the  Presbyterian  system  of  government  with 
little  variation.  What,  then,  is  it  that  divides  them?  Slavery  divided  the 
Northern  and  Southern,  the  race  question  the  two  Cumberland,  bodies;  one 
branch  is  Welsh  and  the  rest  are  kept  apart  largely  by  Scotch  obstinacy. 
They  have  close  points  of  agreement,  but  they  differ  on  questions  that 
seem  to  others  utterly  insignificant. 

We  may,  I  think,  sum  up  the  causes  of  division  under  four  heads:  First, 
controversies  over  doctrines;  second,  controversies  over  administration  or 
discipline;  third,  controversies  over  moral  qut  stions;  fourth,  ambitious  and 
disputatious  persons. 

We  are  a  nation  made  up  of  diverse  race  elements.  All  varieties  of 
speech,  habits  of  thought,  mental,  moral,  and  religious  training  are  repre¬ 
sented  among  us  by  the  older  and  the  newer,  the  European  and  the  Asiatic 
immigration.  Here  there  is  the  utmost  freedom  for  all  forms  of  religion, 
with  no  exclusive  favors  to  any.  We  must  expect  from  such  commingling 
currents,  counter-currents  and  eddies  of  religious  thought.  Different  sys¬ 
tems  of  doctrine,  different  forms  of  worship,  and  different  principles  of 
discipline  are  brought  into  contact,  and  each  has  its  influence  upon  the 
others.  Calvinism  affects  Armenianism  and  Armenianism  Calvinism.  The 
Teutonic  element  modified  the  English,  and  is  modified  by  it  in  turn. 
Catholicism  has  been  most  profoundly  affected  by  Protestantism,  and  some 
elements  of  Protestantism  by  Catholicism.  Thus  there  are  various  forces 
acting  upon  religion  in  the  United  States  and  producing  phenomena  in  our 
religious  life  which  some  day  will  command  most  careful  study. 

I  can  not  stop  to  consider  the  tendencies  manifested  in  the  history  of 
religion  in  the  United  States,  but  I  must  say  a  word  about  that  toward 
liberal  views  Most  denominations  have  become  more  liberal  than  they 
used  to  be.  It  was  the  manifestation  of  this  liberal  spirit  which  caused 
many  of  the  divisions  of  the  past  sixty  or  seventy  years.  Let  me  give  you 
an  illustration  of  this  tendency.  A  band  of  Dunkards  came  across  the  sea 
from  Germany  to  Pennsylvania  in  1719.  They  were  a  very  simple  people, 
interpreting  the  Bible  literally,  fashioning  their  outward  as  well  as  their 
spiritual  lives  by  it,  and  believing  they  were  called  by  God  to  be  a  peculiar 
and  exclusive  people. 

More  unworldly  men  and  women  never  inhabited  cloister.  They  were 
in  the  world  but  not  a  part  of  the  world.  They  thought  it  a  virtue  to  resist 
its  customs  and  ignore  its  fashions.  In  the  character  and  cut  of  their  gar¬ 
ments,  in  the  manner  of  wearing  their  hair,  in  the  way  they  ordered  their 
homes  and  their  daily  life,  they  were  separate  and  peculiar.  They  adopted 
stringent  rules  of  discipline,  to  prevent  the  trimming  of  the  beard,  the 
wearing  of  hats  instead  of  bonnets,  the  laying  of  carpets,  the  use  of  pianos 
and  similar  acts  in  order  to  keep  pure  and  unspotted  from  the  world  and 
maintain  their  simplicity  of  life  and  faith. 

For  many  years  the  influences  of  the  world  seemed  to  have  no  effect 
upon  them,  but  gradually  innovations  crept  into  their  habits,  their  disci¬ 
pline  was  insensibly  relaxed,  and  the  questions  sent  up  to  their  annual 
meeting  grew  more  numerous  and  perplexing,  and  differences  of  opinion 


GOVERNMENT  CENSUS  OF  CHURCHES, 


696 


grew  quite  common.  One  year  this  question  was  presented  among  others: 
“  How  is  it  considered  for  brethren  to  establish  or  patronize  a  high  school?  ” 
After  canvassing  the  Bible  carefully  for  light  the  following  answer  was 
returned:  “Considered  that  brethren  should  not  mind  high  things,  but 
condescend  to  men  of  low  estate.” 

Nevertheless,  the  high  school  was  established  and  has  since  developed 
into  a  college.  The  Dunkards  within  a  decade  have  split  into  three  bodies. 
Association  with  others  insensibly  changed  the  views  and  habits  of  a  num¬ 
ber  of  them  and  led  to  innovations.  These  innovations  were  resisted  by 
the  more  conservative,  and  division,  where  full  toleration  was  not  possible, 
was  the  inevitable  result.  Consequently  the  body  that  had  persisted  for  a 
century  and  a  half  as  an  unworldly,  harmonious,  and  united  communion, 
was  divided  into  three  branches — a  progressive,  a  conservative,  and  an  old 
order  branch. 

I  must  now  return  to  another  and  less  interesting  but  not  less  impor¬ 
tant  phase  of  the  subject,  and  take  a  dry  plunge  into  the  dusty  sea  of 
statistics.  Character  and  quality  we  can  describe  by  figures  of  rhetoric, 
but  to  express  quantity  and  number  we  must  use  the  figures  of  the 
renumeration  table.  We  have  a  census  every  ten  years  of  our  population, 
resouices,  and  activities,  and  the  results  appear  in  scores  of  bulky  volumes 
which  the  public  never  sees  and  nobody  ever  reads,  but  which  a  few 
benevolent-minded,  self-sacrificing  men  study  for  the  benefit  of  mankind 
in  general.  The  last  census,  that  of  1890,  embraced  all  religious  bodies 
among  its  greatly  extended  inquiries,  ;.nd  we  have,  therefore,  for  the  first 
time,  complete  returns  for  all  forms  of  religion  represented  in  the  United 
States. 

These  returns  show  how  many  ministers,  organizations  or  congrega¬ 
tions,  church  edifices,  and  communicants  each  denomination  has,  together 
with  the  seating  capacity  of  its  edifices  and  their  value.  Also  how  they 
are  distributed  among  the  counties.  States,  and  Territories.  The  Roman 
Catholic  is  now  the  largest  of  the  churches  in  number  of  communicants, 
having  in  round  numbers  6,231,000.  A  hundred  years  ago  it  had  only 
about  25,000,  and  fifty  years  ago  it  had  about  1,200,000.  According  to  this 
it  has  increased  in  the  last  century  five-fold.  This  enormous  growth  is 
due  chiefly  to  immigration,  and  does  not  mean  that  Catholicism  is  con¬ 
verting  our  Protestant  population  to  its  faith. 

Thousands  of  Catholics  become  Protestants  where  hundreds  of  Prot¬ 
estants  become  Catholics.  Canada,  Ireland,  Germany,  Poland,  and  Italy 
have  been  pouring  streams  of  Catholic  immigrants  into  the  United  States. 
This  is  why  the  Catholic  Church  has  more  communicants  than  any  others. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  comes  second,  with  more  than  2,240,- 
000;  the  regular  Baptists  (colored)  third,  with  1,362,000;  the  regular  Bap¬ 
tists  (South)  fourth,  with  1,308,000,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  South 
fifth,  with  1,210,000. 

Taking  the  value  of  church  property  as  our  next  item — that  is,  the  value 
of  houses  of  worship,  their  furnishings,  and  the  lots  on  which  they  stand — 
we  find  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  first  again,  its  property  being  valued 
at  $118,000,000.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  second,  reporting 
$97,000,000:  the  Protestant  Episcopal  third,  .1181,000,000;  the  Northern  Pres¬ 
byterian  fourth,  $74,000,000,  and  the  Southern  Baptists  fifth,  $49,000,000. 
Two  of  these  denominations,  the  Episcopal  and  the  Presbyterian,  are  not 
among  the  five  I  have  just  mentioned  as  having  the  largest  number  of  com¬ 
municants.  They  stand  third  and  fourth  respectively  in  the  table  of 
church  property,  showing  that  they  are  much  more  wealthy  in  proportion 
to  communicants  than  the  other  denominations. 

In  number  of  organizations,  or  congregations,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  comes  first  with  25,861,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  last  with  10,231. 
The  Southern  Baptists  are  second  with  16,450,  the  Southern  Methodists 


696 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


third  with  15,000,  and  the  colored  Baptists  fourth  with  12,650.  The  reason 
the  Catholic  congregations  only  number  two-fifths  as  many  as  the  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  is  because  their  parishes  are  so  much  larger  and  more  popu¬ 
lous.  In  some  cases  a  Catholic  parish  embraces  from  12,000  to  16,000  com¬ 
municants,  all  using  the  same  edifice.  It  is  a  common  thing  in  the  cities 
for  Catholic  churches  to  have  five  and  six  different  congregations  every 
Sunday. 

To  recapitulate:  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  first  in  the  number  of 
communicants,  and  first  in  the  value  of  house  property,  and  fifth  in  num¬ 
ber  of  organizations  and  houses  of  worship,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  is  first  in  the  number  of  organizations  and  houses  of  worship,  and 
second  in  the  number  of  communicants  and  value  of  church  property. 

Let  us  now  see  how  the  five  leading  denominational  families  or  groups 
stand.  The  Catholics,  embracing  seven  branches,  come  first  as  to  commu¬ 
nicants  with  6,258,000;  the  Methodists,  embracing  seventeen  branches, 
come  second  with  4,598,000;  the  Baptists,  thirteen  branches,  are  third  with 
3,743,000;  the  Presbyterians,  twelve  branches,  are  fourth  with  1,278,000,  and 
the  Lutherans,  sixteen  branches,  are  fifth  with  1,231,000.  It  will  be 
observed  that  the  combined  Methodist  branches  have  about  1,600,000  fewer 
communicants  than  the  combined  Catholic  branches. 

As  to  the  value  of  .church  property,  the  Methodist  family  is  first,  the  fig¬ 
ures  being  $132,000,000.  The  Catholic  family  is  second,  $118,000,000;  the 
Presbyterian  third,  $95,000,000;  the  Episcopalians  fourth,  $82,835,000;  the 
Baptists  fifth,  $82,680,000. 

Thus,  among  denominational  families,  the  Catholics  are  first  in  the  num¬ 
ber  of  communicants,  second  in  value  of  church  property,  and  fourth  in  the 
number  of  organizations  and  houses  of  worship  and  value  of  church  prop¬ 
erty.  These  figures  are  for  the  five  leading  denominations,  and  the  five 
leading  denominational  families.  The  grand  total  for  all  denominations, 
Christian  and  non- Christian,  is  as  follows: 


Ministers . 

Or^janizations . 

Houses  of  worship . 

Value  of  church  property 
Communicants . . 


. 111,000 

. 165,250 

. 142,600 

$680,009,000 

...20,643,000 


According  to  these  figures  nearly  one  person  in  three  of  our  center  pop¬ 
ulation  is  a  member  or  communicant  of  one  or  another  of  143  denomina¬ 
tions,  This  can  not  be  regarded  as  an  unfavorable  showing  for  the 
churches.  It  indicates  a  religious  population  of  57,720,000.  That  is,  the 
communicants,  with  all  adherents  added,  constitute  57,720,0110,  leaving 
about  5,000,000  to  compose  the  non-religious  and  anti-religious  classes, 
including  free-thinkers  and  infidels. 

We  have  no  warrant  for  believing  that  the  majority  of  these  5,000,000 
who  are  outside  the  religious  population  are  atheists  or  disciples  of  Inger- 
soll.  There  are  but  few  real  atheists;  few  who  do  not  have  some  belief 
concerning  a  Supreme  Being  and  a  future.  But  most  of  the  5,000,000  are 
probably  opposed  to  the  churches  for  various  reasons.  And  we  must  not 
forget  that  in  the  millions  counted  as  the  religious  population  are  many 
who  are  indifferent  to  the  claims  of  religion  and  scarcely  or  never  go  into 
a  house  of  worship.  Adding  these  and  the  large  number  of  members  on 
whose  lives  religion  exercises  practically  no  power  to  the  5,000,000,  we  have 
a  problem  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  engage  the  mind,  heart,  and  hand  of 
the  church  for  a  generation.  One  out  of  twelve  persons  is  either  an  active 
or  passive  opponent  of  religion;  two  out  of  every  three  are  not  communi¬ 
cants  of  any  church. 

Of  the  165,250  organizations,  all  are  Christian  but  1,855,  or  a  little  more 
than  1  per  cent,  and  all  are  Protestant  except  12,131,  or  a  little  over  7 
per  cent.  That  is,  Christian  organizations  form  nearly  99  per  cent  of 
the  total,  and  Protestant  organizations  about  93  per  cent.  Of  the  20,643,000 


GOVERNMENT  CENSUS  OF  CHURCHES. 


697 


members,  all  are  Christians  except  347,623,  and  all  are  Protestant  except 
6,605,494.  That  is,  Christian  members  form  9734  the  total,  and 

Protestant  members  68  per  cent.  The  Catholic  percentage  is  about  3034? 
and  the  Jewish  and  miscellaneous  only  134- 

To  hasten  through  this  wilderness  of  figures.  I  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  of  the  153,122  Protestant  organizations  all  but  747  are  evan¬ 
gelical,  and  of  the  14,037,417  Protestant  members,  all  but  1,568  are  evangel¬ 
ical.  That  is,  counting  the  Universaiists  of  the  evangelical  class,  where  I 
really  think  they  belong,  98  per  cent  of  Protestant  organizations  are  evangel¬ 
ical,  and  over  99  per  cent  of  Protestant  communicants  belong  to  evangelical 
denominations.  Of  course,  not  all  members  of  evangelical  denominations 
are  evangelical;  nor  all  members  of  non-evangelical  denominations  non- 
evangelical.  There  is  a  great  freedom  of  belief  in  these  days. 

You  will  want  to  know  how  the  churches  are  growing  in  comparison 
with  the  population,  and  what  churches  grow  fastest.  There  are  some  who 
like  to  make  it  appear  that  Christianity  is  not  growing  at  all;  that  it  is 
declining.  The  facts  do  not  support  them.  In  the  last  ten  years,  the  net 
increase  in  our  population  was  a  little  less  than  25  per  cent.  A  comparison 
of  the  returns  of  churches,  representing  16,500,000  members,  shows  that  in 
the  same  period  their  net  increase  was  about  35  per  cent,  or  10  per  cent 
greater  than  the  increase  of  the  population.  The  largest  percentage  of 
gain  was  68,  which  belongs  to  the  Lutheran  family;  the  next  was  57,  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South;  the  third,  48  per  cent,  by  the  Protest¬ 
ant  Episcopal  Church;  the  fourth,  39  per  cent,  by  the  Presbyterian  fam¬ 
ily;  the  fifth,  37  per  cent,  by  the  regular  Baptists,  North,  South,  and 
colored;  the  sixth,  33  per  cent,  by  the  Congregationalists,  and  the  seventh, 
30  per  cent,  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

We  must,  of  course,  remember  that  all  the  houses  of  worship  have  been 
built  by  voluntary  contributions.  They  are  valued  at  $630,000,000  and 
furnish  sitting  accommodation  for  43,500,000.  They  have  been  provided 
by  private  gifts,  but  are  offered  to  the  public  for  free  use.  The  government 
has  not  given  a  dollar  to  provide  them,  nor  does  it  appropriate  a  dollar  for 
their  support.  And  yet  the  church  is  the  mightiest,  most  pervasive,  most 
persistent,  and  most  beneficent  force  incur  civilization.  The  church  affects, 
directly  or  indirectly,  all  human  activities  and  interests.  It  is  a  large  prop¬ 
erty  holder,  and  influences  the  market  for  real  estate. 

It  is  a  corporation  and  administers  large  trusts. 

It  is  a  public  institution  and  requires  protective  legislation. 

It  is  a  capitalist,  and  gathers  and  distributes  large  wealth. 

It  is  an  employer,  and  furnishes  means  of  support  to  ministers,  organists, 
singers,  janitors,  and  others. 

It  is  a  relief  organization,  feeding  the  hungry,  clothing  the  naked,  and 
assisting  the  destitute. 

It  is  a  university,  training  children  and  instructing  old  and  young  by 
public  lectures  on  religion,  morals,  industry,  thrift,  and  the  duties  of  citizen¬ 
ship. 

It  is  a  reformatory  influence,  recovering  the  vicious,  the  immoral,  and 
dangerous  elements  of  society,  and  making  them  exemplary  citizens. 

It  is  a  philanthropic  association,  sending  missionaries  to  the  remotest 
countries  to  Christianize  (which  is  another  word  for  civilize)  savage  and 
degraded  races. 

It  is  organized  beneficence,  founding  hospitals  for  the  sick,  asylums 
for  orphans,  refuges  for  the  homeless,  and  schools,  colleges,  and  universities 
for  the  ignorant. 

It  prepares  the  way  for  commerce,  deepens  and  widens  the  channels  of 
trade,  and  creates  and  stimulates  industry. 

Architects,  mason’s  carpenters,  painters,  and  other  artisans,  are  called  to 
its  service-to  build  its  houses  of  worship.  Mines,  quarries,  and  forests  are 


698 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


worked  to  provide  the  materials,  and  railroads  and  ships  are  employed  in 
transporting  them.  It  requires  furnishings,  and  the  looms  that  weave  them 
are  busy  day  and  night.  It  buys  millions  of  Bibles,  prayer-books,  hymn- 
books,  and  papers,  and  the  presses  which  supply  them  never  stop. 

Who  that  considers  these  moral  and  material  aspects  of  the  church  can 
possibly  think  meanly  of  it?  It  is  so  beneficent  in  its  aims,  so  unselfish  in 
its  plans,  and  so  impartial  in  its  distributions  of  its  blessings.  It  is  devoted 
to  the  temporal  and  eternal  interests  of  mankind.  Every  corner-stone  it 
lays,  it  lays  for  humanity.  Every  temple  it  opens,  it  opens  to  the  world; 
every  altar  it  establishes,  it  establishes  for  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  Its 
spires  are  fingers  pointing  heavenward;  its  ministers  are  messengers  of 
good  tidings,  embassadors  of  hope  and  angels  of  mercy. 

What  is  there  among  men  to  compare  with  the  church  in  its  power  to 
educate,  elevate,  and  civilize  mankind? 


CHAPTER  XV. 


FIFTEENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  25th. 

There  was  no  lack  in  attendance  or  interest  on  this  day. 
Christophore  Jibara,  Archimandrite  of  the  Apostolic  and  Patri¬ 
archal  Throne  of  the  Orthodox  Church  in  Syria  and  the 
whole  East,  was  the  prominent  figure  in  the  morning  session. 
He  stood  by  the  side  of  Prince  Wolkonsky  of  Russia,  who 
read  his  paper  as  follows: 


A  VOICE  FROM  SYRIA. 

CHRISTOPHORE  JIBARA,  ARCHIMANDRITE. 

My  Brothers  and  Sisters  in  the  Worship  of  God:  All  the  religions 
now  in  this  general  and  religious  congress  are  parallel  to  each  other  in 
the  sight  of  the  whole  world.  Every  one  of  these  religions  has  supporters 
who  realize  and  prefer  their  own  to  other  religions,  and  they  might  bring 
some  arguments  or  reasons  to  convince  others  of  the  value  and  truth  of 
their  own  form  of  religion.  From  such  discussions  a  change  may  come, 
perhaps  even  doubts  about  all  religions,  or  that  all  of  them  are  identical 
faiths  may  be  produced.  And,  therefore,  the  esteem  of  every  religion  may 
fall  or  decrease;  doubt  may  be  produced  against  all  the  inspired  books,  or  a 
general  neglect  may  happen,  and  jqo  one  will  remain  to  hold  a  certain 
religion,  and  many  may  entirely  neglect  the  duties  of  religion  for  the  reason 
of  restlessness  in  their  hearts,  and  the  opinion  which  prevails  in  one  form 
of  religion,  just  as  is  going  on  among  many  millions  in  Europe  and  America. 
Therefore,  I  think  that  a  conjmittee  should  be  selected  from  the  great 
religions  to  investigate  the  dogmas,  and  to  make  a  full  and  perfect  compari¬ 
son,  and  approving  the  true  one  and  announcing  it  to  the  people. 

This  is  easy  to  do  in  America,  and  especially  in  Chicago,  as  here  the 
means  for  realization  may  be  found.  First,  there  is  full  religious  liberty; 
second,  there  is  great  progress  in  all  branches  of  science;  third,  there  is 
presence  of  great  learning;  fourth,  wealth  and  benevolence;  fifth,  the  piety 
of  the  American  people  in  general,  and  their  energy  in  so  many  things, 
useful  to  all  humanity,  making  America  a  refuge  to  all  nations. 

Columbus  found  America  for  the  Old  World,  and  discovered  a  home  for 
the  oppressed  of  all  nations.  As  Columbus  discovered  America,  so  must 
the  Americans  find  the  true  religion  for  the  whole  world,  and  show  the 
people  of  all  nations  a  new  religion,  in  which  all  hearts  may  find  rest. 

I  think  and  believe  that  when  the  gospels  and  the  Koran,  which  are 
really  one,  are  reconciled,  and  the  two  great  peoples,  Christians  and 
Mohammedans,  are  also  reconciled,  the  whole  world  will  come  into  unity 

699 


700 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


and  all  differences  fade  away.  All  the  human  kind  will  become  brethren 
in  worshiping  the  true  God  and  following  Christ,  the  Savior  of  the  world; 
and  I,  as  a  servant  of  religion  during  all  my  life,  have  come  from  far-away 
Damascus  on  my  own  account  and  in  my  poverty,  in  the  midst  of  apprehen¬ 
sion  of  the  enmity  of  ministers  who  may  make  me  a  target  for  their 
reproach. 

I  came  here  also  to  express  my  ideas  before  this  great  congress,  which 
are  written  in  a  treatise  called  “  Unity  of  Faith  and  Harmony  of  Relig¬ 
ions.”  I,  in  the  name  of  God  the  Omnipresent,  pray  that  the  people  may 
consider  my  ideas  on  the  unity  of  religion,  especially  between  the  sacred 
books  which  we  have  mentioned  and  the  nations  by  which  they  are  revered. 
Reconciliation  between  individuals  is  a  virtue.  How  much  greater  will  it 
be  between  600,000,000,  and  by  this  the  reconciliation  of  the  whole  human 
kind  will  be  obtained. 

Asking  the  members  of  the  parliament,  in  the  name  of  God,  to  study 
with  reverence  this  vital  question  on  the  harmony  of  religions,  I  hope  the 
time  will  come  when  these  two  great  peoples,  Christian  and  Mohammedan, 
the  greatest,  the  strongest,  the  brightest,  and  the  richest  among  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  may  unite  in  one  faith,  serving  one  God. 

I  beg  all  the  members  of  the  parliament  to  examine  these  thoughts  and 
notice  the  little  book  which  I  have  prepared,  and  unite  in  the  great  cause 
of  reconciling  man  to  man  and  man  to  God. 

When  the  prince  had  finished,  the  archimandrite  supple¬ 
mented  his  written  address  with  a  brief  speech,  which  he 
delivered  in  the  French  tongue,  and  which  was  translated  into 
English  for  the  audience  by  Herant  M.  Kiretchjian  of  Con¬ 
stantinople.  This  is  what  he  said: 

Unfortunately,  from  the  third  century  to  this  day,  Christianity  has  not 
comprehended  the  dogmas  of  the  gospel  properly.  Only  in  the  first  cen¬ 
turies  were  the  gospels  properly  comprehended,  then  came  a  large  number 
of  heresies.  There  are  men  of  honesty,  of  good  purpose  and  good  inten¬ 
tions  in  all  the  churches,  and  yet  their  combined  efforts  do  not  produce 
union,  because  their  understanding  of  the  tendencies  and  the  meaning  of 
the  words  of  the  gospel  are  not  correct.  I  have  been  a  Christian  since  my 
infancy,  and  in  the  churches  of  my  country  I  have  been  a  preach&r  for  thirty- 
eight  years.  I  have  translated  many  theological  books,  and.  recently  I  have 
translated  the  New  Testament  into  the  Arabic  language.  '  I  have  always 
been  a  student  in  my  own  church,  and  I  have  loved  it  with  my  whole  heart. 
My  professor,  who  was  a  most  saintly  man,  was  killed  by  Mohammedans; 
my  brother  was  killed  by  Mohammedans,  apd  still  I  stand  here  and  tell 
you  that  the  Koran  is  an  inspired  book. 

I  assure  you  also  that  by  the  Koran  we  can  understand  the  gospel 
better,  and  without  the  Koran  it  is  impossible  to  understand  it  correctly. 
It  is  for  that  I  believe  that  God  has  preserved  the  Koran  and  also  pre¬ 
served  Islam,  because  it  has  come  to  correct  the  doctrines  and  dogmas  of 
the  Christians.  There  is  no  difference  in  the  books  themselves — the  gospel 
and  the  Koran.  It  is  only  in  the  understanding  of  people  in  their  reading 
of  the  Bible  and  the  gospels  and  the  Koran. 

For  seventeen  years  I  have  reflected  upon  this,  and  it  is  thus  that  I 
venture  to  give  this  opinion.  What  I  have  printed  in  my  books  is  only 
about  the  twentieth  part  of  what  I  should  say  on  it.  I  have  gathered 
together  from  the  gospels  passages  that  were  difficult  to  understand,  and  I 
have  explained  them  by  the  Koran  perfectly.  I  have  also  taken  all  the 
difficult  passes  of  the  Koran  and  explained  them  with  the  gospels,  and  now 
I  find  a  perfect  account  in  the  three  books,  the  Old  Testament,  the  gospels, 
and  the  Koran. 


A  VOICE  FEOM  SYRIA. 


701 


In  Sunday  night’s  session  Rev.  George  Fi  Pentecost  of  Lon¬ 
don,  speaking  on  “  The  Present  Outlook  of  Religions,”  cast 
reflections  upon  the  chastity  of  the  women  who  servo  in  the 
temples  of  India.  It  is  said  that  if  he  had  followed  his  manu¬ 
script  he  would  not  have  made  the  most  pointed  of  these  state¬ 
ments,  but  he  digressed  somewhat  from  what  he  had  written. 
As  a  result,  Mr.  Gandhi  considered  it  necessary  to  reply  to  this 
attack,  as  follows: 

Before  proceeding  with  my  address,  I  wish  to  make  a  few  observations. 
This  platform  is  not  a  place  for  mutual  recrimination,  and  I  am  heartily 
sorry  that  from  time  to  time  a  most  un-Christian  spirit  is  allowed  free 
scope  here,  but  I  know  how  to  take  these  recriminations  at  their  proper 
value.  I  am  glad  that  no  one  has  dared  to  attack  the  religion  I  represent. 
It  is  well  they  should  not.  But  every  attack  has  been  directed  to  the 
abuses  existing  in  our  society.  And  I  repeat  now  what  I  repeat  every  day, 
that  these  abuses  are  not  from  religion,  but  in  spite  of  religion,  as  in  every 
other  country. 

Some  men  in  their  ambition  think  that  they  are  Pauls,  and  what  they 
think  they  believe.  These  new  Pauls  go  to  vent  their  platitudes  upon 
India.  They  go  to  India  to  convert  the  heathens  in  a  mass,  but  when  they 
find  their  dreams  melting  away,  as  dreams  always  do,  they  return  to  pass  a 
whole  life  in  abusing  the  Hindu.  Abuses  are  not  arguments  against  any 
religion,  nor  self-adulation  the  proof  of  the  truth  of  one’s  own.  For  such 
I  have  the  greatest  pity.  There  are  a  few  Hindu  temples  in  Southern  India 
where  women  singers  are  employed  to  sing  on  certain  occasions.  Some  of 
them  are  of  dubious  character,  and  the  Hindu  society  feels  it  and  is  trying 
its  best  to  remove  the  evil,  but  to  call  these  “  priestesses  because  they  are 
prostitutes”  and  “prostitutes  because  they  are  priestesses”  is  a  statement 
which  differs  as  much  from  truth  as  darkness  from  light.  These  women 
are  never  allowed  to  enter  the  main  body  of  the  temple,  and,  as  for  their 
being  priestesses,  there  is  not  one  woman  priestess  from  the  Himalayas  to 
Comorin.  ^ 

If  the  present  abuses  in  India  have  been  produced  by  the  Hindu  relig¬ 
ion,  the  same  religion  had  the  strength  of  producing  a  society  which 
made  the  Greek  historian  say:  “No  Hindu  was  ever  known  to  tell  an 
untruth,  no  Hindu  woman  ever  known  to  be  unchaste.”  And  even  in  the 
present  day  where  is  there  more  chaste  woman  or  milder  man  than  in  India? 
“  The  Oriental  bubbles  may  need  be  pricked,”  but  the  very  hysterical 
shrieks  sent  forth  from  this  platform  from  time  to  time  show  to  the  world 
that  sometimes  bubbles  may  be  heavier  than  the  bloated  balloons  of  vanity 
and  self-conceit. 

I  am  very,  very  sorry  for  those  who  criticise  the  great  ones  of  India,  and 
my  only  consolation  is  that  all  their  information  about  them  has  come  from 
third-hand,  fourth-hand  sources,  percolating  through  layers  of  superstition 
and. bigotry.  Those  who  think,  in  the  refusal  of  the  Hindu  to  criticise  the 
character  of  Jesus,  a  tacit  acceptation  of  the  superiority  of  the  fanatical 
ni-l-admirari  cult  they  represent,  I  am  tempted  to  quote  the  old  fable  of 
iHsop,  and  tell  them:  “  Not  to  you  I  bend  the  knee,  but  to  the  image  you  are 
carrying  on  your  back,”  and  point  out  to  them  one  page  from  the  life  of  the 
great  Emperor  Akbar. 

A  certain  ship  full  of  Mohammedan  pilgrims  was  going  to  Mecca.  On 
its  way  a  Portuguese  vessel  captured  it.  Amongst  the  booty  were  some 
coqies  of  the  Koran.  The  Portuguese  hanged  these  copies  of  the  Koran 


702 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


around  the  necks  of  dogs,  and  paraded  these  dogs  iihroiigh  the  streets  of 
Ormuz.  It  happened  that  this  very  Portuguese  ship  w^as  captured  by  the 
emperor’s  men,  and  in  it  were  found  copies  of  the  Bible.  The  love  of  Akbar 
for  his  mother  is  well  known — and  his  mother  was  a  zealous  Mohammedan, 
and  it  pained  her  very  much  to  hear  the  treatment  of  the  sacred  book  of 
the  Mohammedans  in  the  hands  of  the  Christians,  and  she  wanted  Akbar 
to  do  the  same  with  the  Bible.  But  this  great  man  replied:  “Mother,  these 
ignorant  men  do  not  know  the  value  of  the  Koran,  and  they  treated  it  in  a 
manner  which  is  the  outcome  of  ignorance.  But  I  know  the  glory  of  the 
Koran  and  the  Bible  both,  and  I  can  not  degenerate  myself  in  the  way  they 
did.” 

At  the  opening  of  the  afternoon  session  Frederick  Douglass 

was  called  on  for  a  speech,  and,  in  responding,  said: 

I  can  not  but  feel  gratified  by  the  expression  of  a  wish  on  the  part  of 
this  great  audience  to  hear  a  word  from  me.  I  did  not  come  here  to  speak, 
however.  I  am  somewhat  in  the  condition  of  a  man  who  attended  a  mis¬ 
sionary  meeting  in  London.  “  Give  me  a  subject,”  he  said,  when  called 
upon  for  a  speech,  “  and  I  will  address  you.”  Said  his  friends,  sitting 
behind  him:  “Pitch  into  the  Roman  Catholics.” 

I  take  it  that  it  would  be  very  dangerous  in  this  meeting  to  pitch  into 
the  Roman  Catholics,  for  we  are  all  Catholics,  ready  to  strike  hands  with 
all  manner  of  men,  from  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  not  disposed  to  draw  the 
line  anywhere  absolutely.  And  it  is  one  of  the  glories  of  this  great  con¬ 
gress  that  it  brings  together  men  of  all  varieties  of  opinion,  as  well  as  all 
complexion.  I  have  only  to  say  to  all  those  who  have  the  spirit  of  liberty 
within  them  that  I  hold  them  as  countrymen,  clansmen,  kinsmen,  and 
brothers  beloved. 

I  even  like  the  negro  with  all  his  faults,  and  I  can  bear  with  my  white 
brethren. 

But  it  is  a  hard  thing  in  this  world  to  get  justice  and  fairness  for  these 
people  after  all.  It  is  hard  for  an  Englishman,  for  instance,  to  do  justice 
to  an  Irishman.  It  is  hard,  perhaps,  for  an  Irishman  to  do  justice  to  an 
Englishman.  It  is  very  hard  for  a  Christian  to  do  justice  to  a  Jew,  and  it 
is  hard  for  a  Jew  to  do  justice  to  a  Christian.  But  we  are  reconciling  them 
all  to-day.  We  are  bringing  them  all  into  unity,  and  it  is  a  delightful  thing 
to  see  brethren  dwelling  together  in  unity.  If  I  had  not  been  studying  man 
•  all  my  life  rather  than  theology,  I  should  be  able  to  make  a  speech  to  you 
to-day,  but  I  have  been  studying  the  great  question  of  human  rights 
instead  of  human  religions. 

People  are  asking  me  about  the  race  problem  —  the  negro  problem.  I 
know  of  no  race  problem.  The  great  problem  that  confronts  the  Ameri¬ 
can  people  to-day  is  a  national  problem  —  whether  this  great  nation  of  ours 
is  great  enough  to  live  up  to  its  own  convi«tions,  carry  out  its  own  declara¬ 
tion  of  independence,  and  execute  the  provisions  of  its  own  constitution. 
That  is  the  only  problem,  and  I  believe  that  you  are  the  people  that  will 
solve  it. 

“  That  word  justice,”  said  Dr.  Noble,  when  Mr.  Douglass 
had  finished,  “is  the  word  that  this  nation  and  all  other 
nations  must  utter  until  all  men  everywhere,  whatever  their 
race,  shall  know  that  their  rights  are  recognized  ” 


ANGLICAN  CHURCH  AND  CHURCH  OF  FIR^T  AGES  703 


RELATIONS  BETWEEN  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH 
AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  FIRST  AGES. 

REV.  THOMAS  RICHEY  OF  NEW  YORK. 

When  the  Italian  monk  and  missionary,  Augustine,  with  thirty  com¬ 
panions,  was  sent  forth  by  Gregory  the  Great  to  convert  to  the  faith  the 
Angles  of  the  Deira  he  found,  on  reaching  the  shores  of  Britain  in  hiding, 
owing  to  the  violence  of  its  enemies,  a  regularly  organized  Christian 
church,  with  its  own  distinctive  characteristics  and  its  own  peculiar  rites 
and  ceremonies.  In  the  year  1215  the  clergy,  the  people,  and  the  barons  of 
England,  constituting  the  three  great  estates  of  the  realm,  met  together  at 
Runnymede,  and  there  they  passed  the  great  act  of  Chartar,  which 
remains  unto  this  day  the  bulwark  of  constitutional  liberty  in  England, 
the  Magna  Charta,  the  first  article  of  which  reads:  “The  Church  of 
England  shall  be  free,  and  its  rights  and  its  privileges  shall  be  respected.*' 

Three  hundred  years  after,  in  the  year  1532,  the  convocation  of  the 
Church  of  England  passed  a  resolution  asking  the  King  that  the  relation 
which  hitherto  had  made  the  claims  of  a  foreign  potentate  to  prevail  should 
no  longer  be  acknowledged;  and  the  year  after,  in  1533,  the  Parliament  of 
England  declared  that  the  crown  of  England  is  imperial,  and  that  England  is 
constituted  a  nation  in  itself  to  settle  all  questions,  both  temporal  and 
spiritual,  and  that  it  belongs  to  the  spirituality,  commonly  called  the 
Church  of  England,  to  declare  and  determine  all  questions,  without  appeal¬ 
ing  to  any  foreign  potentate,  whatsoever  may  come  before  them. 

The  Church  of  England  first  of  all  claims  to  be  a  witness,  the  ages  all 
along,  to  that  faith  which  the  apostles  left  upon  the  earth,  unto  the  tradi¬ 
tion  and  the  teachings  of  the  early  apostolic  church.  The  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land  claims,  in  the  second  place,  that  she  is,  as  a  national  church,  and  ever 
has  been,  the  defender  of  the  great  principle  of  civil  and  religious  liberty. 
The  Church  of  England  claims,  in  the  third  place,  that  she  is  called,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  to  be  the  healer  of  the  breach  in  the  divisions  of  a 
divided  Christendom. 

We  find  at  the  Council  of  Arles,  in  the  year  314,  five  British  ecclesiastics 
present — the  Bishop  of  Carleon,  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  the  Bishop  of 
York,  with  an  attendant  priest  and  deacon.  We  find  also  that  the  emperor, 
when  he  caked  the  council  of  Arininum,  thirty  years  afterward,  provided 
for  the  British  bishops  to  be  present,  when,  through  their  own  poverty,  they 
were  not  able  to  meet  the  obligation.  The  claim  of  the  Church  of  England 
is  that,  as  she  was  thus  represented  in  the  councils  of  the  church,  as  she 
took  part  by  the  authority  of  the  empire  itself  in  the  determining  of  the 
questions  which  belonged  to  the  settlement  of  the  faith,  she  from  that 
day  until  now  has  been  the  representative  of  the  apostolic  faith,  of  the 
apostolic  traditions,  and  of  the  apostolic  customs. 

When,  in  the  year  603,  Augustine  first  came  into  personal  contact  with 
the  British  church,  he  found  that  there  were  points  of  difference  between 
the  church  which  he  represented  and  the  church  as  he  found  it  in  Britain, 
in  Ireland  (then  called  Scotland),  and  in  the  Church  of  Columbanus,  which 
afterward  accomplished  the  great  work  of  the  conversion  of  the  Piets  and 
Scots.  First  of  all  the  British  church,  with  the  Scoto-Celtic  church,  kept 
Easter  at  a  different  time  from  the  church  of  the  West.  There  was  found 
to  be  again  a  difference  in  the  mode  of  administering  the  rite  of  baptism, 
the  British  church  administering  the  rite  in  one  immersion,  whereas,  it 
was  the  custom  of  the  Roman  Church  to  use  three  immersions.  The  British 
church  adopted  one  method  of  tonsure,  and  the  Roman  church  adopted 
another.  Lastly  there  was  found  to  be  a  difference  in  the  method  of  con¬ 
secration,  the  practice  of  the  British  church  being,  from  the  beginning,  to 
consecrate  by  means  of  one  bishop,  whereas,  the  Roman  church,  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  Nicene  canon,  required  three. 


704 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


When  these  points  of  difference  came  up  before  the  Council  of  Whitby 
the  discussion  became  one  that  afterward  ended  in  the  division  of  the  two 
churches.  The  British  church  claimed  its  right  according  to  its  own  mode 
of  intercalation,  which  it  had  practised  for  250  years,  to  celebrate  Easter  at 
its  own  time,  and  refuse  the  claim  of  another  communion  to  impose  upon 
it  a  different  obligation.  The  Scoto-Celtic  church  in  Ireland,  when  the 
question  was  presented  before  it,  had  set  aside  the  demand  made  by  a 
foreign  potentate  and  foreign  church  to  dictate  a  difference  of  time  in  the 
celebration  of  Easter  offices,  but  still  more,  when  the  question  took  a  wide 
range,  and  Columbanus  in  the  year  519  went  out  to  Gaul,  we  find  that  it 
came  into  contact  with  the  church  in  Gaul,  and  that  the  differences  in  the 
mode  of  celebrating  the  Easter  office  was  made  a  ground  of  rejection  of 
the  foreign  missionary — ^that  Columbanus  called  before  the  council  and  also 
before  Boniface  IV.,  the  reigning  Pope  of  the  time,  defended  the  tradi¬ 
tions  of  his  fathers  and  refused  to  surrender  his  Christian  liberty.  When 
asked  who  those  persons  were  that  had  intruded  themselves  into  the  church 
in  Gaul,  the  answer  was:  “We  are  Irish  from  the  ends  of  the  earth;  our 
doctrine  is  that  of  the  apostles  and  of  the  evangelists.  The  Catholic  faith 
we  maintain  as  it  has  been  perpetuated  to  us  through  the  succession  of  the 
apostles,  and  we  know  none  other.”  When  the  council  in  Gaul  would  not 
receive  the  explanation  given  by  Columbanus,  he  was  compelled  to  appeal 
to  Boniface  IV.  When  he  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  claimed  to  be 
allowed  to  do  his  work  in  his  own  way,  and  he  claimed  it  under  the  second 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  in  381,  which,  after  declaring  that 
no  one  bishop  shall  intrude  into  the  jurisdiction  of  another,  entered  a 
decree  that  when,  among  barbarians,  there  was  any  difference  connected 
with  the  administration  of  the  Christian  rites,  liberty  should  be  allowed 
and  their  claims  should  be  acknowledged. 

The  claim  which  Columbanus  made  before  Boniface  IV.  is  the  claim 
which  the  English  church  to-day  upholds  in  defense  of  its  own  Christian 
liberty.  It  needs  no  doctrine  but  that  which  it  has  received  from  the 
apostles  and  the  evangelists.  It  holds  the  Catholic  faith  as  it  has  been  per¬ 
petuated  by  succession  from  the  first  ages  until  now.  But  beyond  that,  in 
things  that  are  not  in  their  own  nature  indifferent,  it  will  submit  to  no  dic¬ 
tation,  and  it  will  resist  every  effort  to  destroy  the  rights  which  have  been 
given  it  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself.  When  He  called  His  apostles 
He  left  it  to  themselves,  under  the  guidance  and  dictation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  to  adopt  that  line  of  polity  they  should  find  to  be  most  necessary. 
He  prescribed  no  ritual,  but  He  left  it  free  to  the  men  whom  He  had 
chosen  to  adapt  themselves  to  different  times  and  different  circumstances, 
in  order  that  there  should  be  no  obligation  upon  the  council  regarding 
those  fundamental  things  which  are  necessary  to  man’s  salvation.  That 
principle  the  Church  of  England  has  maintained,  and  ever  shall  maintain, 
as  necessary  to  the  defense  of  Christian  liberty  in  things  which  are  belong¬ 
ing  to  obligations  upon  the  conscience. 

Mr.  Greene,  in  his  “  Making  of  England,”  has  observed  that  it  was  a 
happy  circumstance  that,  at  the  Council  of  Whitby,  in  664,  the  Church  of 
England  did  not  throw  in  its  light  with  the  Scoto-Celtic  Church  with  all 
its  ardent  devotion  and  all  its  missionary  enterprise,  but  made  the  choice, 
now  that  the  door  was  open,  to  ally  itself  with  the  outside  world,  and  above 
all  with  Rome,  as  the  great  fountain  of  ancient  civilization.  I  believe,  as 
Mr.  Greene  believes,  that  it  was  more  than  an  accident  which  led  Gregory 
the  Great,  a  man  whom  all  must  honor,  for  his  holiness  of  life  and  his 
Christian  and  missionary  devotion — it  was  more  than  an  accident  when  he 
saw  the  British  boys  in  Rome,  and  his  heart  was  touched  with  Christian 
sympathy,  that  those  fair  British  boys  were  sold  for  slaves  in  the  Roman 
market.  He  never  rested  until  he  sent  for  a  band  of  his  missionaries  to 
reclaim  the  Angles  of  the  Deira  and  bring  them  into  relations  to  the 
Christian  faith. 


ANGLICAN  CHURCH  AND  CHURCH  OF  FIRST  AGES.  705 


Theodore  the  Great,  trained  in  the  same  school  as  St.  Paul  at  Tarsus, 
prevailed  upon  the  British  Church,  the  Scoto-Celtic  Church  and  the  Church 
of  Rome,  represented  by  Augustine  and  his  followers,  to  cast  aside  their 
differences  and  to  coalesce  in  one  great  church.  It  was  his  work  which 
brought  about,  as  Mr.  Greene  says,  again  the  union  of  the  heptarchy  into 
one  kingdom  and  one  people.  It  was  the  English  Church  which  made  the 
English  nation;  it  was  not  the  English  nation  which  made  the  English 
Church.  It  was  in  England  as  it  was  before  under  Charlemagne,  as  before 
it  had  been  under  Constantine. 

Let  men  dream  as  they  will,  it  is  the  power  of  religion  that  is  the  only 
one  unifying  bond  that  can  ever  bind  together  the  sum  of  the  human  fam¬ 
ily.  People  can  talk  as  they  will  regarding  the  union  in  the  year  800,  upon 
Christmas  day,  between  Charlemagne,  as  representative  of  the  German 
empire,  and  the  See  of  Rome,  as  representative  of  spiritual  energy  and 
power  in  the  Western  World,  but  that  which  moved  Charlemagne  is  the 
same  thing  which  moved  Constantine,  or  led  to  the  enunciation  of  the  prin¬ 
ciple,  which  has  ever  been  maintained,  that  the  foundations  of  human 
society  do  not  rest  upon  the  church  only,  nor  upon  the  state  only,  but  they 
rest  upon  the  cliurch  and  the  state  allied  one  to  another,  bound  together  in 
mutual  sympathy  -tor  the  accomplishment  of  the  work  that  God  has  given 
them  to  do. 

But  having  given  the  kingdom  of  England  into  the  hands  of  a  foreign 
power — I  want  to  speak  with  all  respect  of  the  great  representative  of  that 
power  at  that  time;  there  never  was  a  nobler,  a  greater,  a  better  meaning 
man  than  Innocent  III.— but  Innocent  III.,  as  he  had  made  the  mistake 
of  sanctioning  the  invasion  of  the  Western  church  into  the  East,  and  the 
founding  of  the  feudal  kingdom  of  Constantinople,  so  Innocent  III.  also 
made  the  dreadful  mistake,  after  John  was  forced  to  sign,  of  anathematiz¬ 
ing  the  men  who  did  the  deed,  and  declaring  that  he  had  released  the  king 
from  the  bonds  of  the  oath  which  bound  him  to  the  obligation.  But,  while 
John  obeyed  the  mandate  of  the  Pope,  and  received  in  silence  the  suspen¬ 
sion  which  for  that  act  he  imposed  on  him,  still,  when  he  returned,  he  him¬ 
self  signed  with  his  own  hand  the  Magna  Charta,  and  from  that  day  to  this 
England  has  maintained  the  position  that  not  only  the  church  but  also  the 
nation  shall  be  free  from  the  sovereignty  of  any  foreign  power. 

I  think  this  Parliament  of  Religions  represents  one  great  principle, 
whatsoever  may  be  the  objections  to  it  upon  other  grounds.  It  is  the  prin¬ 
ciple,  which  has  been  enunciated  with  eloquence  and  power  here  before, 
that  religion  is  natural  to  man  as  man,  and  makes  the  human  race  one. 
We  Christian  men,  then,  can  have  no  hesitation  in  welcoming  here  any 
man  who  is  made  in  the  image  of  his  Maker,  and  has  the  thirst  that  relig¬ 
ion  gives  burning  in  his  heart.  It  is  not  for  Christianity  to  lay  again  the 
foundation  which  God  Himself  has  laid  in  the  hearts  of  man.  It  is  the 
work  of  Christianity,  claiming,  as  it  must  ever  claim  to  be,  the  absolute 
religion,  to  supplement,  to  restore,  to  correct  whatsoever  is  amiss  in  that 
first  gift  that  God  gave  to  man,  and  to  labor  to  bring  it  to  an  absolute 
perfection. 

We  have  amongst  us  at  this  Parliament  of  Religions  representatives  ot 
the  two  great  historic  religions  of  the  past.  It  is  our  pleasure  here  to 
acknowledge  that  it  is  to  the  Greek  Church  that  we  owe  the  formulating 
of  the  faith,  and  that  it  was  by  no  accident  that  the  Dix  ecumenical  coun¬ 
cils  should  be  co-terminus  with  the  Graeco-Roman  Empire  before  it  passed 
away  in  its  Byzantine  stage.  It  gives  me  also  pleasure  to  acknowledge  that 
to  the  Roman  Church  in  the  middle  age  Almighty  God  gave  the  teaching 
and  discipline  of  barbaric  nations  when  they  needed  a  hand  that  knew  how 
to  check  and  a  power  that  knew  how  to  bind.  When  Rome  fell  and  was 
trampled  under  the  feet  of  the  barbarian,  she  rose  to  life  again,  because 
Rome  will  be  eternal.  It  rose  to  life  again  in  the  holy  Roman  Empire,  as 


706 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


connected  with  the  German  Empire  and  German  civilization.  It  accom' 
plished  its  task  in  the  great  work  of  educating  the  barbarian,  making  him 
a  man.  But  in  the  present  time  it  is  not  to  the  Greek  in  the  past  or  to  the 
Greek  Church;  it  is  not  to  the  Roman,  nor  is  it  to  the  Italian  people,  that 
God  has  given  the  leadership  of  the  world  in  the  great  future;  it  is  to  the 
Germanic  races  and  to  the  Germanic  people,  who  brought  with  them,  when 
they  came,  three  great  principles  which  underlie  the  foundation  of  modern 
civilization,  as  contrasted  with  the  past,  the  sense  of  personal  liberty  and 
of  moral  obligation;  and  that  other  principle  which  is  not  less  dear,  rever¬ 
ence  for  woman,  and  that  v/hich  belongs  to  the  felicity  of  home;  and  what 
is  greater  still,  they  brought  with  them  that  principle  which  they  incorpo¬ 
rated  into  English  life  and  which  is  the  basis  of  our  American  li!e  now,  the 
principle  of  the  jury,  by  virtue  of  which  man  is  to  be  tried  by  his  fellows, 
and  the  principle  of  Parliamentary  representation,  by  virtue  of  which  you 
have  no  right  to  tax  a  man  without  his  own  consent.  Those  three  great 
principles  were  brought  by  the  Germans  when  they  came  into  the  Greek 
and  Roman  world. 

I  say  there  are  but  three  pillars  upon  which  rest  modern  civilization 
and  which  the  Church  of  England  is  pledged  to  preserve.  I  will  not 
except — if  you  will  pardon  me — for  one  moment  America.  There  is  no 
country  on  the  earth  where  man  is  as  free  to  day  as  he  is  in  England,  and 
where  his  private  rights  are  more  respected.  There  is  no  country  on  earth 
where  the  happiness  of  domestic  peace  rests  as  it  rests  upon  the  homes  of 
England.  And  it  is  the  glory  of  the  Christian  priesthood  there  that  they 
have  sanctified  the  home,  not  simply  as  prescribing  the  lesson  in  an  abstract 
way,  but  as  a  married  priesthood  they  exercise  an  influence  of  good  upon 
society  in  England,  which  no  priesthood  in  this  world  from  the  beginning 
has  ever  equaled  in  its  influence  and  its  power. 

America,  God  be  thanked,  speaks  the  English  language.  And  its  hope 
in  the  future  is  that  it  is  to  be  the  representative  of  the  great  Germanic 
people  to  whom  Almighty  God  has  given  the  conquest  of  the  future  world, 
and  the  religion  of  America,  I  trust,  shall  be  ever  true  to  the  principles 
which  I  have  enunciated  to-day.  It  is  the  apostolic  faith  with  apos¬ 
tolic  liberty  that  we  want  in  the  preaching  of  the  everlasting  gospel.  It 
is  that  freedom  which  secures  to  us  civil,  as  well  as  religious  liberty,  with¬ 
out  any  foreign  dictation,  or  the  interference  of  any  foreign  power. 

Above  all,  it  is  the  practical  Christian  religion  which  looks  upon  every 
man  as  a  responsible  moral  agent,  sees  in  the  family  the  germ  of  social  life, 
and  recognizes  in  the  church  and  in  the  state  the  two  great  powers  which 
must  sustain  the  fabric,  or  the  world  must  perish. 


RELIGIOUS  UNITY  AND  MISSIONS. 

REV.  GEORGE  T.  CANDLIN. 

Whoever  takes  a  comprehensive  survey  of  the  state  of  religious  thought 
and  sentiment  during  the  19th  century,  with  a  view  to  ascertain  their  pre¬ 
vailing  tendency,  can  not  fail  to  be  impressed  with  certain  portentous 
changes  which,  in  obedience  to  some  hidden  law,  are  taking  place.  So  far 
as  Protestant  communities  are  concerned,  at  least,  there  has  been  an 
enormous  increase  in  missionary  activity.  In  fact,  Protestant  missions  on 
any  scale  which,  even  in  outlook,  was  at  all  commensurate  with  the 
earth’s  area,  may  be  fairly  said  to  have  been  born  with  the  century.  The 
reformation  was  a  civil  war  within  the  Christian  church,  and,  as  in  political 
matters,  so  in  religion,  eternal  strife  withdrew  men’s  thoughts  and  energies 
from  “  foreign  affairs.”  It  stood  for  puriflcation  and  for  intensification,  not 


RELIGIOUS  UNITY  AND  MISSIONS. 


707 


for  expansion.  For  at  least  a  century  and  a  half  this  was  a  prime  charac¬ 
teristic  of  the  reformed  churches. 

But  with  the  dawn  of  the  century  now  nearing  its  close,  there  flamed 
forth,  as  from  an  inner  furnace  of  spiritual  fervor,  the  splendid  enthusiasm 
which  has  given  to  the  church  such  hero-names  as  Moffat,  Livingstone, 
Carey,  Martyn,  Bowen,  Gordon,  Morrison,  Burns,  and  Hannington.  The 
movement  has  lost  some  of  its  early  romance,  not  because  the  fire  of  its 
zeal  has  abated,  but  because  it  is  settling  down  to  steadfast  purpose  and 
practical,  wisely  calculated  aim.  It  has  yet  to  reach  its  culminating  point. 

The  Roman  Catholic  section  of  Christendom  presented  the  same  phe¬ 
nomena,  but  at  an  earlier  date.  The  Reformation,  which  kept  the  reformers 
busy  at  reconstruction,  made  the  ancient  church  missionary.  Perhaps  it 
would  hardly  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  magnificent  successes  of  the 
propaganda  during  the  16th  and  17th  centuries  did  much  to  save  the 
papacy  from  extinction.  Exploits  like  those  of  Xavier  and  Ricci  have  lent 
a  luster  to  Catholicism  brighter  and  more  lasting  than  all  the  august 
grandeur  of  the  popes  and  can  not  be  dimmed  by  comparison  with  Protest¬ 
ant  annals.  Nor  can  it  be  fairly  said,  though  Protestant  missions  have 
been  to  the  front,  that  during  the  present  century  there  has  been  any 
abatement  of  missionary  ardor  on  the  part  of  the  older  community. 

Side  by  side  with  this  movement  there  has  grown  up  a  strong  and  gen¬ 
eral  aspiration  for  religious  union.  So  far  it  can  hardly  be  described  as 
more  than  aspiration,  though  in  two  or  three  instances  it  has  reached,  and 
with  the  happiest  result,  the  point  of  organic  amalgamation.  But  the 
force  of  the  sentiment  may  be  partially  measured  by  the  fact  that  all  which 
has  been  accomplished,  either  in  the  fuller  toleration  and  more  friendly 
attitude  of  church  to  church  or  in  such  actual  union  as  has  been  already 
brought  about,  utterly  fails  to  supply  its  keen  demands.  It  is  a  growing 
hunger  of  man’s  spiritual  nature  which  will  never  rest,  but  will  become 
more  ravenous  until  it  is  fed. 

Historic  generalization  is  always  dangerous  and  often  unconvincing, 
because  it  can  always  be  confronted  with  the  adverse  facts,  the  value  of 
which  has  only  to  be  somewhat  magnified  to  show  the  conclusion  wrong. 
Still  one  may  venture  the  assertion  that  the  title  of  tendency  which  has 
been  flowing  since  the  Greek  and  Roman  communions  separated  from  each 
other’s  fellowship,  and  which  has  issued  in  the  myriad  divisions  of  Chris¬ 
tendom,  has  already  spent  its  strength;  that  the  set  of  the  current  is  now 
toward  union,  and  that  men  no  longer  care  to  separate  from  each  other’s 
communion  to  witness  to  some  parRcular  phase  of  truth,  but  are  at  least 
earnestly  longing  to  find  the  “  more  excellent  way”  which  reconciles  fellow¬ 
ship  of  spirit  to  liberty  of  thought.  This  is  not  a  down-grade  but  an  up¬ 
grade  movement. 

While  the  tendency  is  one  it  manifests  itself  in  various  ways.  Its  widest 
exhibition  is  in  the  almost  universal  admission  of  the  political  right  to  free¬ 
dom  of  conscience.  It  is  not  confined  to  Protestants,  for  though  Rome, 
boasting  of  her  unchangeableness,  maintains  in  theory  the  right  to  perse¬ 
cute,  and  Protestants,  for  purposes  of  argument,  affect  to  think  that  her 
will,  where  she  has  the  power,  is  as  good  as  ever,  there  is  no  real  ground  to 
doubt  that  the  public  sentiment  of  Romanists  themselves  would  be  out¬ 
raged  by  the  revival  of  such  horrors  as  those  of  St.  Bartholomew  or  the 
Inquisition.  In  the  various  denominations  of  Protestantism  men  are  already 
feeling  that  their  differences  are  rather  matters  to  be  apologized  for  than 
to  be  proud  of. 

There  is  a  growing  disposition  to  substitute  a  spiritual  test  for  the  intel¬ 
lectual  one — conversion  for  orthodoxy.  There  is  an  increasing  tendency  to 
recognize  the  commonwealth  of  Christian  life.  More  and  more  stress  is 
being  laid  upon  what  the  various  churches  have  in  common;  less  and  less 
emphasis  is  being  given  to  their  distinctive  differences.  Here  and  there 


708 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


one  marks  the  signs  of  a  capacity  to  learn  from  one  another.  There  is  a 
widespread  unity  of  sentiment,  and  of  spiritual  aim.  There  is  an  irrepress¬ 
ible  desire  for  organic  union. 

Without  the  ranks  of  professing  Christians  the  same  spirit  is  at  work, 
but  in  an  apparently  hostile  direction.  A  strong  sentiment  of  the  value  of 
those  spiritual  and  ethical  impulses  which  make  the  very  heart  and  life 
of  Christianity,  accompanies  a  peremptory  rejection  of  specific  theological 
doctrines.  An  undisguised  contempt  for  and  impatience  with  the  divis¬ 
ions  and  differences  of  Christians  is  coupled  with  a  wide  and  sympa¬ 
thetic  study  of  the  non-Christian  religions  of  the  world.  By  the  new 
pathway  of  comparative  religion,  men  are  finding  their  way  to  the  belief  in 
the  common  possession  of  a  spiritual  nature  on  the  part  of  all  the  members 
of  the  human  family. 

Not  less  notable  as  a  mark  of  change  is  the  growth  of  the  cosmopolitan 
and  humanitarian  spirit,  which  asserts  a  right  to  a  share  of  political 
power  on  the  part  of  the  humblest  member  of  the  state;  the  socialistic 
spirit,  which  is  fast  abolishing  the  merciless  distinctions  of  class  and  caste, 
and  claiming  for  all  a  place  in  society  and  a  share  of  the  necessaries  and 
reasonable  comforts  of  life. 

Can  we  trace  these  various  movements  to  a  common  cause?  Different 
and  disconnected  as  they  appear  in  external  aspect  can  we  ascribe  them  to 
one  originating  force?  We  believe  that  we  can.  They  are  the  results  of  the 
action  of  the  essential  spirit  of  Christianity  in  human  life,  upheavals  of  the 
surface  of  society  subject  to  the  permeating  influence  of  gospel  leaven, 
phases  of  the  age-long  but  age- victorious  process  by  which  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  being  established  on  earth. 

They  indicate  the  gospel  in  peace — the  fulfillment  of  the  great  command, 
“  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature  — the 
realization  of  the  Savior’s  prayer  that  “  they  all  maybe  one,  as  Thou,  Father, 
art  in  Me  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us  ” — the  dawning  con¬ 
sciousness  of  the  Savior’s  care  for  all  the  spiritual  in  all  climes  and  ages, 
“  Other  sheep  have  I  which  are  not  of  this  fold,  them  also  1  must  bring  ” — 
the  application  of  that  practical  gospel  taught  by  apostolic  lips,  “Whoso 
h  ath  of  this  world’s  goods  and  seeth  his  brother  have  need,  and  shutteth 
up  his  bowels  of  compassion  from  him,  how  dwelleth  the  love  of  God  in 
him?  ” 

As  the  mission  of  Christianity  is  not  merely  to  propagate  a  name,  but 
to  foster  a  living  spirit  it  should  be  glad  to  welcome  its  own  children  even 
in  disguise.  They  mark  and  define  the  epoch  as  one  in  which  the  best 
ideals  of  our  holy  faith  have  held  practical  sway,  in  which  Christians  are 
nobly  striving  to  make  Christ  king  everywhere  and  over  the  whole  of  life. 
The  Chicago  Parliament  of  Religions  will  stand  a  red-letter  event  in  the 
calendar  of  religious  history,  the  grandest  visible  embodiment  yet  reached 
of  these  magnificent  inspirations. 

The  cause  of  Christian  missions  and  that  of  religious  unity  are  so  inti¬ 
mately  related  to  each  other  that  they  need  to  be  considered  together,  as 
each  promotes  the  other,  and  whatever  tends  to  advance  either  will  benefit 
both.  One  of  the  questions  we  often  ask  ourselves  in  the  present  day  is, 
“  Why  is  missionary  work,  on  the  whole,  attended  with  so  little  success?  ” 
and  undoubtedly  a  partial  answer  is  supplied  in  the  statement  that  it  is 
carried  on  with  divided  and  sometimes  rival  forces,  while  the  workers  are 
impeded  by  the  demands  of  their  official  organization,  reports,  accounts, 
and  correspondence  which  might  be  consolidated  with  vast  economy. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  ask  ourselves.  What  has  been  the  secret  of  the 
unhappy  divisions  which  have  rent  Christendom  into  countless  sects  ? 
the  answer  is  equally  pertinent,  because  the  energy,  the  aggressiveness,  the 
battle  spirit  which  should  have  occupied  themselves  in  combating  sin  and 
darkness  and  subduing  the  powers  of  superstition  and  evil  without  the 


RELIGIOUS  UNITY  AND  MISSIONS. 


709 


church  have  been  pent  up  within  her  bosom.  In  a  most  culpable  degree 
the  church  has  forgotten  the  intimate  relation  which  lay  between  the  two 
most  solemn  and  binding  charges  of  her  divine  Master,  given  to  her  under 
the  very  shadow  of  the  cross,  “A  new  commandment  give  I  unto  you,  that 
ye  love  one  another,”  and  “Ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  Me,  both  in  Jerusa¬ 
lem  and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the 
earth.”  It  was  to  the  united  church  that  the  grace  of  Pentecost  was  given; 
it  was  to  equip  her  for  the  conquest  of  the  world  that  she  was  clothed  with 
its  inspiration. 

It  is  idle  to  bemoan  the  past,  but  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  learn  its 
lessons,  and  surely  one  of  the  lessons  God  is  loudly  teaching  us  to-day  is, 
that  to  have  larger  measures  of  missionary  success,  we  must  have  increased 
Christian  union. 

Consider  only  some  of  the  advantages  to  the  work  of  Christian  missions 
which  may  be  expected  to  accrue  as  a  spirit  of  union  prevails  among  the 
different  sections  of  the  church.  The  union  of  parent  churches  will  mean 
very  substantial  economy  in  church  expenditure,  and  set  free  very  consid¬ 
erable  funds  for  the  spread  of  the  gospel  abroad.  Perhaps  we  could  easily 
imagine  combinations  of  churches  already  closely  akin,  which  would  result 
in  saving  of  finances,  by  which  they  could  easily  double  their  contribu¬ 
tions  to  mission  work.  Fancy  the  12,000,000,  the  present  cost  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  army  in  the  greater  crusade,  being  changed  into  $4,000,000. 

Union  would  result  in  a  much  more  systematic  mapping  out  of  missionary 
fields  and  much  more  complete  co-operation  among  individual  mission¬ 
aries  than  exists  at  present.  The  number  of  Protestant  missionary  socie¬ 
ties  in  existence  is  probably  about  eighty.  In  India,  in  China,  in  Japan, 
they  overlap  each  other  to  a  very  considerable  degree.  They  travel  past 
one  another’s  stations  to  preach  the  gospel.  In  great  heathen  cities  they 
establish  separate  and  what  must  be  to  some  extent  rival  centers  of  evan¬ 
gelization. 

This  consideration  of  waste  of  force  bears  with  at  least  equal  pressure 
on  the  philanthropic  and  educational  institutions  established  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  missions.  Schools  for  Christian  children,  colleges  for  training 
native  agents,  medical  hospitals  and  dispensaries,  might  be  far  more 
efficiently  conducted,  as  they  would  command  a  far  greater  variety  and 
choice  of  talent  if  dividing  lines  were  taken  away  and  all  missions  in  the 
same  town  or  district,  of  whatever  society,  worked  in  complete  co-opera¬ 
tion  with  each  other. 

The  moral  effect  of  a  united  front  is  more  difficult  to  estimate,  but 
that  its  influence  upon  those  to  whom  the  gospel  message  is  carried  would 
be  immense  no  one  can  seriously  deny.  It  is  the  more  difficult  to  speak  on 
this  topic,  as  the  wildest  nonsense  has  passed  current  on  the  subject 
among  the  unsympathetic  critics  of  missions.  The  picture  of  an  unsophis¬ 
ticated  pagan,  bewildered  from  the  confusion  of  tongues  arising  from 
jarring  sects,  tossed  helplessly  to  and  fro  as  he  pursues  his  anxious 
inquiries,  from  Episcopalian  to  Presbyterian,  from  Calvinist  to  Arminian, 
from  Churchman  to  Methodist,  from  Trinitarian  to  Unitarian,  and  finally 
giving  up  the  vain  attempt  to  ascertain  what  Christianity  is,  and  impar¬ 
tially  inviting  them  all  to  join  his  own  catholic  and  tolerant  communion — 
“More  better  you  come  joss-pidjin  side” — is  too  delicious  for  criticism. 

Christianity,  in  the  conception  of  her  divine  Pounder  and  according  to 
her  best  traditions,  is  a  religion  for  the  whole  world.  To  bring  all  man¬ 
kind  into  fellowship  with  Christ  is  her  chief  mission.  That  was  the  grand, 
master  purpose  which  gave  to  the  apostolic  age  its  fervor,  its  inspiration, 
its  resistless  sway  over  men’s  hearts.  But,  alas!  through  centuries  dark¬ 
ened  by  selfishness,  by  pride,  by  the  love  of  power,  by  intolerant  bigotry, 
by  intestine  strife,  she  has  gone  far  to  forget  her  errand  to  the  world. 

Yet  again  in  our  own  time  this  great  thought  of  a  love  for  all  men — 


710 


TUB  PARLIAMENT  OP  liPLlOloNts.  ' 


wide,  tender,  tolerant  as  that  of  Christ  Himself — is  being  born  in  men’s 
hearts.  For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  world  the  idea  had  been 
conceived  of  bringing  together  face  to  face  not  only  the  representatives  of 
the  many  branches  of  Christendom  but  also  leaders  of  the  great  historic 
faiths  of  the  world.  Surely  this  in  itself  indicates  that  great  movements 
are  preparing  beneath  the  surface,  full  of  hope  and  promise  for  the 
future. 

The  splendid  courage  which  has  undertaken  such  a  task  will  not  be 
lost.  Everything  is  calling  loudly  for  a  radical  change  of  attitude  on  the 
part  of  Christian  men.  Our  denominational  distinctions  have  for  the  most 
part  become  anachronisms.  They  rest  on  certain  hopeless  arguments,  which 
can  never  be  settled  one  way  or  the  other.  Our  divisions  are  strangling  us. 
The  world’s  best  literature  and  the  world’s  best  science  are  already  within 
our  borders.  The  leaders  of  social  reform  look  upon  us  with  suspicion  and 
distrust.  Our  attitude  toward  the  Christian  world  is  haughty  and  uncon- 
ciliatory  in  the  extreme. 

Meanwhile  material  changes  and  civilizing  influences  are  flinging  the 
nations  into  each  other’s  arms.  The  great  world,  which  does  not  under¬ 
stand  the  mystery  of  its  sin  and  misery,  is  left  without  its  Savior,  and  He 
yet  waits  to  possess  the  world  He  bought  with  His  blood.  The  federation 
of  Christian  men  and  prosecution,  in  a  spirit  of  loving  sympathy,  of  her 
evangel  throughout  the  world  are  the  great  ideals  which  in  the  past  have 
made  the  church  illustrious,  which  in  the  future  must  be  her  salvation. 

Is  all  this  distant,  far  out  of  reach,  and  impracticable?  Doubtless,  like 
the  millennium — and  we  might  almost  say  it  will  be  the  millennium — it  is 
by  no  means  at  our  doors.  These  are  only  ideals,  and  men  sneer  at  ideals. 
Already  sarcasm  has  been  at  work  on  the  aims  of  this  great  congress.  It 
has  been  “  weighed  in  the  balance  ”  of  a  present  day  prudence,  and  has 
been  “  found  wanting.”  Now,  in  the  nature  of  things,  what  is  to  be 
attempted  by  this  assembly  must  be  provisional,  tentative,  and  not  imme¬ 
diately  realizable.  It  must  deal  with  the  unmatured  schemes  and  unripe 
issues.  Else  how  is  a  beginning  to  be  made?  Men  of  hard  and  unimag¬ 
inative  minds  are  sure  to  stigmatize  its  hopes  as  visionary.  But  we  are 
not  afraid  of  a  word,  and,  if  we  were,  this  is  not  a  word  to  be  afraid  of. 

The  world  is  led  by  its  ideals.  It  is  the  golden  age  to  come  that  cheers 
us  through  the  dark  and  dreary  winter  of  present  experience.  It  is  Canaan, 
with  its  milk  and  honey,  that'makes  the  wilderness  of  our  wanderings  endur¬ 
able.  Every  great  cause  for  which  heroes  have  bled  and  brave  souls  have 
toiled  and  sorrowed  has  been  once  an  ideal,  a  dream,  a  hope,  and,  on  coward 
tongues,  an  impossibility.  It  has  been  the  peculiar  business  of  religion  to 
furnish  the  illuminating  and  inspiring  ambitions  which  have  been  as  songs 
in  the  night  of  humanity’s  upward  march.  Speaking  humanely,  religion  is 
the  strongest  force,  and  it  always  will  be,  because  it  has  always  enlisted 
imagination  in  its  service. 

Christianity  aspires,  in  a  deep,  holy,  lasting,  blessed  sense,  to  pacify — give 
peace  to  all  under  heaven.  Another  peace  than  that  of  external  order;  the 
peace  which  comes  from  rest  of  conscience,  trust  in  the  unseen,  intimate 
communion  through  a  living  Savior  with  a  father  God.  Not  a  conven¬ 
tional  “  under  heaven,”  whose  world  is  limited  to  Christendom,  as  China’s 
world  is  limited  to  China,  but  one  that  runs  all  round  the  equator  and 
stretches  out  to  both  poles.  Its  programme  lies  still  before  us,  shame  to 
us  that  after  these  nineteen  centuries  it  is  unaccomplished;  shame,  deeper 
shame  still,  if,  like  cravens,  we  count  the  cost  or  magnify  the  difficulty,  or 
blanch  in  the  hour  of  danger;  but  deepest,  most  infamous,  most  undying 
shame,  if,  in  our  littleness  or  narrowness,  or  love  of  forms  and  theologies 
and  ecclesiasticisms  and  rituals,  the  great  ideal  itself  should  be  lost,  which 
angels  sang  that  night  when  the  starry  spaces  were  glad,  and  did  not  know 
how  to  hold  their  exultation,  because  they  divined  where  the  message  came 
from— “  Peace  on  earth,  good  will  toward  men.” 


THE  REUNION  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


711 


THE  REUNION  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

PROF.  PHILLIP  SCHAFF  OF  NEW  YORK. 

The  reunion  of  Christendom  presupposes  an  original  union  which  has 
been  marred  and  obstructed,  but  never  entirely  destroyed.  The  theocracy 
of  the  Jewish  dispensation  continued  during  the  division  of  the  kingdom 
and  during  the  Babylonian  exile.  Even  in  the  darkest  time,  when  Elijah 
thought  that  Israel  was  wholly  given  to  idolatry,  there  were  7,000— known 
only  to  God — who  had  never  bowed  their  knees  to  Baal.  The  church  of 
Christ  has  been  one  from  the  beginning,  ana  He  has  pledged  to  her  His 
unbroken  presence  “all  the  days  to  the  end  of  the  world.”  The  one  invisi¬ 
ble  church  is  the  soul  which  animates  the  divided  visible  churches.  All 
true  believers  are  members  of  the  mystical  body  of  Christ. 

The  saints  in  heaven  and  on  earth 
But  one  communion  make: 

All  join  in  Christ,  their  living  head. 

And  of  Kis  grace  partake. 

Let  us  briefly  mention  the  prominent  points  of  unity  which  underlie 
all  divisions. 

Christians  differ  in  dogmas  and  theology,  but  agree  in  the  fundamental 
articles  of  faith  which  are  necessary  to  salvation;  they  believe  in  the  same 
Father  in  heaven,  the  same  Lord  and  Savior,  and  the  same  Holy  Spirit, 
and  can  join  in  every  clause  of  the  apostles’  creed,  of  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis 
and  the  Te  Deum. 

They  are  divided  in  church  government  and  discipline,  but  all  acknowl¬ 
edge  and  obey  Christ  as  the  Head  of  the  church  and  Chief  Shepherd  of 
our  souls. 

.  They  differ  widely  in  modes  of  worship,  rites,  and  ceremonies,  but  they 
worship  the  same  God  manifested  in  Christ,  they  surround  the  same  throne 
of  grace,  they  offer  from  day  to  day  the  same  petitions  which  the  Lord  has 
taught  them,  and  can  sing  the  same  classical  hymns,  whether  written  by 
Catholic  or  Protestant,  Greek  or  Roman,  Lutheran  or  Reformed,  Calvinist 
or  Methodist,  Episcopalian  or  Presbyterian,  Psedo-Baptist  or  Baptist.  Some 
of  the  best  hymn-writers — such  as  Toplady  and  Charles  Wesley — were 
antagonistic  in  theology,  yet  their  hymns,  “Rock  of  Ages”  and  “Jesus, 
Lover  of  My  Soul,”  are  sung  with  equal  fervor  by  Calvinists  and  Method¬ 
ists.  Newman’s  “Lead,  Kindly  Light”  will  remain  a  favorite  hymn  among 
Protestants,  although  the  author  left  the  Church  of  England  and  became 
a  cardinal  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  “  In  the  Cross  of  Christ  I  Glory  ”  and 
“  Nearer,  My  God,  to  Thee  ”  were  written  by  devout  Unitarians,  yet  have 
an  honored  place  in  every  Trinitarian  hymnal. 

There  is  a  unity  of  Christian  scholarship  of  all  creeds,  which  aims  at 
the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  This  unity  has  been 
strikingly  illustrated  in  the  Anglo-American  revision  of  the  authorized  ver¬ 
sion  of  the  scriptures,  in  which  about  one  hundred  British  and  American 
scholars — Episcopalians,  Independents,  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Baptists, 
Friends,  and  Unitarians,  have  harmoniously  co-operated  for  fourteen  years 
(from  1870  to  1884). 

It  was  my  privilege  to  attend  almost  every  meeting  of  the  American 
revisers  in  the  Bible  House  at  New  York,  and  several  meetings  of  the  Brit¬ 
ish  revisers  in  the  Jerusalem  chamber  of  Westminster  Abbey,  and  I  can 
testify  that,  notwithstanding  the  positive  convictions  of  the  scholars  of  the 
different  communions,  no  sectarian  issue  was  ever  raised,  all  being  bent 
upon  the  sole  purpose  of  giving  the  most  faithful  idiomatic  rendering  of 
the  original  Hebrew*  and  Greek.  The  English  version,  in  its  new  as  well  as 
its  old  form,  will  continue  to  be  the  strongest  bond  of  union  among  the 


712 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


different  sections  of  English-speaking  Christendom — a  fact  of  incalculable 
importance  for  private  devotion  and  public  worship. 

Formerly,  exegetical  and  historical  studies  were  too  much  controlled  by, 
and  made  subservient  to,  apologetic  and  polemic  ends;  but  now  they  are 
more  and  more  carried  on  without  prejudice,  and  with  the  sole  object  of 
ascertaining  the  meaning  of  the  text  and  the  facts  of  history  upon  which 
creeds  must  be  built. 

Finally,  we  must  not  overlook  the  ethical  unity  of  Christendom,  which 
is  much  stronger  than  its  dogmatic  unity  and  has  never  been  seriously 
shaken.  The  Greek,  the  Latin,  and  the  Protestant  churches,  alike,  accept 
the  Ten  Commandments  as  explained  by  Christ,  or  the  law  of  supreme  love 
to  God  and  love  to  our  neighbor,  as  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  law,  and 
they  look  up  to  the  teaching  and  example  of  our  Savior  as  the  purest  and 
most  perfect  model  for  universal  imitation. 

Before  we  discuss  reunion  we  should  acknowledge  the  hand  of  Provi¬ 
dence  in  the  present  divisions  of  Christendom.  There  is  a  great  difference 
between  denominationalism  and  sectarianism;  the  first  is  consistent  with 
church  unity,  as  well  as  military  corps  are  with  the  unity  of  an  army,  or 
the  many  monastic  orders  with  the  unity  of  the  papacy;  the  second  is 
nothing  but  extended  selfishness  and  bigotry.  Denominationalism  is  a 
blessing;  sectarianism  is  a  curse. 

We  must  remember  that  denominations  are  most  numerous  in  the  most 
advanced  and  active  nations  of  the  world.  A  stagnant  church  is  a  sterile 
mother.  Dead  orthodoxy  is  as  bad  as  heresy,  or  even  worse.  Sects  are  a 
sign  of  life  and  interest  in  religion.  The  most  important  periods  of  the 
church — the  Nicene  age,  and  the  age  of  the  Reformation — were  full  of  contro¬ 
versy.  There  are  divisions  in  the  church  which  can  not  be  justified,  and 
there  are  sects  which  have  fulfilled  their  mission  and  ought  to  cease.  But 
the  historic  denominations  are  permanent  forces,  and  represent  various 
aspects  of  the  Christian  religion  which  supplement  each  other. 

As  the  life  of  our  Savior  could  not  be  fully  exhibited  by  one  gospel,  nor 
His  doctrine  set  forth  by  one  apostle,  much  less  could  any  one  Christian 
body  comprehend  and  manifest  the  whole  fullness  of  Christ  and  the  entire 
extent  of  His  mission  to  mankind. 

Every  one  of  the  great  divisions  of  the  church  has  had,  and  still  has, 
its  peculiar  mission  as  to  territory,  race,  and  nationality,  and  modes  of 
operation. 

The  Greek  Church  is  especially  adapted  to  the  East,  to  the  Greek  and 
Slavonic  peoples;  the  Roman  to  the  Latin  races  of  Southern  Europe  and 
America;  the  Protestant  to  the  Teutonic  races  of  the  North  and  West. 

Among  the  Protestant  Churches,  again,  some  have  a  special  gift  for  the 
cultivation  of  Christian  science  and  literature;  others  for  the  practical 
development  of  the  Christian  life;  some  are  most  successful  among  the 
higher,  others  among  the  middle,  and  still  others  among  the  lower  classes. 
None  of  them  could  be  spared  without  great  detriment  to  the  cause  of 
religion  and  morality,  and  without  leaving  its  territory  and  constituency 
spiritually  destitute.  Even  an  imperfect  church  is  better  than  no  church. 

No  schism  occurs  without  guilt  on  one  or  on  both  sides.  “  It  must  needs 
be  that  offenses  come,  but  woe  to  that  man  by  whom  the  offense  cometh.” 
Yet  God  overrules  the  sins  and  follies  of  man  for  His  own  glory. 

The  separation  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  in  consequence  of  their  “sharp 
contention  ”  concerning  Mark,  resulted  in  the  enlargement  of  missionary 
labor.  If  Luther  had  not  burned  the  Pope’s  bull,  or  had  recanted  at 
Worms,  we  would  not  have  had  a  Lutheran  Church,  but  be  still  under  the 
spiritual  tyranny  of  the  papacy.  If  Luther  had  accepted  Zwingli’s  hand 
of  fellowship  at  Marburg,  the  Protestant  cause  would  have  been  stronger 
at  the  time,  but  the  full  development  of  the  characteristic  features  of  the 
two  principal  churches  of  the  Reformation  would  have  been  prevented  or 
obstructed. 


THE  REUNION  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


713 


If  John  Wesley  had  not  ordained  Coke,  we  would  not  have  a  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  which  is  the  strongest  denomination  in  the  United 
States.  If  Chalmers  and  his  friends  had  not  seceded  from  the  general 
assembly  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  in  1843,  forsaking  every  comfort  for  tiie 
sake  of  the  whole  headship  of  Christ,  we  would  miss  one  of  the  grandest 
chapters  in  modern  church  history. 

All  divisions  of  Christendom  will,  in  the  providence  of  God,  be  made 
subservient  to  a  greater  harmony.  Where  the  sin  of  schism  has  abounded, 
the  grace  of  future  reunion  will  much  more  abound. 

Taking  this  view  of  the  division  of  the  church,  we  must  reject  the  idea 
of  a  negative  reunion,  which  would  destroy  all  denominational  distinction 
and  thus  undo  the  work  of  the  past. 

History  is  not  like  “  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision  ”  that  leaves  “  not  a  rack 
behind.”  It  is  the  unfolding  of  God’s  plan  of  infinite  wisdom  and  mercy  to 
mankind.  He  is  the  chief  actor,  and  rules  and  overrules  the  thoughts  and 
deeds  of  His  servants.  We  are  told  that  our  Heavenly  Father  has  num¬ 
bered  the  very  hairs  of  our  head,  and  that  not  a  sparrow  falleth  to  the 
ground  without  His  will.  The  labors  of  confessors  and  martyrs,  of  mission¬ 
aries  and  preachers,  of  fathers,  school  men,  and  reformers,  and  of  the 
countless  host  of  holy  men  and  women  of  all  ranks  and  conditions  who 
lived  for  the  good  of  the  world,  can  noube  lost.  They  constitute  a  treasure 
of  inestimable  value  for  all  the  future  time. 

Variety  in  unity  and  unity  in  variety  ic  the  law  of  God  in  nature,  in  his¬ 
tory,  and  in  His  kingdom.  Unity  without  variety  is  dead  uniformity. 
There  is  beauty  in  variety.  There  is  no  harmony  without  many  sounds, 
and  a  garden  incloses  all  kinds  of  flowers.  God  has  made  no  two  nations, 
no  two  men  or  women,  nor  even  two  trees  or  two  flowers  alike.  He  has 
endowed  every  nation,  every  church,  yea,  every  individual  Christian,  with 
peculiar  gifts  and  graces.  His  power,  His  wisdom,  and  His  goodness  are 
reflected  in  10,000  forms. 

“ There  are  diversities  of  gifts,”  says  St.  Paul,  “but  the  same  spirit. 
And  there  are  diversities  of  ministrations,  and  the  same  Lord.  And  there 
are  diversities  of  workings,  but  the  same  God,  who  worketh  all  things  in 
all.  But  to  each  one  is  given  the  manifestation  of  the  spirit  to  profit 
withal.” 

“  We  must,  therefore,  expect  the  greatest  variety  in  the  church  of  the 
future.  There  are  good  Christians  who  believe  in  the  ultimate  triumph  of 
their  own  creed,  or  form  of  government  and  worship,  but  they  are  all  mis¬ 
taken  and  indulge  in  a  vain  dream.  The  world  will  never  become  wholly 
Greek,  nor  wholly  Roman,  nor  wholly  Protestant,  but  it  will  become  wholly 
Christian,  and  will  include  every  type  and  every  aspect,  every  virtue  and 
every  grace  of  Christianity — an  endless  variety  in  harmonious  unity,  Christ 
being  all  in  all. 

Every  denomination  which  holds  to  Christ  the  head  will  retain  its  dis¬ 
tinctive  peculiarity,  and  lay  it  on  the  altar  of  reunion,  but  it  will  cheer¬ 
fully  recognize  the  excellencies  and  merits  of  the  other  branches  of  God’s 
kingdom.  No  sect  nas  the  monopoly  of  truth.  The  part  is  not  the  whole; 
the  body  consists  of  many  members  and  all  are  necessary  to  each  other. 

Episcopalians  will  prefer  their  form  of  government  as  the  best,  but 
must  concede  the  validity  of  the  non-Episcopal  ministry. 

Baptists,  while  holding  fast  to  the  primitive  mode  of  immersion,  must 
allow  pouring,  or  affusion,  to  be  legitimate  baptism. 

Protestants  will  cease  to  regard  the  Pope  as  the  anti-Christ  predicted 
by  St.  Paul  and  St.  John,  and  will  acknowledge  him  as  the  legitimate  head 
of  the  Roman  Church,  while  the  Pope  ought  to  recognize  the  respective 
rights  and  privileges  of  the  Greek  patriarchs  and  evangelical  bishops  and 
pastors. 

Those  who  prefer  to  worship  God  in  the  forms  of  a  stated  liturgy  ought 


714 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


not  to  deny  others  the  equal  right  of  free  prayer  as  the  spirit  moves  them. 
Even  the  silent  worship  of  the  Quakers  has  scripture  authority,  for  there 
was  “  a  silence  in  heaven  for  the  space  of  half  an  hour.” 

Doctrinal  differences  will  be  the  most  difficult  to  adjust.  When  two 
dogmas  flatly  contradict  each  other,  the  one  denying  what  the  other  asserts, 
one  or  the  other,  or  both,  must  be  wrong.  Truth  excludes  error  and  admits 
of  no  compromise. 

But  truth  is  many  sided  and  all  sided,  and  is  reflected  in  different  colors.. 
The  creeds  of  Christendom,  as  already  remarked,  agree  in  the  essential  arti¬ 
cles  of  faith,  and  their  differences  refer  either  to  minor  points  or  represent 
only  various  aspects  of  truth  and  supplement  one  another. 

Calvinists  and  Arminians  are  both  right,  the  former  in  maintaining  the 
sovereignty  of  God,  the  latter  in  maintaining  the  freedom  and  moral 
responsibility  of  man;  but  they  are  both  wrong  when  they  deny  one  or  the 
other  of  these  two  truths,  which  are  equally  important,  although  we  may 
not  be  able  to  reconcile  them  satisfactorily.  The  conflicting  theories  on  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  which  have  caused  the  bitterest  controversies  among  medi¬ 
eval  schoolmen  and  Protestant  reformers  turn,  after  all,  only  on  the  mode 
of  Christ’s  presence,  while  all  admit  the  essential  fact  that  He  is  spirituals 
and  really  present  and  partaken  of  by  believers  as  the  bread  of  life  from 
heaven.  Even  the  two  chief  differences  between  Romanists  and  Protest¬ 
ants  concerning  scripture  and  tradition  as  rules  of  faith,  and  concerning 
faith  and  good’ works  as  conditions  of  justification,  admit  of  an  adjustment 
by  a  better  understanding  of  the  nature  and  relationship  of  scripture  and 
tradition,  of  faith  and  works.  The  difference  is  no  greater  than  that 
between  St.  Paul  and  St.  James  in  their  teaching  on  justification;  and  yet 
the  epistles  of  both  stand  side  by  side  in  the  same  canon  of  Holy  Scripture. 

We  must  remember  that  the  dogmas  of  the  church  are  earthly  vessels 
for  heavenly  treasures,  or  imperfect  human  definitions  of  divine  truths, 
and  may  be  proved  by  better  statements  with  the  advance  of  knowledge. 
Our  theological  systems  are  but  dim  rays  of  the  sun  of  truth,  which 
illuminates  the  universe.  Truth  first,  doctrine  next,  dogma  last. 

The  reunion  of  the  entire  Catholic  church,  Greek  and  Roman,  with  the 
Protestant  churches  will  require  such  a  restatement  of  all  the  controverted 
points  by  both  parties  as  shall  remove  misrepresentations,  neutralize  the 
anathemas  pronounced  upon  imaginary  heresies,  and  show  the  way  to 
harmony  in  a  broader,  higher,  and  deeper  consciousness  in  God’s  truth  and 
God’s  love. 

In  the  heat  of  controversy,  and  in  the  struggle  for  supremacy,  the  con¬ 
tending  parties  mutually  misrepresented  each  other’s  views,  put  them  in 
the  most  unfavorable  light,  and  perverted  partial  truths  into  unmixed 
errors.  Like  hostile  armies  engaged  in  battle,  they  aimed  at  the  destruction 
of  the  enemy.  Protestants,  in  their  confessions  of  faith  and  polemical 
works,  denounced  the  Pope  as  “  the  anti-Christ,”  the  papists  as  “idolaters,” 
the  Roman  mass  as  an  “  accursed  idolatry,”  and  the  Roman  church  as  “  the 
synagogue  of  Satan  ”  and  “  the  Babylonian  harlot  ” — all  in  perfect  honesty 
on  the  ground  of  certain  misunderstood  passages  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John, 
and  especially  of  the  mysterious  book  of  Revelation,  whose  references 
to  the  persecutions  of  pagan  Rome  were  directly  or  indirectly  applied  to 
papal  Rome.  Rome  answered  by  bloody  persecutions;  the  Council  of 
Trent  closed  with  a  double  anathema  on  all  Protestant  heretics,  and  the 
Pope  annually  repeats  the  curse  in  the  holy  week,  when  all  Christians 
should  humbly  and  penitently  meet  around  the  cross  on  which  the  Savior 
died  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 

When  these  hostile  armies,  after  a  long  struggle  for  supremacy  without 
success,  shall  come  together  for  the  settlement  of  terms  of  peace,  they  will 
be  animated  by  a  spirit  of  conciliation  and  single  devotion  to  the  honor  of 
the  great  Head  of  the  church,  who  is  the  divine  concord  of  all  human 
discords, 


THE  REUNION  OF  CHRISTENDOM, 


715 


The  whole  system  of  traditional  orthodoxy,  Greek,  Latin,  and  Protestant, 
must  progress  or  it  will  be  left  behind  the  age  and  lose  its  hold  on  think¬ 
ing  men.  The  church  must  keep  pace  with  civilization,  adjust  herself  to 
the  modern  conditions  of  religious  and  political  freedom,  and  accept  the 
established  results  of  biblical  and  historical  criticism  and  natural  science. 
God  speaks  in  history  and  science  as  well  as  in  the  Bible  and  the  church, 
and  He  can  not  contradict  Himself.  Truth  is  sovereign,  and  must  and  will 
prevail  over  all  ignorance,  error,  and  prejudice. 

Church  history  has  undergone  of  late  a  great  change,  partly  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  discovery  of  lost  documents  and  deeper  research,  partly  on 
account  of  the  standpoint  of  the  historian  and  the  new  spirit  in  which 
history  is  written. 

Many  documents  on  which  theories  and  usages  were  built  have  been 
abandoned  as  untenable  even  by  Roman  Catholic  scholars.  We  mention 
the  legend  of  the  literal  composition  of  the  apostles’  creed  by  the  apostles, 
and  of  the  origin  of  the  creed  which  was  attributed  to  Athanasius,  though 
it  did  not  appear  till  four  centuries  after  his  death;  the  fiction  of  Constan¬ 
tine’s  donation;  the  apocryphal  letters  of  pseudo-Ignatius,  of  pseudo-Clem¬ 
ent,  of  pseudo-Isidorus,  and  other  post-apostolic  and  medieval  falsifications 
of  history,  which  was  universally  believed  till  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
and  even  down  to  the  18th  century. 

Genuine  history  is  being  rewritten  from  the  standpoint  of  impartial 
truth  and  justice.  If  facts  are  found  to  contravene  a  cherished  theory,  all 
the  worse  for  the  theory;  for  facts  are  truths,  and  truth  is  of  God,  while 
theories  are  of  men. 

Formerly  church  history  was  made  a  mere  appendix  to  systematic  the¬ 
ology,  or  abused  and  perverted  for  polemic  purposes.  The  older  historians, 
both  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant,  searched  ancient  and  medieval  his¬ 
tory  for  weapons  to  defeat  their  opponents  and  to  establish  their  own 
exclusive  claims.  Placius,  the  first  learned  Protestant  historian,  sav/  noth¬ 
ing  but  anti-Christian  darkness  in  the  middle  ages,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  scattered  “  testes  veritatis,”  and  described  the  Roman  Church  from  the 
5th  to  the  16th  century  as  the  great  apostasy  of  prophecy.  But 
modern  Protestant  historians,  following  the  example  of  Neander,  who  is 
called  “  the  father  of  church  history,”  regard  the  middle  ages  as  the  period 
of  the  conversion  and  the  civilization  of  the  barbarians,  as  a  necessary  link 
between  ancient  and  modern  Christianity,  and  as  the  cradle  of  the  Refor¬ 
mation. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  opposite  type  of  historiography,  represented  by 
Cardinal  Baronius,  traced  the  papacy  to  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era,  maintained  its  identity  through  all  ages,  and  denounced  the  reformers 
as  arch-heretics  and  the  Reformation  as  the  foul  source  of  revolution,  war, 
and  infidelity,  and  of  all  the  evils  of  modern  society.  But  the  impartial 
scholars  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  now  admit  the  necessity  of  the 
Reformation,  the  pure  and  unselfish  motives  of  the  reformers,  and  the  bene¬ 
ficial  efforts  of  their  labors  upon  their  own  church. 

A  great  change  of  spirit  has  also  taken  place  among  the  historians  of 
the  different  Protestant  denominations.  The  early  Lut^heran  abhorrence 
of  Zwinglianism  and  Calvinism  has  disappeared  from  the  best  Lutheran 
manuals  of  church  history.  The  bitterness  between  Prelatists  and  Puri¬ 
tans,  Calvinists  and  Arminians,  Baptists  and  Paedo-Baptists,  has  given  way 
to  a  calm  and  just  appreciation. 

The  impartial  historian  can  find  no  ideal  church  in  any  age.  It  was  a 
high  priest  in  Aaron’s  line  who  crucified  the  Savior;  a  Judas  w^as  among 
the  apostles;  all  sorts  of  sins  among  church  members  are  rebuked  in 
the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament;  there  were  many  “anti-Christs”  in  the 
age  of  St.  John,  and  there  have  been  many  since,  even  in  the  temple  of 
God.  Nearly  all  churches  have  acted  as  persecutors  when  they  had  a 


716 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGION 


chance,  if  not  by  fire  and  sword,  at  least  by  misrepresentation,  vituperation, 
and  abuse.  For  these  and  all  other  sins,  they  should  repent  in  dust  and 
ashes.  One  only  is  pure  and  spotless — the  great  Head  of  the  church,  who 
redeemed  it  with  His  precious  blood. 

But  the  historian  finds,  on  the  other  hand,  in  every  age  and  in  every 
church,  the  footprints  of  Christ,  the  abundant  manifestations  of  His 
spirit,  and  a  slow  but  sure  process  toward  that  ideal  church  which  St.  Paul 
describes  as  “  the  fullness  of  Him  who  filleth  all  in  all.” 

The  study  of  church  history,  like  travel  in  foreign  lands,  destroys  preju¬ 
dice,  enlarges  the  horizon,  liberalizes  the  mind,  and  deepens  charity.  Pales¬ 
tine,  by  its  eloquent  ruins,  serves  as  a  commentary  on  the  life  of  Christ, 
and  has  not  inaptly  been  called  “the  fifth  gospel.”  So  also  the  history  of 
the  church  furnishes  the  key  to  unlock  the  meaning  of  the  church  in  all 
its  ages  and  branches. 

The  study  of  history — “  with  malice  toward  none ,  but  with  charity  for 
all” — will  bring  the  denominations  closer  together  in  a  humble  recogni¬ 
tion  of  their  defects  and  a  grateful  praise  for  the  good  which  the  same  spirit 
has  wrought  in  them  and  through  them. 

Important  changes  have  also  taken  place  in  traditional  opinions  and 
practices  once  deemed  pious  and  orthodox. 

The  church  in  the  middle  ages  first  condemned  the  philosophy  of  Aris¬ 
totle,  but  at  last  turned  it  into  a  powerful  ally  in  the  defense  of  her 
doctrines,  and  so  gave  to  the  world  the  Summa  of  Thomas  Aquinas  and  the 
Divina  Comedia  of  Dante,  who  regarded  the  great  Stagirite  as  a  fore¬ 
runner  of  Christ,  as  a  philosophical  John  the  Baptist.  Luther,  likewise,  in 
his  wrath  against  scholastic  theology,  condemned  “  the  accursed  heathen, 
Aristotle,”  but  Melanchthon  judged  differently,  and  Protestant  scholarship 
has  long  since  settled  upon  a  just  estimate. 

Gregory  VII.,  Innocent  III.,  and  other  popes  of  the  middle  ages,  claimed 
and  exercised  the  power,  as  vicars  of  Christ,  to  depose  kings,  to  absolve 
subjects  from  their  oath  of  allegiance,  and  to  lay  whole  nations  under  the 
interdict  for  the  disobedience  of  an  individual.  But  no  pope  would  pre¬ 
sume  to  do  such  a  thing  now,  nor  would  any  Catholic  king  or  nation  tolerate 
it  for  a  moment. 

The  strange  mythical  notion  of  the  ancient  fathers  that  the  Christian 
redemption  was  the  payment  of  a  debt  due  to  the  devil,  who  had  a  claim 
upon  men  since  the  fall  of  Adam,  but  had  forfeited  it  by  the  crucifixion, 
was  abandoned  after  Anselm  had  published  the  more  rational  theory  of  a 
vicarious  atonement  in  discharge  of  a  debt  due  to  God. 

The  un-Christian  and  horrible  doctrine  that  all  unbaptized  infants, 
who  never  committed  any  actual  transgression,  are  damned  for  ever  and 
ever  prevailed  for  centuries  under  the  authority  of  the  great  and  holy 
Augustine,  but  has  lost  its  hold  even  upon  those  divines  who  defend  the 
necessity  of  water  baptism  for  salvation.  Even  high  Anglicans  and  strict 
Calvinists  admit  that  all  children  dying  in  infancy  are  saved. 

The  equally  un-Christian  and  fearful  theory  and  practice  of  religious 
compulsion  and  persecution  by  fire  and  sword,  first  mildly  suggested  by 
the  same  Augustine  and  then  formulated  by  the  master  theologian  of  the 
middle  ages  (Thomas  Aquinas),  who  deemed  a  heretic,  or  murderer  of  the 
soul,  more  worthy  of  death  than  a  murderer  of  the  body,  has  given  way 
at  last  to  the  theory  and  practice  of  toleration  and  liberty. 

The  delusion  of  witchcraft  which  extended  even  to  Puritan  New 
England,  and  has  cost  almost  as  many  victims  as  the  tribunals  of  the 
Inquisition,  has  disappeared  from  all  Christian  nations  forever. 

A  few  words  about  the  relation  of  the  church  to  natural  and  physical 
science. 

Protestants  and  Catholics  alike  unanimously  rejected  the  Copernican 
astronomy  as  a  heresy  fatal  to  the  geocentric  account  of  the  creation  in 


THE  REUNION  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


*  n 


Genesis,  but  after  a  century  of  opposition,  which  culminated  in  the  con¬ 
demnation  of  Galileo  by  the  Roman  Inquisition  under  Urban  VIII.,  they 
have  adopted  it  without  a  dissenting  voice,  and  “  the  earth  still  moves.” 

Similar  concessions  will  be  made  to  modern  geology  and  biology  when 
they  have  passed  the  stage  of  conjecture  and  reached  an  agreement  as  to 
fillets.  The  Bible  does  not  determine  the  age  of  the  earth  or  man,  and 
leaves  a  large  margin  for  difference  of  opinion  even  on  purely  exegetical 
grounds.  The  theory  of  the  evolution  of  animal  life,  far  from  contradicting 
the  fact  of  creation,  presupposes  it,  for  every  evolution  must  have  a  begin¬ 
ning,  and  this  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  an  infinite  intelligence  and 
creative  will.  God’s  power  and  wisdom  are  even  more  wonderful  in  the 
gradual  process  of  evolution. 

TJae  theory  of  historical  development,  which  corresponds  to  the  theory 
of  physical  evolution,  and  preceded  it,  was  first  denounced  by  orthodox 
divines  (within  my  own  recollection)  as  a  dangerous  error  leading  to  infi¬ 
delity,  but  is  now  adopted  by  every  historian,  and  is  indorsed  by  Christ 
Himself  in  the  twin  parables  of  the  mustard  seed  and  the  leaven.  “  First 
the  blade,  then  the  ear,  after  that  the  full  corn  in  the  ear;”  this  is  the 
order  of  the  unfolding  of  the  Christian  life,  both  in  the  individual  and  the 
church.  But  there  is  another  law  of  development  no  hss  important  which 
may  be  called  the  law  of  creative  headships.  Every  important  intellectual 
and  religious  movement  begins  with  a  towering  personality  which  can  not 
be  explained  from  antecedents,  but  marks  a  new  epoch. 

The  Bible,  we  must  all  acknowledge,  is  not,  and  never  claimed  to  be,  a 
guide  of  chronology,  astronomy,  geology,  or  any  other  science,  but  solely  a 
book  of  religion,  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  a  guide  to  holy  living  and 
dying.  There  is,  therefore,  no  room  for  a  conflict  between  the  Bible  and 
science,  faith  and  reason,  authority  and  freedom,  the  church  and  civili¬ 
zation. 

Before  the  reunion  of  Christendom  can  be  accomi)lished,  we  must 
expect  providential  events,  new  pentecosts,  new  reformations — as  great  as 
any  that  have  gone  before.  The  20th  century  has  marvelous  surprises  in 
store  for  the  church  and  the  world,  which  may  surpass  even  those  of  the 
19th.  History  now  moves  with  telegraphic  speed,  and  may  accomplish  the 
work  of  years  in  a  single  day.  The  modern  inventions  of  the  steamboat, 
the  telegraph,  the  power  of  electricity,  the  progress  of  science  and  of  inter¬ 
national  law  (which  regulates  commerce  by  land  and  by  sea,  and  will  in 
due  time  make  an  end  of  war)  link  all  the  civilized  nations  into  one  vast 
brotherhood. 

Let  us  consider  some  of  the  moral  means  by  which  a  similar  affiliation 
and  consolidation  of  the  different  churches  may  be  hastened. 

The  cultivation  of  an  irenic  and  evangelical-catholic  spirit  in  the  personal 
intercourse  with  our  fellow-Christians  of  other  denominations.  We  must 
meet  them  on  a  common  rather  than  on  disputed  grounds,  and  assume  that 
they  are  as  honest  and  earnest  as  we  in  the  pursuit  of  truth.  We  must 
make  allowance  for  differences  in  education  and  surroundings,  which  to  a 
large  extent  account  for  differences  of  opinion.  Courtesy  and  kindness 
conciliate,  while  suspicion  excites  irritation  and  attack.  Controversy  will 
never  cease,  but  the  golden  rule  of  the  most  polemic  among  the  apostles, 
to  “  speak  the  truth  in  love,”  can  not  be  too  often  repeated.  Nor  should  we 
forget  the  seraphic  description  of  love,  which  the  same  apostle  commends 
above  all  other  gifts  and  the  tongues  of  men  and  angels — yea,  even  above 
faith  and  hope. 

Co-operation  in  Christian  and  philanthropic  work  draws  men  together 
and  promotes  their  mutual  confidence  and  regard.  Faith  without  works  is 
dead.  Sentiment  and  talk  about  union  are  idle  without  actual  manifestaf  ion 
in  works  of  charity  and  philanthropy. 

Missionary  societies  should  at  once  come  to  a  definite  agreement 


718 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


prohibiting  all  mutual  interference  in  their  efforts  to  spread  the  gospel  at 
home  and  abroad.  Every  missionary  of  the  cross  should  wish  and  pray  for 
the  prosperity  of  all  other  missionaries,  and  lend  a  helping  hand  in  trouble. 
What  then?  Only  that  in  every  way,  whether  in  pretense  or  in  truth, 
Christ  is  proclaimed;  and  therein  I  rejoice,  yea,  and  will  rejoice. 

It  is  preposterous,  yea,  wicked,  to  trouble  the  mind  of  the  heathen  %r 
of  Roman  Catholic  with  our  domestic  quarrels,  and  to  plant  half  a  dozen 
rival  churches  in  small  towns  where  one  or  two  would  suffice,  thus  saving 
men  and  means.  Unfortunately,  the  sectarian  spirit  and  mistaken  zeal 
for  peculiar  views  and  customs  very  materially  interfere  with  the  success 
of  our  vast  expenditures  and  efforts  for  the  conversion  of  the  world. 

The  study  of  church  history  has  already  been  mentioned  as  an  important 
means  of  correcting  sectarian  prejudices  and  increasing  mutual  apprecia¬ 
tion.  The  study  of  symbolic  or  comparative  theology  is  one  of  the  most 
important  branches  of  history  in  this  respect,  especially  in  our  country, 
where  professors  of  all  the  creeds  of  Christendom  meet  in  daily  contact, 
and  should  become  thoroughly  acquainted  with  one  another. 

We  welcome  to  the  reunion  of  Christendom  all  denominations  which 
have  followed  the  Divine  Master  and  have  done  His  work.  Let  us  forgive 
and  forget  their  many  sins  and  errors,  and  remember  only  their  virtues  and 
merits. 

The  Greek  Church  is  a  glorious  church,  for  in  her  language  have  come 
down  to  us  the  oracles  of  God,  the  septuagint,  the  gospels,  and  epistles; 
hers  are  the  early  confessors  and  martyrs,  the  Christian  fathers,  bishops, 
patriarchs,  and  emperors;  hers  the  immortal  writings  of  Origen,  Eusebius, 
Athanasius,  and  Chrysostom;  hers  the  Ecumenical  Council  andtheNicene 
creed,  which  can  never  die. 

The  Latin  Church  is  a  glorious  church,  for  she  carried  the  treasures  of 
Christian  and  classical  literature  over  the  gulf  of  the  migration  of  nations, 
and  preserved  order  in  the  chaos  of  civil  wars;  she  was  the  alma  mater  of 
the  barbarians  of  Europe;  she  turned  painted  savages  into  civilized  beings, 
and  worshipers  of  idols  into  worshipers  of  Christ;  she  built  up  the  colossal 
structures  of  the  papal  theocracy,  the  cathedrals,  and  the  universities;  she 
produced  the  profound  systems  of  scholastic  and  mystic  theology;  she 
stimulated  and  patronized  the  renaissance,  the  printing  press,  and  the  dis¬ 
covery  of  a  new  world;  she  still  stands,  like  an  immovable  rock,  bearing 
witness  to  the  fundamental  truths  and  facts  of  our  holy  religion,  and  to 
the  catholicity,  unity,  unbroken  continuity,  and  independence  of  the 
church;  and  she  is  as  zealous  as  ever  in  missionary  enterprise  and  self- 
denying  works  of  Christian  charity. 

We  hail  the  Reformation  which  redeemed  us  from  the  yoke  of  spiritual 
despotism,  and  secured  us  religious  liberty,  the  most  precious  of  all  liber¬ 
ties,  and  made  the  Bible  in  every  language  a  book  for  all  classes  and  condi¬ 
tions  of  men. 

The  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  the  first-born  daughter  of  the 
Reformation,  is  a  glorious  church,  for  she  set  the  Word  of  God  above  the 
traditions  of  men,  and  bore  witness  to  the  comforting  truth  of  justification 
by  faith;  she  struck  the  keynote  to  thousands  of  sweet  hymns  in  praise 
of  the  Redeemer;  she  is  boldly  and  reverently  investigating  the  problems 
of  faith  and  philosophy,  and  is  constantly  making  valuable  additions  to 
theological  lore. 

The  Evangelical  Reformed  Church  is  a  glorious  church,  for  she  carried 
reformation  from  the  Alps  and  lakes  of  Switzerland  “to  the  end  of  the 
West”  (to  use  the  words  of  the  Roman  Clement  about  St.  Paul);  she  fur¬ 
nished  more  martyrs  of  conscience  in  Prance  and  the  Netherlands  alone 
than  any  other  church,  even  during  the  first  three  centuries;  she  educated 
heroic  races,  like  the  Huguenots,  the  Dutch,  the  Puritans,  the  Covenanters, 
the  Pilgrim  Fathers,  who,  by  the  fear  of  God^  were  raised  above  the  fear  of 


THE  REUNION  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


719 


tyrants,  and  lived  and  died  for  the  advancement  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty;  she  is  rich  in  learning  and  good  works  of  faith;  she  keeps  pace 
with  all  true  progress;  she  grapples  with  the  problems  and  evils  of  modern 
society;  and  she  sends  the  gospel  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

The  Episcopal  Church  of  England,  the  most  churchly  of  the  reformed 
family,  is  a  glorious  church,  for  she  gave  to  the  English-speaking  world  the 
best  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  best  prayer  book;  she  preserved 
the  order  and  dignity  of  the  ministry  and  public  worship;  she  nursed  the 
knowledge  and  love  of  antiquity,  and  enriched  the  treasury  of  Christian 
literature,  and  by  the  Anglo-Catholic  revival  under  the  moral,  intellectual, 
and  poetic  leadership  of  three  shining  lights  of  Oxford — Pusey,  Newman, 
and  Keble— she  infused  new  life  into  her  institutions  and  customs  and 
prepared  the  way  for  a  better  understanding  between  Anglicanism  and 
Romanism. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  the  most  flourishing  daughter  of 
Geneva — as  John  Knox,  “  who  never  feared  the  face  of  man,”  was  the  most 
faithful  disciple  of  Calvin — is  a  glorious  church,  for  she  turned  a  barren 
country  into  a  garden,  and  raised  a  poor  and  semi-barbarous  people  to  a 
level  with  the  richest  and  most  intelligent  nations;  she  diffused  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  Bible  and  a  love  of  the  kirk  in  the  huts  of  the  peasants  as 
well  as  the  palaces  of  the  noblemen;  she  has  always  stood  up  for  church 
order  and  discipline,  for  the  rights  of  the  laity,  and  first  and  last  for  the 
crown-rights  of  King  Jesus,  which  are  above  all  earthly  crowns,  even  that 
of  the  proudest  monarch  in  whose  dominion  the  sun  never  sets. 

The  Congregational  Church  is  a  glorious  church,  for  she  has  taught  the 
principle  and  approved  the  capacity  of  congregational  independence,  and 
self-government  based  upon  a  living  faith  in  Christ,  without  diminishing 
the  effect  of  voluntary  co-operation  in  the  Master’s  service;  and  has  laid 
the  foundation  of  New  England,  with  its  literary  and  theological  institu¬ 
tions  and  high  social  culture. 

The  Baptist  Church  is  a  glorious  church,  for  she  has  borne,  and  still 
bears,  testimony  to  the  primitive  mode  of  baptism,  to  the  purity  of  the 
congregation,  to  the  separation  of  church  and  state,  and  the  liberty  of  con¬ 
science;  and  has  given  to  the  world  the  “Pilgrim’s  Progress”  of  Bunyan, 
such  preachers  as  Robert  Hall  and  Charles  H.  Spurgeon,  and  such 
missionaries  as  Carey  and  Judson. 

The  Methodist  Church,  the  church  of  John  Wesley,  Charles  Wesley, 
and  George  Whitefield — three  of  the  best  and  most  apostolic  Englishmen, 
abounding  in  useful  labors,  the  first  as  a  ruler  and  organizer,  the  second  as 
a  hymnist,  the  third  as  an  evangelist — is  a  glorious  church,  for  she  pro¬ 
duced  the  greatest  religious  revival  since  the  day  of  Pentecost;  she  preaches 
a  free  and  full  salvation  to  all;  she  is  never  afraid  to  fight  the  devil,  and 
she  is  hopefully  and  cheerfully  marching  on,  in  both  hemispheres,  as  an 
army  of  conquest. 

The  Society  of  Friends,  though  one  of  the  smallest  tribes  in  Israel,  is  a 
glorious  society,  for  it  has  borne  witness  to  the  inner  light,  which  “  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world”;  it  has  proved  the  superiority  of 
the  spirit  over  all  forms;  it  has  done  noble  service  in  promoting  tolerance 
and  liberty,  in  prison  reform,  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  and  other  works 
of  Christian  philanthropy. 

The  Brotherhood  of  the  Moravians,  founded  by  Count  Zinzendorf — a 
true  nobleman  of  nature  and  of  grace — is  a  glorious  brotherhood,  for  it 
is  the  pioneer  of  heathen  missions,  and  of  Christian  union  among  Protest¬ 
ant  churches;  it  was  like  an  oasis  in  the  desert  of  German  rationalism 
at  home,  while  its  missionaries  went  forth  to  the  lowest  savages  in  distant 
lands  to  bring  them  to  Christ.  I  beheld  with  wonder  and  admiration 
a  venerable  Moravian  couple  devoting  their  lives  to  the  care  of  hopeless 
lepers  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem, 


720 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Nor  should  we  forget  the  services  of  many  who  are  accounted  heretics. 

The  Waldenses  were  witnesses  of  a  pure  and  simple  faith  in  times  of 
superstition,  and  having  outlived  many  bloody  persecutions,  are  now  mission¬ 
aries  among  the  descendants  of  their  persecutors. 

The  Anabaptists  and  Socinians,  who  were  so  cruelly  treated  in  the 
16th  century  by  Protestants  and  Romanists  alike,  were  the  first  to  raise 
their  voice  for  religious  liberty  and  the  voluntary  principle  in  religion. 

Unitarianism  is  a  serious  departure  from  the  Trinitarian  faith  of  orthodox 
Christendom,  but  it  did  good  service  as  a  protest  against  tritheism,  and 
against  a  stiff,  narrow,  and  uncharitable  orthodoxy.  It  brought  into  prom¬ 
inence  the  human  perfection  of  Christ’s  character,  and  illustrated  the 
effect  of* His  example  in  the  noble  lives  and  devotional  writings  of  such  men 
as  Channing  and  Martineau.  It  has  also  given  us  some  of  our  purest  and 
sweetest  poets,  as  Emerson,  Bryant,  Longfellow,  and  Lowell,  whom  all  good 
men  must  honor  and  love  for  their  lofty  moral  tone. 

Universalism  may  be  condemned  as  a  doctrine;  but  it  has  a  right  to  pro¬ 
test  against  a  gross  materialistic  theory  of  hell  with  all  its  Dantesque 
horrors,  and  against  the  once  widely  spread  popular  belief  that  the  over¬ 
whelming  majority  of  the  human  race,  including  countless  millions  of 
innocent  infants,  will  forever  perish.  Nor  should  we  forget  that  some  of 
the  greatest  divines,  from  Origen  and  Gregory,  of  Nyssa,  down  to  Bengel 
and  Schleiermacher,  believed  in,  or  hoped  for,  the  ultimate  return  of  all 
ational  creatures  to  the  God  of  love,  who  created  them  in  His  own  image 
and  for  His  own  glory. 

And,  coming  down  to  the  latest  organization  of  Christian  work,  which 
does  not  claim  to  be  a  church,  but  which  is  a  help  to  all  churches— the  Sal¬ 
vation  Army — we  hail  it,  in  spite  of  its  strange  and  abnormal  methods,  as 
the  most  effective  revival  agency  since  the  days  of  Wesley  and  Whitefleld; 
for  it  descends  to  the  lowest  depths  of  degradation  and  misery,  and  brings 
the  light  and  comfort  of  the  gospel  to  the  slums  of  our  large  cities.  Let 
us  thank  God  for  the  noble  men  and  women  who,  under  the  inspiration  of 
the  love  of  Christ,  and  unmindful  of  hardship,  ridicule,  and  persecution, 
sacrifice  their  lives  to  the  rescue  of  the  hopeless  outcasts  of  society.  Truly 
these  good  Samaritans  are  an  honor  to  the  name  of  Christ  and  a  benedic¬ 
tion  to  a  lost  world. 

There  is  room  for  all  these  and  many  other  churches  and  societies  in  the 
kingdom  of  God,  whose  height  and  depth,  and  length  and  breadth,  variety 
and  beauty,  surpass  human  comprehension. 


INTERDENOMINATIONAL  COMITY. 

REV.  D.  L.  WHITMAN  OF  COLBY  UNIVERSITY. 

A  double  process  has  marked  our  age.  Analysis  of  method,  motive,  and 
faith  have  given  ever  closer  lines  of  diversion  and  minuter  discrimination 
between  shades  of  difference.  On  the  other  hand,  a  very  passion  of  organi¬ 
zation  has  made  combination  natural  and  necessary.  We  can  hardly  speak 
of  disintegration  and  reintegration,  because  the  two  phases  of  the  process 
have  been  simultaneous  rather  than  successive,  and  the  result  appears 
oftener  in  new  wholes  than  in  the  old  whole  restored.  At  the  same  time 
that  bodies  within  a  system  have  been  breaking  up  into  sections  of  varying 
importance  and  varying  degrees  of  interdependence,  the  system  itself  has 
taken  on  new  relations,  built  into  some  new  and  larger  system. 

In  no  sphere  has  this  process  been  more  active  than  in  the  relig¬ 
ious.  Inquiry  has  been  made  into  men’s  faith  with  zeal  that  would  have 
fitted  the  middle  ages.  Phases  of  belief  have  been  defended  by  apologetics 


IN TERDENOMINA I^IONAL  COMITY. 


721 


worthy  of  the  fathers.  Denominational  lines  have  been  strengthened. 
Division  within  denominational  lines,  always  with  conviction  of  right,  often 
with  kindest  feeling,  has  been  carried  to  an  extreme  nicety.  At  the  same 
time  a  large  and  generous  fellowship  has  been  growing.  Bigotry  is  less  and 
less  common.  Emphasis  of  one  phase  of  truth  has  ceased  to  be  a  reason 
for  fighting  men  who  emphasize  a  different  phase.  The  common  element 
of  truth  is  seen  to  be  precious.  Allegiance  to  one  lord  has  begotten  com¬ 
mon  faith  and  mutual  love.  The  relation  of  men  as  brethren  is  recognized 
as  never  before. 

It  is  the  second  phase  of  this  process  that  concerns  us  most.  So  far,  in 
religious  experience,  its  expression  has  been  more  formal  than  practical. 
Various  schemes  of  federation  have  been  proposed.  Results  indicate  that 
as  yet  organic  union  is  not  possible.  But  while  organic  relation  is  not  yet, 
and  may  never  be  possible,  tokens  multiply  that  denominational  principles 
may  be  so  regarded  as  to  command  the  benefits  of  federation  without  the 
ill  adjustment  of  an  organism  manufactured,  not  developed.  Effort  to 
realize  this  has  already  been  made.  It  is  the  principle  underlying  that 
effort  we  mean  when  we  say  interdenominational  comity.  It  will  not  be 
amiss  for  us  to  consider  some  conditions  favorable  to  such  effort,  the  prin¬ 
ciples  on  which  it  rests,  and  the  attempt  to  bring  such  effort  to  practical 
issue.  The  conditions  favorable  to  interdenominational  comity  are  pre¬ 
eminently  American.  The  comparatively  homogeneous  populations  of 
other  countries  make  certain  of  them  impossible  in  those  countries.  They 
mainly  concern  Christians.  Interdenominational  comity  presupposes 
denominational  life  and  denominational  interests.  Only  indirectly  can  the 
question  concern  those  who  are  not  Christians. 

Noteworthy  among  these  conditions  are  the  following: 

1.  Recognition  of  change  in  the  character  of  the  work  to  be  done. 

This  is  emphatically  an  American  condition.  History  has  been  made  so 

rapidly  here  that  historical  text-books  published  yesterday  are  hopelessly 
out  of  date  to-day.  States  have  sprung  up  in  a  night.  The  center  of 
population  has  shifted  year  by  year.  The  character  of  the  population  has 
changed  as  often.  For  forty  years  number  and  variety  have  increased  with 
every  incoming  steamer.  Changes  have  been  so  rapid  that  it  is  only  by 
figure  of  speech  that  we  can  speak  of  an  American  type.  No  criticism  is 
intended  even  in  thought,  the  fact  is  simply  recorded  as  a  fact.  The  most 
important  cities  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard  are  controlled  by  men  of 
foreign  birth  or  at  least  of  foreign  extraction.  Many  central  and  Western 
cities  show  the  same  record  only  with  change  of  names.  Whole  sections 
have  been  transformed.  New  England  is  no  longer  Puritan.  Tested  by 
church  membership,  it  is  not  even  Protestant. 

Heterogeneity,  rapid  growth,  and  shifting  of  elements  of  population  have 
made  old  methods  insufficient.  With  characteristic  hopefulness,  we  have 
persuaded  ourselves  that,  because  the  old  was  good  for  old  conditions,  it 
was  good  for  all  conditions.  Only  little  by  little  have  we  been  undeceived. 
What  to  do  is  not  clear.  That  something  must  be  done  is  beyond  question. 

2.  Recognition  of  wasteful  methods. 

Edward  Bellamy  pictures  state  of  society  in  which  competition  in 
ordinary  sense  has  been  outgrown.  The  interests  of  society,  as  a  whole, 
have  forced  into  insubordination  the  interest  of  classes,  whether  of  trade  or 
position.  An  approximation  to  that  ideal  in  religious  work  would  be  a  good 
thing.  Denominational  competition  has  at  times  been  sharp.  Denomina¬ 
tional  jealousy  has  not  been  wholly  unknown.  Men  and  money  have  been 
expended  by  each  body,  irrespective  of  what  others  were  doing.  Towns 
with  a  population  of  less  than  a  thousand  have  three,  four,  or  five  churches. 
This  means  several  men  where  at  most  two  are  needed,  and  where  one  could 
do  the  work.  The  result  is  meager  support  for  all,  small  congregations,  and 
emphasis  of  peculiarities  which  have  no  salvation  in  them. 


722 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


In  the  newer  portions  of  the  country,  points  of  strategic  importance  are 
occupied  to  the  extent  of  congestion.  This  makes  inevitable  neglect  of 
territory  less  immediately  promising.  Naturally  enough,  the  same  method 
is  carried  into  the  field  of  foreign  missions,  though  there  the  work  is  so 
wide  that  the  effect  is  not  so  noticeable.  Workers  of  different  names  are 
stationed  in  comparative  proximity,  while  great  stretches  are  still  unoc¬ 
cupied.  At  home  and  abroad  some  ground  is  covered  two  or  three  times, 
other  ground  not  at  all.  When  we  think  of  this,  we  say  instinctively: 

“  It  is  not  well.” 

3.  Conviction  of  inadequacy  of  resources  at  present  available. 

Five  loaves  and  two  fishes  feed  a  multitude  when  God  breaks  them. 
From  the  human  point  of  view,  however,  we  have  to  repeat  Andrew’s  words: 

“  What  are  these  among  so  many?  ”  One  may  chase  a  thousand,  and  two  put 
ten  thousand  to  flight,  when  the  Lord  strengthens  the  arm  of  His  servants. 
Bat  the  fact  remains  that  three-quarters  of  the  world  is  as  yet  unevangel¬ 
ized  in  any  proper  sense.  Much  has  been  done.  More  yet  is  now  immedi¬ 
ately  possible.  Men  and  means  are  more  easily  available  than  was  formerly 
the  case.  Intelligence,  zeal,  and  ability  are  finding  their  right  combination. 
But  the  need  is  still  comparatively  infinite  in  comparison  with  the  supply. 
Even  in  the  United  States,  ordained  ministers  average  but  little  more  than 
one  in  a  thousand  of  population.  In  many  Christianized  countries  the 
proportion  is  still  smaller. 

In  lines  of  foreign  evangelization  the  disproportion  of  workers  to  popu¬ 
lation  is  startling.  For  J apan  there  are  175  ordained  missionaries  to  40,- 
000,000  people.  Adding  lay  missionaries,  wives  of  missionaries,  lay  and 
ordained,  and  all  other  woman  workers,  the  proportion  is  less  than  500  to 
40,000,000,  or  one  to  80,000.  In  China  it  is  a  total  of  1,300  to  a  total  of 
400,000,000,  or  one  to  300,000.  Even  assuming  the  best  possible  distribution 
of  workers,  the  disproportion  is  fearful.  It  is  made  still  greater  by  methods 
already  suggested. 

4.  Better  conception  of  the  Christian  mission. 

The  Christian  spirit  has  been  growing  more  Christlike.  More  brotherly 
relations  exist  between  representatives  of  different  creeds.  Men  have  scant 
hope  of  peace  together  in  heaven  if  they  can  not  abide  in  peace  together  on 
earth.  The  old  enmities  are  impossible.  Faiths  are  less  than  faith.  Denom¬ 
inations  are  the  servants  of  the  kingdom.  Never  again  can  we  reach  the 
old  sectarian  creed,  “  The  earth  belongs  to  the  Lord’s  people,  and  we  are 
the  people.”  Interchange  of  courtesy  has  become  common.  Movements  of 
a  co-operative  character  have  been  successfully  conducted  in  evangelistic 
work  and  social  reform. 

A  new  and  larger  thought  is  cherished.  The  Christian  mission  is  to 
preach  the  gospel.  More  than  the  local  church  is  the  universal  church 
—  no  ecclesiastical  body,  but  those  in  every  place  who  call  upon  the  name. 
Not  as  if  the  hand  were  everything,  or  the  foot,  or  the  eye,  or  the  tongue, 
but  all  as  members  of  one  body  which  can  prosper  and  be  in  health  only  as 
each  member  is  found  faithful,  do  we  see  our  relation  to  Christ.  And,. first 
as  a  glimmer,  then  a  dawning,  then  full  light,  has  come  the  conception 
that  over  the  ages  the  Master  is  saying  now  to  His  disciples:  “  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  the  whole  creation.” 

These  conditions  in  themselves  amount  to  little.  As  conditions,  how¬ 
ever,  they  must  arise  before  better  things  could  come.  They  are  of  value 
as  making  imperative  that  for  which  they  have  cleared  the  way. 

The  principles  of  interdenominational  comity  are,  in  the  main,  three: 

1.  Different  interpretations  of  scripture  give  rise  to  different  ecclesias¬ 
tical  organizations. 

We  are  bound  to  assure  a  good  conscience  for  every  man.  What  each' 
does  presumably  he  does  in  accordance  with  his  conception  of  the  will  of 
God.  Without  this  assumption  we  inevitably  fall  into  the  error^of  supposing 


INTERDENOMINATIONAL  COMITY. 


723 


that  we  alone  possess  the  spirit  of  truth.  In  this  assumption  lies  the 
secret  of  denominational  life.  In  many  cases,  no  doubt,  appeal  is  made  in 
the  first  instance  to  a  denominational  creed.  In  some  cases  it  is  painfully 
evident  that  such  creed  is  accepted  as  the  be-all  and  end-all  of  denomina¬ 
tional  faith. 

But  the  larger  view  alone  is  intelligent  which  regards  creeds  as  provisional 
statements  for  the  sake  of  clearness,  and  definiteness  of  what  the  Word 
of  God  teaches.  It  is  worth  while  to  emphasize  this,  for  a  short  cut  to 
Christian  union  is  supposed  by  many  to  lie  through  a  total  ignoring  of 
creeds.  “  Stop  subscribing  to  creeds  and  bring  faith  at  once  to  the  test  of 
scripture,”  say  the  apostles  of  the  new  way.  Very  good.  But  creeds  are 
simply  the  interpretation  and  formulation  of  what  the  makers  of  creeds 
understand  scripture  to  teach.  A  creed  is  doomed  as  soon  as  it  is  ^shown 
to  be  out  of  line  with  scripture. 

Thus,  when  we  have  abolished  creeds,  instead  of  having  done  everyth  ing, 
we  have  done  nothing.  Forced  back,  as  is  right,  to  scripture  as  the  ulti¬ 
mate  rule  of  doctrine  and  life,  we  face  the  fact  that  no  two  men  understand 
the  message  of  scripture  in  precisely  the  same  way.  The  truths  that  save 
are  plain  beyond  question.  The  Fatherhood  of  God,  redemption  through 
Jesus  Christ,  sanctification  by  the  Holy  Spirit — no  man  need  remain  in 
doubt  concerning  these.  But  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  organization,  the 
methods  of  Christian  benevolence,  the  details  of  Christian  experience  are 
not  described.  Principles  are  laid  down,  to  some  extent  hints  are  given, 
but  that  is  all.  It  could  not  well  be  otherwise  if  the  word  was  to  have  per¬ 
manent  significance. 

Further,  in  all  revelation  the  subjective  element  is  large.  Our  Lord 
could  not  declare  His  message  all  at  once,  even  to  His  immediate  followers. 
Little  by  little,  as  they  were  able  to  bear  it.  He  taught  them.  Revelation 
is  conditioned  upon  capacity  to  receive.  And  even  where  there  is  ability  to 
receive,  the  exact  meaning  will  depend  upon  personal  experience.  Two 
men  may  use  the  same  words  and  in  the  main  their  understanding  of  these 
words  be  the  same,  but  they  will  attach  to  those  words  in  their  finer  shades 
precisely  the  meaning  which  their  own  experience  gives  them.  The  same 
truth  finds  different  expression  in  different  lives.  Interpretation  of  script¬ 
ure  is  subject  to  this  general  condition.  ^ 

With  the  best  intention  in  the  world  men  will  understand  the  details  of 
the  gospel  differently.  Different  men  will  emphasize  different  doctrines. 
According  as  one  or  another  doctrine  is  emphasized  the  spiritual  life  will 
vary  in  expression.  Expressions,  whether  in  word,  deed,  or  symbol,  tend  to 
become  fixed.  So  different  types  of  religious  organization  are  developed. 
Denominational  life  finds  its  explanation  in  this. 

A  denomination  is  a  body  of  Christians  basing  their  faith  on  the  Word 
of  God,  but  understanding  the  details  of  duty  differently  enough  from  other 
bodies  of  Christians  to  warrant  a  different  name.  The  true  conception  of 
denominationalism  sees  behind  it  the  Word  of  God,  with  liberty  of  con¬ 
science  and  consequent  possibility  of  honest  difference  of  judgment.  The 
difference  is  at  bottom  difference  of  judgment;  no  more,  no  less.  Back  of 
all  denominational  names  is  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  and  Christian  fellowship. 
No  one  denomination  is  all.  Each  is  part,  according  to  its  light  serving  all. 
So  the  whole  Christian  world  can  say:  “I  believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church.  I  believe  in  the  communion  of  saints.”  But  it  is  only  on  basal 
truth  that  agreement  has  been  reached.  There  are  140  denominations  in 
the  United  States  alone.  For  the  entire  Christian  body  the  number  would 
be  considerably  increased.  And  the  great  majority  vindicate  their  exist¬ 
ence  by  appeal  to  the  Word  of  God.  It  follows  easily  and  inevitably  that 
denominational  organizations  will  continue  until  men  agree  upon  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  scripture.  Thus,  apart  from  all  other  considerations,  we  find 
a  working  explanation  of  the  existence  of  different  religious  bodies. 


724 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


2.  Intelligent  loyalty  to  denominational  interests  is  a  worthy  sentiment. 

Strictly  speaking,  there  is  no  Catholic  church  as  an  ecclesiastical  organi¬ 
zation.  It  is  a  spiritual  body  alone,  which  shows  the  marks  of  catholicity 
in  the  wide  sense.  Back  of  all  local,  provincial,  or  national  bodies,  embrac¬ 
ing  all,  it  stands  an  ideal  whose  existence  we  acknowledge  when  we  say, 
“  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,”  whose  realization  is  in  part 
secured  by  the  bodies  which  bear  its  name,  whose  perfect  realization  is 
sought  when  we  pray:  “Thy  kingdom  come.”  Our  inspiration  comes  from 
this  ideal.  We  are  working  toward  a  better  conception  of  it.  But  as  yet 
our  largest  attainment  toward  its  accomplishment  has  taken  shape  in 
denominational  life. 

This  is  likely  still  to  be  the  case  in  great  measure.  When  we  recall  the 
origin  of  denominational  organization  we  do  not  wonder  that  the  facts 
should  be  as  they  are.  When  we  consider  what  has  been  brought  to  pass 
through  the  denominational  agencies,  we  may  doubt  whether,  under  exist¬ 
ing  conditions,  such  results  could  have  been  secured  otherwise.  Much  con¬ 
demnation  of  denominational  life  is  sheer  nonsense.  More  yet  is  product  of 
misconception.  Ignorance,  wrong  point  of  view,  mistakeh  conviction  of 
monopoly  of  truth,  any  or  all  of  these  will  account  for  unfavorable  criticism. 
As  long  as  the  right  of  private  interpretation  is  allowed,  that  is,  as  long  as 
spiritual  liberty  is  possible,  every  man  is  bound  to  obey  God’s  Word  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  largest  light  he  can  find  for  it.  No  doctrine  of  conscience  that 
can  stand  will  permit  less  than  this. 

Judgment  may  err,  but  a  man  is  bound  to  act  according  to  his  convic¬ 
tion.  The  good  and  evil  of  denominationalism  rest  upon  that.  Sufficient 
data,  correct  understanding,  and  right  will  mean  strength.  Opposite  con¬ 
ditions  means  weakness.  In  other  words,  that  is  true  of  practical  spiritual 
relations,  which  is  true  of  all  life.  And  at  the  same  time  that  personal 
conviction  is  leading  along  denominational  lines,  this  advantage  is  added, 
that  interests  comparatively  localized  and  definite  appeal  to  a  man  as 
more  general  interests  can  not. 

Narrowness,  bigotry,  jealousy,  strife  are  not  at  all  necessary  even  when 
different  lines  of  faith  and  action  are  followed.  Nay,  rather  right  con¬ 
ception  of  opportunity  begets  generous  emulation  that  each  may  excel  in 
tire  fruits  by  which  worth  is  known.  This  is  the  bet'ter  side  of  denomina¬ 
tionalism.  In  recent  decades  it  is  also  the  larger  side.  The  old  bitter¬ 
ness  can  never  return.  The  old  claim  to  exclusive  possession  of  truth  can 
not  return.  Instead  may  be  found  conviction  that  knowledge  at  best  is 
but  partial;  that  our  formula  is  our  statement  of  the  truths  which  seem 
supreme,  and  that  our  duty  as  a  body  of  believers  is  to  translate  those 
truths  into  life.  Denominational  loyalty  at  bottom  means  only  this,  and 
this  must  be  counted  good. 

3.  Christian  interests  are  larger  than  denominational  interests. 

All  truths  are  true,  but  not  all  are  of  equal  importance.  There  is  such  a 
thing  as  a  system  of  truth.  In  a  system  right  subordination  is  indispensa¬ 
ble.  One  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  comity,  whatever  the  sphere, 
is  that  emphasis  may  be  laid  upon  the  supreme  things  without  damage  to 
things  relatively  unimportant.  The  difficulty  comes  in  getting  the 
emphasis  rightly  placed.  A  man  responds  to  personal  interests  more 
quickly  than  to  the  interest  of  a  stranger.  The  near  seems  larger  than  the 
distant.  This  life  is  more  real  than  the  life  to  come.  So  men  deceive 
themselves  when  they  intend  to  be  fair.  The  work  of  the  local  body  is 
magnified  out  of  all  proportion.  The  interests  which  appeal  directly  are 
mistaken  for  the  only  interests. 

There  is  safety  only  in  a  larger  view.  The  practical  effort  comes  out  in 
the  local  body.  Where  a  man  is,  his  work  must  be  done.  The  centers  of 
activity  are  the  bodies  of  men  and  women  who  in  the  sphere  of  daily  life 
are  doing  their  duty  for  love  of  God.  Denominational  life  is  simply  the 


INTERDENOMINATIONAL  COMITY. 


725 


enlargement  of  this.  But  activity  in  the  local  body  can  be  permanently 
effective  only  as  there  is  thought  of  larger  things.  God  whom  we  serve 
and  worship  is  God  of  the  whole  earth.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Savior  of  the 
world.  Faith  and  hope  and  love  are  universal  in  their  reach. 

The  kingdom  of  heaven  has  relation  to  all  men.  Man  by  man  no  doubt 
the  kingdom  comes,  but  only  in  men  taken  together  is  its  full  realization 
found.  The  redeemed  life  is  not  individual,  but  social.  The  individual 
finds  his  full  development  only  in  society.  So  the  individual  life  and  the 
larger  combinations,  whether  family,  community,  or  state,  in  which  succes¬ 
sively  it  finds  itself,  have  reference  to  the  gathering  of  all  the  redeemed 
into  one  body,  of  which  Christ  is  the  head.  It  is  this  larger  thought  that 
furnishes  the  permanent  element  in  the  progress  of  Christian  endeavor. 

It  is  this  that  interdenominational  comity  emphasizes.  Here  is  a  world 
to  be  redeemed.  The  preaching  of  redemption  is  the  mission  of  the  fol¬ 
lowers  of  Christ.  Called  out  by  the  principle  of  election,  which  is  appoint¬ 
ment  to  pre-eminent  service,  those  who  have  been  taught  of  God  are  to 
impart  what  they  have  received.  Faith  in  a  common  Lord  unites  them. 
A  common  purpose  inspires  them.  The  body  thus  formed  is  the  church, 
that  i^rtion  of  the  world  at  any  time  filled  with  the  spirit  of  Christ.  Names 
will  differ,  but  essential  belief  will  be  the  same.  When  we  consider  our 
common  work,  a  large  experience  of  grace  or  a  large  view  of  the  kingdom 
compels  wonder  that  Christians  of  various  names  have  forgotten  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  the  kingdom  as  a  whole  in  zeal  for  subordinate  concerns.  A  new 
and  better  thought  insists  that  henceforth  the  error  be  not  repeated.  My 
life  if  not  the  supreme  thing,  nor  my  church,  nor  my  denomination.  These 
are  but  instruments  for  God’s  service.  The  true  interests  of  all  are  secured 
by  bringing  individual  lives  and  denominational  orders  into  subordination 
to  the  main  doctrine,  which  is  to  know  God,  and  to  the  main  work,  which 
is  to  save  men. 

A  good  beginning  has  already  been  made  in  practical  effort  in  interde¬ 
nominational  comity  toward  giving  expression  to  the  principles  outlined. 
Sometimes  the  work  has  been  local  and  temporary.  Two,  three,  half  a 
dozen  churches  in  a  community  have  united  in  evangelistic  or  benevolent 
undertaking.  It  is  a  common  thing  for  different  denominations  to  combine 
for  the  canvass  of  a  city  for  one  purpose  or  another.  In  some  cases  organi¬ 
zations  have  been  formed  of  a  permanent  character.  Certain  forms  of  city 
mission  work  illustrate  this.  In  the  same  line  is  the  action  of  neighboring 
pastors  in  some  country  districts,  who  have  combined  for  more  effective 
service.  There  is  much  promise  of  good  in  such  combinations  as  soon  as  it 
is  understood  that  the  salvation  of  men  takes  precedence  of  the  question  of 
denominational  tenets.  The  Evangelical  Alliance  has  done  much,  as  have 
also  interdenominational  congresses,  which  find  their  legitimate  outcome  in 
the  World’s  Parliament  of  Religions. 

To  get  somewhat  in  detail  the  working  of  some  one  effort  in  the  line  of 
comity,  it  is  worth  while  to  outline  a  movement  which  for  three  years  has 
been  going  on  in  the  State  of  Maine.  For  a  long  time  it  has  been  custom¬ 
ary  there,  as  in  many  parts  of  the  country,  for  the  different  denominations 
to  extend  greetings  at  their  annual  meetings.  Three  years  ago,  when  the 
Congregationalist  body  was  in  session,  the  fraternal  delegate  of  the  East¬ 
ern  Maine  Methodist  Conference  was  unable  to  be  present,  and  therefore 
sent  his  greeting  by  letter.  In  that  letter  was  expressed  a  desire  for  closer 
denominational  relations.  The  sentiment  was  as  follows: 

The  kind  expressions  of  regard  annually  exchanged  are  a  great  advance  over 
the  relations  existing  a  generation  or  two  past.  A  more  intimate  acquaintance 
with  one  another  has  increased  respect  for  different  denominations.  Having 
advanced  thus  far,  would  it  not  be  well  for  us  to  consider  something  even  more 
practical  in  our  mutual  relations?  It  does  not  appear  that  any  organic  union  of 
Protestant  denominations  would  be  less  than  a  calamity.  But  at  present  much 
energy  is  wasted.  Would  it  not  be  well  for  churches  to  consider,  through  their 


726 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


representatives,  some  plan  for  oo-operation  where  the  work  is  mutual?  The 
unchurched  masses  can  be  reached  only  by  practical  co-operation  of  different 
churches.  What  we  need  is  not  a  common  creed,  nor  a  common  church  polity; 
not  to  supplant  one  another’s  opinions  or  methods;  but  such  a  working  together 
in  certain  lines  as  shall  save  the  energy  and  money  now  wasted  and  bring  the 
power  and  life  of  the  gospel  to  bear  practical  fruit  in  the  community  where  we 
exist. 

This  sensible  suggestion  met  cordial  response.  Steps  were  at  once 
taken  to  bring  together  committees  from  the  Baptist,  Christian,  Congrega- 
tionalist.  Free  Baptist,  and  Methodist  denominations.  A  meeting  of  these 
committees  was  held  December  15, 1890.  Out  of  twenty  delegates,  sixteen 
were  present.  The  spirit  of  the  meeting  was  that  of  fellowship  for  service. 
A  statement  of  principle  was  prepared  and  provision  made  for  a  similar 
meeting  to  be  held  the  following  year.  Such  a  meeting  was  held  Novem¬ 
ber  4, 1891.  At  this  meeting  progress  in  comity  was  evident  from  the  man¬ 
ner  in  which  concrete  cases  as  well  as  principles  were  discussed.  The 
desirability  of  a  more  permanent  organization  became  apparent  and  the 
following  resolution  was  adopted: 

We  recommend  to  the  State  denominational  bodies,  at  theirlannual  meetings  of 
1892,  the  appointment  of  a  permanent  commission,  to  which  practical  and  concrete 
cases  involving  matters  of  international  comity  may  be  referred. 

Favorable  response  was  given  by  all  bodies  concerned  except  the  Meth¬ 
odist.  This  body,  though  many  of  its  leading  pastors  heartily  supported 
the  action  of  the  conference,  objected  to  certain  of  the  resolutions  adopted 
by  the  interdenominational  conference  of  the  preceding  year,  and  refused 
to  adopt  the  plan  of  comity  proposed,  but  sent  delegates  to  sit  in  confer¬ 
ence.  Notwithstanding  this  exception,  an  interdenominational  commission 
was  organized,  a  constitution  adopted,  and  a  new  statement  of  principles 
formulated.  Happily,  the  new  statement  proved  satisfactory  to  the  Meth¬ 
odist  body.  During  the  present  year  they  have  formally  indorsed  the 
movement,  and  the  Methodists  of  Maine  now  stand  with  the  other  denom¬ 
inations  pledged  to  interdenominational  comity.  As  far  as  an  authorized 
statement  is  desired,  it  may  best  be  found  in  the  constitution  and  platform 
already  mentioned. 

Constitution  of  the  interdenominational  commission  on  church  work  in 
the  State  of  Maine: 

Abticle  1.  Object.  The  object  of  this  commission  shall  be  to  promote  co-op¬ 
eration  in  the  organization  and  maintenance  of  churches  in  Maine;  to  prevent 
waste  of  resources  and  effort  in  the  smaller  towns,  and  to  stimulate  missionary 
work  in  destitute  regions. 

Art.  2.  Membership.  The  members  of  this  commission  shall  consist  of  three 
delegates  each  from  the  Baptist,  Christian,  Congregational,  and  Free  Baptist 
denominations,  and  of  two  members  each  from  the  Maine  and  East  Maine  con¬ 
ferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  elected  by  their  respective  bodies. 
One  member  from  each  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  conferences  shall  be  elected 
annually  for  the  period  of  two  years.  One  member  from  each  of  the  other  bodies 
shall  be  elected  annually  for  the  period  of  three  years. 

Art.  3.  Officers.  The  officers  of  this  commission  shall  be  a  president,  a  vice- 
preddent,  and  a  secretary  who  shall  be  treasurer.  The  officers  shall  hold  their 
respective  offices  one  year,  or  until  others  shall  be  chosen. 

Art.  4,  Executive  Committee.  There  shall  be  an  executive  committee,  con¬ 
sisting  of  one  member  from  each  denomination,  of  which  the  president"  and  sec¬ 
retary  shall  be  members,  and  in  which  they  shall  act  in  their respecti\e  capacities. 
It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  executive  committee  to  consider  questions  of  comity 
which  may  be  referred  to  them,  and  to  make  recommendations  in  behalf  of  the 
commission. 

Art.  5,  Meetings.  There  shall  be  an  annual  meeting  at  such  time  and  place, 
and  of  such  a  character  as  the  executive  committee  shall  determine.  Special 
meetings  of  the  commission  may  be  called  at  any  time  by  the  president,  or  at  the 
request  of  three  members. 

Art.  6.  Quorum.  Sevenmembers  of  the  commission  shall  constitute  a  quorum 
for  the  transaction  of  business. 

Art.  7.  Amendments.  This  constitution  may  be  amended  at  any  regular 
meeting  of  the  commission,  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  com¬ 
mission. 

Platform  of  the  interdenominational  commission  on  church  work  in  the 
State  of  Maine: 


INTERDENOMINATIONAL  COMITY. 


727 


Recognizing:  the  evident  desire  of  the  evangelical  denominations  of  Maine  to 
do  more  eificiciiL  wuri;  lor  our  common  Lord,  and 

Believing  that  tne  Holy  [Spirit  is  moving  Christians  toward  practical  co-ope¬ 
ration; 

We  rejoice  in  the  progress  already  made  in  this  direction,  and  desire  to  reaf¬ 
firm  our  conviction  as  follows; 

That  church  extinction  into  destitute  communities  should  be  conducted  as 
far  as  practical  according  to  the  following  considerations,  viz  : 

1.  No  community  in  which  any  denomination  has  legitimate  claims  should  be 
entered  by  any  other  denomination  through  its  official  agencies  without  confer¬ 
ence  with  the  denomination  or  denominations  having  said  claims. 

2.  A  feeble  church  should  be  revived,  if  possible,  rather  than  a  new  one  estab¬ 
lished  to  become  its  rival. 

3.  The  preferences  of  a  community  should  always  he  regarded  by  denomina¬ 
tional  committees,  missionary  agents,  and  individual  workers. 

4.  Those  denominations  having  churches  nearest  at  hand,  should,  other  things 
being  equal,  be  recognized  as  in  the  most  advantageous  position  to  encourage 
and  aid  a  new  enterprise  in  their  vicinity. 

5.  In  case  one  denomination  begins  gospel  work  in  a  destitute  community,  it 
should  be  left  to  develop  that  work  without  other  denominational  interference. 

(j.  Temporary  suspen.-ion  of  church  work  by  any  denomination  occupying  a 
field,  should  not  be  deemed  sufficient  warrant  in  itself  for  entrance  into  that  held 
by  another  denomination.  Temporary  suspension  should  be  deemed  permanent 
abandonment  when  a  church  has  had  no  preaching  and  held  no  meetings  for  an 
entire  year  or  more. 

7.  All  questions  of  interpretation  of  the  foregoing  statements,  and  all  cases  of 
friction  between  denominations  or  churches  of  different  denominations,  should 
be  referred  to  the  commission  through  its  executive  committee. 

Thus,  with  little  machinery,  an  organization  has  been  completed  for 
intelligent  co-operation  in  Christian  work.  There  is  no  thought  of  dicta¬ 
tion  in  matters  of  purely  denominational  interest.  The  principles  already 
considered  are  kept  in  mind.  The  commission  realizes  that  there  are 
honest  differences  of  interpretation  of  God’s  Word.  It  recognizes  and 
commends  intelligent  denominational  loyalty.  It  puts  the  emphasis  upon 
the  work  of  the  kingdom,  and  insists  that  it  is  for  that  work  denominations 
exist.  It  seeks  to  compass  Christian  duty  by  the  use  of  sanctified  common 
sense. 

Difficulties  have  arisen,  of  course.  The  spirit  of  interdenominationalism 
is  easily  called  into  question.  Some  imagine  that  the  movement  involves 
criticism  of  our  fathers,  who  opened  the  way  for  present  denominational 
strength  by  going  in  where  the  ground  was  already  in  some  sense  occupied 
and  where  they  were  considered  disturbers  of  the  peace.  Some  object  on  the 
strength  of  a  conviction  of  denominational  call  to  preach  the  gospel  in  a 
given  place,  irrespective  of  what  others  are  doing.  To  the  former  answer 
may  be  given  that  it  is  a  present,  practical  problem  that  calls  for  a  solution, 
the  conditions  of  which  vary  widely  from  those  of  our  fathers’  day,  for 
which  the  old  examples  will  not  suffice.  To  the  latter  must  be  urged  the 
larger  interests  of  the  kingdom. 

No  one  denomination  is  all.  No  one  denomination  can  reasonably  claim 
monopoly  of  gospel  message  or  gospel  method.  No  vital  principle  need  be 
sacrificed.  No  truth  is  to  be  silenced.  But  cheerful  subordination  of  the 
relatively  unimportant  to  the  really  important  will  call  for  some  giving  on 
the  part  of  each.  Mutual  concession  in  good  sense  is  Christian.  Nothing 
that  the  world  actually  needs  is  thereby  lost,  and  much  that  it  needs  is 
gained. 

On  the  whole,  experiences  of  objection  have  been  incidental.  A  spirit 
of  Christian  courtesy  has  prevailed  among  those  at  any  point  embraced  in 
the  commission.  Cases  have  been  investigated  and,  in  the  main,  results 
have  been  satisfactory.  No  time  has  been  wasted  in  mere  sentiment,  but 
better  acquaintance  has  deepened  the  regard  of  denominations  mutually 
and  united  them  more  closely  for  common  service.  With  continued  good 
faith  on  the  part  of  bodies  co-operating,  the  movement  can  not  fail  of 
success. 

This  movement  is  outlined  simply  as  a  practical  expression  of  interde¬ 
nominational  comity.  Method  in  general  will  have  to  vary  as  conditions 


728 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


vary.  The  element  most  to  be  sought  is  a  right  spirit.  Granted  right 
spirit,  methods  will  develop  themselves.  Happily  the  tendency  of  the  age 
is  along  the  line  of  fellowship.  Practical  union  accomplished  puts  beyond 
question  the  fact  that  practical  union  is  possible.  What  has  been  done  is 
a  prophecy  of  better  things  to  be.  The  logic  of  events  is  working  out  the 
solution.  The  work  may  be  delayed,  but  its  ultimate  accomplishment  is 
sure. 


PERSISTENCE  OF  BIBLE  ORTHODOXY. 

REV.  LUTHER  F.  TOWNSEND  OF  BOSTON. 

A  moment’s  reflection  is  sufficient  to  show  that  our  subject  does  not 
deny  that  there  may  be  an  essential  orthodoxy  in  any  namable  religion, 
nor  does  it  deny  that  each  religious  creed  may  decide  what  shall  be  its 
standard  of  faith  and  jjractice.  If  one  conforms  to  the  standard  of  a  given 
creed,  then  one  is  orthodox  so  far  as  that  particular  creed  is  concerned; 
while  any  departure  from  that  standard  is  heterodoxy.  What  we  mean  by 
Bible  orthodoxy,  in  distinction  from  other  orthodoxies,  is  a  creed  based  on 
the  manifest  teachings  of  the  Bible  and  conformity  in  faith  and  practice  to 
that  creed. 

While  not  affirming  as  yet  what,  by  a  universal  standard,  is  right  or 
wrong,  in  faith  and  practice,  yet  our  subject,  when  put  into  the  form  of 
a  logical  proposition,  is  this:  Bible  orthodoxy  has  inherently  that  which 
has  brought  it  on  through  the  ages  past,  and  will  hand  it  on  through  the 
ages  to  come,  and  by  implication  is  therefore  right,  for  truth  alone  is  per¬ 
manent. 

If  our  proposition  is  correct,  Bible  orthodoxy,  though  assailed,  will  not 
be  endangered;  other  things  may  mature,  decline,  and  pass  away,  but  the 
essentials  of  Bible  orthodoxy,  such  as  the  special  inspiration  of  the  Bible, 
the  atonement  through  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  the  endless 
punishment  of  the  finally  impenitent  sinner,  and  the  endless  glory  of  God’s 
true  children,  as  well  as  the  duty  of  obeying  the  Ten  Commandments  and  of 
bringing  the  daily  life  into  conformity  with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
shall  be  found  standing  firmly,  though  many  times,  apparently  the  most 
permanent  shall  disappear.  Evidence  of  this  permanency  and  persistency 
in  Bible  orthodoxy  is  what  our  subject  first  demands. 

We  are  not  unfamilar  with  the  fact,  however,  that  as  has  been  the  case 
at  different  historic  periods,  so  at  present,  and  as  is  claimed  in  all  religious 
denominations,  there  are  those  who  think,  and  with  more  or  less  confidence 
maintain,  that  certain  phases  of  Bible  orthodoxy  will  have  to  be  modified 
in  order  to  suit  a  progressive  philosophy,  and  that  even  now  the  time  fully 
has  come  in  which  to  restate  at  least  some  of  the  dogmas  of  Bible 
orthodoxy. 

There  is  as  yet,  it  is  true,  no  general  agreement  as  to  just  how  sweeping 
these  changes  shall  be.  The  opinion  of  one  is  that  the  doctrines  of  an 
inspired  Bible,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  the  vicarious  atone¬ 
ment  should  be  modified.  The  opinion  of  another  is  that  the  doctrine  of 
future  and  endless  punishment  should  not  longer  be  held,  and  especially 
should  not  be  urged  as  a  motive  to  lead  men  to  a  better  life.  There  are 
those,  too,  who  think  it  possible  that  there  may  be  a  future  probation  for 
those  who  have  had  no  adequate  probation  for  this  life  and  possibly  a  future 
probation  or  even  an  ultimate  restoration  of  all.  In  point  of  fact,  there 
would  not  be  much  left  except  mere  fragments  of  Bible  orthodoxy,  if  all 
these  claimants  for  change  and  modification  were  allowed  to  expurgate 
from  it  what  they  think  proper. 

We  are  willing,  of  course,  to  concede  at  the  outset  that  the  men  proposing 


PERSISTENCE  OF  BIBLE  ORTHODOXY. 


729 


these  various  changes  are  honest,  and  earnest,  and  intelligent,  and  what¬ 
ever  else  there  may  be  of  excellence  in  Christian  character  belongs  as  well 
to  some  of  those  who  in  their  creeds  are,  as  we  say,  stanchly  orthodox.  And 
with  broader  scope  we  concede  that  there  are  Brahmans  and  Confucianists 
and  Mohammedans  who  are  as  devout  as  some  of  those,  at  least,  who  are  in 
good  and  regular  standing  in  our  most  orthodox  churches. 

Now,  then,  in  the  interests  of  truth  and  as  free  as  possible  from  any¬ 
thing  like  a  controversial  spirit,  with  the  kindest  feelings  toward  all  and 
with  malice  toward  none,  may  we  not  look  calmly  at  a  few  historic  facts 
bearing  on  the  religious  problems  now  confronting  us? 

In  doing  this  we  note,  first  of  all,  that  a  plea  for  modification  of  Bible 
orthodoxy,  something  like  the  plea  that  of  late  has  been  going  around,  is  no 
new  thing  under  the  sun.  Long  before  any  of  our  modern  reformers  were 
born,  the  questions  now  raised  were  under  discussion.  It  would  be  inter¬ 
esting,  did  time  permit,  to  trace  Bible  orthodoxy  through  its  Jewish  period. 
We  must,  however,  sum  up  the  results  in  a  single  word  or  two.  There  was 
continued  controversy  between  the  Jehovah  prophets  and  the  false  prophets 
who  were  clamoring  for  change,  but  the  teachings  of  the  Jehovah  prophets, 
in  all  their  essentials,  were  handed  on  unimpaired  and  were  brought  to 
their  complete  fulfillment  in  the  life  and  mission  of  Christ. 

Passing  down  to  the  Christian  era  we  discover  in  some  quarters  the  same 
passion  for  a  modification  in  Bible  orthodoxy.  As  early  as  the  1st  century 
the  members  of  the  Corinthian  Church  greatly  desired  and  clamored  for 
an  easier  state  of  the  doctrine  of  affairs,  and  it  required  all  the  earnestness 
and  energy  of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  control  that  tendency  to  drift  from 
moorings  that  had  already  been  established.  One  need  not  look  beyond 
that  Church  of  Corinth  to  find  a  larger  proportion  of  nominal  Christians 
who  held  to  liberal  constructions  than  now  can  be  found  in  any  evangelical 
Church  in  Christendom,  nor  is  there  any  modern  Church  where  morality  is 
at  such  a  deplorably  low  ebb  as  it  was  in  the  Corinthian  community.  That 
Church  of  Corinth  is  a  striking  example  of  the  coincidence  often  seen  of 
lax  morality  and  liberalistic  belief. 

Passing  from  apostolic  times  we  discover  that  during  what  is  designated 
as  the  second  period  in  church  history,  there  were  several  attempts  to 
reinstate  Christianity;  especially  noteworthy  were  the  efforts  of  Clement  of 
Alexander.  This  distinguished  churchman  had  no  small  measure  of 
influence.  In  outward  life  he  was  a  model  man,  and  the  ablest  Christian 
philosopher  of  that  period.  He  was  a  theological  professor  in  the  Alexan¬ 
drian  Catechetical  Theological  Seminary.  His  gentlemanly  bearing 
and  his  thorough  scholarship  won  the  hearts  of  many  and  the  respect  of 
all.  His  “  progressive  ”  views  led  him  to  make  the  teaching  and  example 
of  Christ  of  more  importance  than  His  death  and  sufferings,  and  it  looked 
for  a  time  as  if  there  would  be  a  reconstruction  of  Bible  orthodoxy. 

Now  bear  in  mind  that  Clement  in  some  respects  was  a  thinker  superior 
to  many  of  our  modern  reformers.  He  was  more  logically  exact  in  his 
definitions;  and,  for  the  times  in  which  he  lived,  his  scholarship  relatively 
was  no  less  accurate.  But  still  in  that  age,  when  church  members  are 
supposed  to  have  been  more  easily  influenced  by  their  teachers  than  now, 
Clement  was  not  able  in  any  perceptible  degree  to  disturb  the  foundations 
of  apostolic  Christianity;  and  the  reason  was  that  the  human  heart  beat¬ 
ing  in  the  bosoms  of  the  multitudes,  who  had  been  touched  by  the  spirit 
of  God,  did  not  respond  to  the  new  views  presented.  The  teachings  of 
the  Bible  were  too  full  and  explicit  on  those  subjects  to  allow  any  essential 
departure  from  the  views  held  by  the  more  humble  and  devout  followers  of 
their  Lord  and  Master. 

It  was  during  this  same  period  that  other  distinguished  scholars 
attempted  various  modifications.  Origen,  for  instance,  held  certain  very 
radical  and  progressive  views.  He  was  in  some  respects  the  greatest  man 


730 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


and  the  profoundest  scholar  among  the  fathers.  Origen’s  scheme  of  an 
endless  probation  died  with  him.  At  least,  after  his  death  his  speculations 
had  no  perceptible  influence  with  the  great  body  of  Christian  believers. 

Likewise,  during  the  next  period,  from  320  to  726,  a.  d.,  there  were 
occasional  waverings  in  belief.  Gregory  may  be  taken  as  a  representative 
of  one  phase  of  the  “  progressive  ”  orthodoxy  of  those  times.  Like  Origen 
and  Clement,  he  was  a  distinguished  churchman,  noted  for  his  generous 
scholarship.  He  appears  to  have  felt  that  he  was  raised  up  for  the  special 
purpose  of  establishing  the  doctrine  that  good  is  ultimately  to  succeed  all 
evil.  His  voice  and  his  pen  were  employed  in  the  defense  of  that  opinion. 
But  his  efforts,  like  those  of  predecessors  were  unavailing.  They  failed 
apparently  because  Christian  people  felt  that  such  views  are  antagonistic 
to  the  religious  intuition,  and  that  on  the  words  of  Christ  and  on  those  of 
the  apostle  no  such  doctrine  as  the  final  dismissal  of  evil  from  the  universe 
and  the  ultimate  bliss  of  all  could  possibly  be  established. 

In  the  period  extending  through  a  half  century,  beginning  with  the 
year  1700,  there  were  seasons  of  general  religious  lapsing  from  Bible  faith 
and  practice  into  unbelief  and  immorality.  The  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  Bible  were  hardly  thought  of. 

But  the  people  were  not  satisfied  to  remain  long  in  this  condition.  They 
became  tired  of  a  drifting,  creedless,  corrupting  church,  and  hungered  for 
something  that  would  satisfy  their  spiritual  nature.  The  two  Wesleys, 
Whitefield,  Fletcher,  and  others  were  moved  upon  and  began  to  preach  the 
primitive  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  Men’s  hearts  responded  to  the  preach¬ 
ing — penitents  smote  their  breasts  and  asked  what  they  should  do  to  be 
saved.  The  English  church  was  born  again.  This,  we  should  bear  in  mind, 
was  not  in  consequence  of  liberal  views  of  any  kind.  It  was  not  an 
advanced  orthodoxy  or  a  progressive  orthodoxy,  but  was  the  primitive, 
historic,  Bible  orthodoxy,  which  stirred  into  religious  life  every  community 
in  Great  Britain.  “  The  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  and  is  inspired,”  “  Man 
is  a  sinner,”  “  There  is  a  judgment,”  and  “  After  the  judgment  is  a  perdition 
for  the  finally  impenitent  sinner,”  “  Christ,  through  His  death  and  suffer¬ 
ings,  is  the  savior  from  that  endless  grief,”  were  the  doctrines  preached  on 
the  threshold  of  that  great  and  grand  revival. 

The  movements  and  results  were  much  the  same  in  America.  Certain 
preachers  felt  that  they  must  announce  anew  the  neglected  doctrines  of 
the  Bible.  Prominent  among  them  was  Jonathan  Edwards,  who,  though 
ridiculed  and  opposed  by  persons  in  the  church  as  well  as  out  of  it, 
preached  a  series  of  sermons  on  “  Justification  by  Faith  Alone,”  “  Endless 
Punishment,”  “God’s  Sovereignty,”  and  “Man’s  Helplessness.”  These 
sermons  were  hardly  finished  before  there  were  signal  displays  of  divine 
power  which  surprised  others  no  more  than  they  did  Edwards  himself. 
And  again  there  was  a  decided  and  pronounced  return  to  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Bible. 

And  men  say  what  they  please  to  the  contrary,  there  never  yet  has  been 
in  Christian  lands  a  revival  of  religions  or  an  improvement  in  morals, 
except  in  connection  with  the  preaching  of  the  Bible  orthodoxy  as  defended 
by  the  church  of  Christ  through  the  ages. 

Dr.  Ballou  and  certain  other  clergymen,  who  sympathized  with  him, 
contended  in  1795  that  Christianity  in  America  needed  a  restatement. 
Universalism  was  the  result,  and  its  advocates  confidently  predicted  the 
speedy  and  final  overthrow  of  the  worn-out  creeds  of  Christendom;  but 
those  worn-out  creeds  continued  to  hold  together,  while  the  unscriptural 
“  Death  and  Glory  Theory  ”  of  Dr.  Ballou  is  now  advocated  by  scarcely  any 
intelligent  Universalist. 

Dr.  Channing  and  a  few  fellow-laborers,  in  181.5,  thought  that  another 
restatement  was  needed.  Those  men  caused  a  split  in  New  England 
Congregationalism,  and  clearly  saw,  as  they  thought,  the  speedy  and  final 


PERSISTENCE  OF  BIBLE  ORTHODOXY. 


731 


burial  of  the  moss-grown  doctrines  of  Bible  orthodoxy.  But  somehow 
those  doctrines  survived,  and  we  speak  what  is  well  known,  and  we  speak 
it  in  all  kindness,  that  the  “  progressive  ”  views  of  Dr.  Channing,  like  those 
of  Dr.  Ballou,  have  utterly  failed  in  accomplishing  what  was  expected  and 
intended.  Unitarianism  is  far  less  influential  in  Boston  to-day  than  it  was 
twenty-five  or  fifty  years  ago,  and  the  most  popular  Unitarian  minister  in 
New  England  seldom,  if  ever,  preaches  the  dogmas  of  Unitarianism,  and 
never  antagonizes  the  evangelical  faith.  What  explanation  can  be  given 
other  than  this:  Those  views  do  not  harmonize  with  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible.  Therefore  they  are  rejected.  Nor  is  that  all,  for  God  has  so  builded 
men  that  there  is  a  place  in  his  heart  that  nothing  but  the  doctrines  of 
Bible  orthodoxy  can  fill.  They  were  made  for  and  must  fit  each  other. 

In  our  own  country  there  are  a  few  suggestive  facts  of  recent  date.  The 
“Andover  controversy  ”  antedates  by  a  few  years  the  existing  Presbyterian 
controversy.  But  the  excitement  growing  out  of  the  Andover  discussions 
is  rapidly  waning  in  New  England,  and  Andover  now  is  almost  silent  in  her 
lecture-rooms  on  all  unorthodox  methods. 

All  that  theologians  or  skeptics  have  accomplished,  beginning  in  the 
2d  century  or  even  in  the  time  of  Moses,  has  not  shaken  one  single 
truth  of  Bible  orthodoxy  as  originally  set  forth  by  the  Jehovah  prophets 
or  by  our  Lord  and  His  disciples.  Many  of  these  new  views  glared  for 
awhile,  then  glimmered,  led  some  men’s  hearts  away,  but  at  length  disap¬ 
peared  in  the  surrounding  darkness.  As  factors  in  the  world’s  redemption 
they  have  had  no  marked  infiuence,  while  Bible  orthodoxy,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  its  occasional  lapses,  has  continued  to  gather  men  to  its  bosom,  inspir¬ 
ing  and  comforting  them  with  consolation  that  the  world  can  not  give. 

But  is  it  replied  that  there  have  been  in  this  congress  representatives 
of  existing  religions  that  are  older  than  Christianity,  and  are  claimed  to  be 
older  than  Judaism,  the  forerunner  of  Christianity?  Or  is  it  replied  that 
whatever  can  be  argued  in  favor  of  the  excellence  of  Bible  orthodoxy, 
from  its  continuance  through  the  ages,  can  still  more  forcefully  be  argued 
in  support  of  these  religions  that  are  venerable  and  impressive  by  reason 
of  their  antiquity.  Whether  Brahman  orthodoxy  or  Confucian  orthodoxy 
is  better  or  more  enduring  than  Bible  orthodoxy  is  to  be  settled  on  grounds 
not  traversed  in  this  discussion,  except  incidentally.  Before  stepping  on 
to  these  new  grounds  we  feel  constrained  to  say  that  any  man  is  an  awful 
infidel  who  would  seek  to  overthrow  the  truth  in  any  religion  on  earth. 

The  conclusion  we  think  is  inevitable  that  any  form  of  religion  that  has 
endured  for  centuries,  and  has  had  any  considerable  number  of  adherents, 
is  in  some  of  its  teachings  essentially  correct. 

The  science  of  comparative  religions  reaches  the  additional  conclusion 
that  outcroppings  of  all,  or  nearly  all,  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Bible 
theology  are  to  be  found  in  each  of  the  religions  that  have  been  represented 
on  this  platform,  and,  therefore,  according  to  the  soundest  principles  of 
philosophy  one  need  not  be  surprised  that  these  great  religions  have  sur¬ 
vived  in  the  midst  of  error.  But  is  it  not  equally  true,  and  as  strictly 
philosophical,  that  in  fair  and  open  fields  all  other  religions,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  will  have  to  surrender  when  brought  into  competition  with  the 
essential  religion  of  humanity,  whatever  that  religion  may  be.  The  half 
truth  or  any  part  of  the  truth  will  overmaster  error,  but  the  whole  truth 
will  overmaster  the  half  truth  or  any  part  of  the  truth  when  the  competi¬ 
tion  is  open  or  fair. 

The  hypothesis  we  now  place  over  against  every  other — and  we  do  this 
with  the  utmost  Christian  courtesy,  and  yet  with  confidence — is  that  Bible 
orthodoxy  is  showing  itself  to  be  the  essential  religion  of  humanity,  and  if 
this  it  is,  it  will  outlive  all  other  religions  of  whatever  name.  We  also  con¬ 
fidently  say  that  if  Bible  orthodoxy  were  to  die,  it  would  have  died  long 
ago.  It  has  had  many  good  chances  to  die.  Better  chances  than  it  is  ever 
likely  to  have  again. 


732 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


It  is  true  that  eminent  but  somewhat  eccentric  men  in  the  future,  as  in 
the  past,  will  talk  of  the  worn-out  creeds  of  Christendom,  and  of  an  evo^ 
lution  in  theology  as  in  all  things  else.  But  these  men  seem  strangely 
unmindful  of  the  great  truth,  now  more  and  more  recognized,  that  Bible 
orthodoxy  has  had  a  defender  more  than  human,  and  also  that  there  are 
certain  immutable  elements  in  it,  as  there  are  in  art  and  nature,  which 
never  will  change  or  outgrow  the  passions  and  loves  of  the  human  soul. 
Are  the  productions  of  Michael  Angelo,  Raphael,  Mozart,  and  Beethoven 
outgrown?  Are  the  beauty  of  a  sunset,  the  sublimity  of  a  midnight 
heaven,  the  dazzle  of  lightning  playing  across  the  sky,  the  repose  and 
beauty  of  a  lily  clad  in  raiment  surpassing  that  of  any  past  or  future  Solo¬ 
mon  in  all  his  glory,  outgrown,  or  will  they  be,  though  society  should  exist 
in  a  state  of  constant  progress  for  10,000  years? 

Thus,  also,  with  Bible  orthodoxy.  The  minds  of  men  may,  for  a  time, 
be  unsettled  by  certain  attempted  makeshifts,  and  the  primitive  evangel¬ 
ical  faith  jnay  pause  a  little  during  its  sublime  advance,  but  not  because 
the  end  of  its  journey  is  reached.  This  ancient  faith  stands  not  in  the 
breath  of  a  given  generation;  it  moves  on  independent  of  accidents,  inci¬ 
dents,  or  anything  historic  or  fanciful.  Judged  historically,  it  will  be  one 
of  the  last  witnesses  of  the  consummation  of  human  history.  What  is 
needed  to-day  is  not  a  restatement  of  Bible  orthodoxy,  but  churches  and 
men  who  live  up  to  it  as  it  was  originally  announced,  without  any  restate¬ 
ment  or  modification  at  all.  Give  us  enough  of  such  churches  and  such 
men,  and  the  day  of  earth’s  redemption  would  not  be  far  off.  What  homes 
there  would  be  in  our  land,  and  what  a  land  ours  would  be,  if  Christianity, 
as  Christ  gave  it  to  the  world,  were  enthroned  in  all  hearts  and  in  all 
homes. 

Are  we  not  safe  in  saying,  therefore,  that  a  system  of  religion  so  thor¬ 
oughly  adapted  to  mankind  as  is  Bible  orthodoxy,  a  system  which  the 
more  it  is  studied  and  experienced  is  the  more  highly  prized,  a  system 
whose  path  is  always  the  path  of  peace,  knowledge,  elevation,  emancipa¬ 
tion,  and  salvation;  a  system  various  in  manner,  flexible  in  its  circum¬ 
stances,  while  most  inflexible  in  its  essentials,  full  of  strength  for  the  weak, 
of  consolation  for  the  sorrowful,  of  hope  for  the  discouraged,  of  stimulus 
for  the  sluggish,  of  defense  for  the  defenseless,  of  terror  for  the  bad,  of 
reward  for  the  good,  and  of  pardon  for  the  penitent;  a  system  that  can 
enter  all  dark  places  and  leave  them  full  of  light  by  conquering  despair; 
a  system  that  can  convert  dens  of  thieves  into  bethels  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  which  can  cast  out  its  legion  of  devils  and  say  to  wretches  whose 
“  brains  have  been  in  a  perpetual  craze,”  and  whose  hearts  have  been 
“ filled  with  all  sorts  of  villainies,”  “Peace,  be  still”;  a  system  which  can 
stand  by  the  bedside  of  the  dying,  quell  every  misgiving,  wipe  away  the 
death  sweat  and  leave  the  brow  calm  and  serene  as  heaven;  a  system 
which  can  perfect  the  individual,  bless  the  family,  correct  and  purify  society, 
and  civilize  the  world;  a  system,  in  fine,  that  can  do  everything  it  promises 
to  do  and  promises  to  do  everything  essential  to  human  happiness  here 
and  hereafter — that  such  a  system  has  the  unencumbered  guarantee  of  all 
ages?  Its  foundations  are  impregnable.  Its  fortified  home  is  in  the  wants 
and  depths  of  human  souls.  And  human  nature  in  her  better  moments 
and  conditions  will  endow  it  with  her  last  dollar  and  will  defend  it  with  her 
last  strength. 


ETHICS  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  JAINS, 

VIRCHAND  A.  GHANDI. 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen :  I  wish  that  the  duty  of  addressing  you 
on  the  history  and  tenets  of  the  Jain  faith  world  had  fallen  on  an  abler 


ETHICS  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  JAINS. 


733 


person  than  myself.  The  inclemency  of  the  climate  and  the  distant  voyage 
which  one  has  to  undertake  before  he  can  come  here  have  prevented  abler 
J ains  than  myself  from  attending  this  grand  assembly  and  presenting  their 
religious  convictions  to  you  in  person.  You  will,  therefore,  look  upon  me  as 
simply  the  mouthpiece  of  Muni  Almarimji,  the  learned  high-priest  of  the 
Jain  community  in  India,  who  has  devoted  his  whole  life  to  the  study  of 
that  ancient  faith.  I  am  truly  sorry  that  Muni  Almarimji  i§  not  among  us 
to  take  charge  of  the  duty  of  addressing  you. 

Without  further  preface  I  shall  at  once  go  to  the  subject  of  the  day. 
It  will  be  convenient  to  divide  this  paper  into  two  parts:  First,  “The  Phi¬ 
losophy  and  Ethics  of  the  Jains;*’  second,  “The  History  of  the  Jains.” 

1.  Jainism  has  two  ways  of  looking  at  things — one  called  Dravyarthe- 
karaya  and  the  other  Paryayartheka  Noya.  I  shall  illustrate  them.  The 
production  of  a  law  is  a  production  of  something  not  previously  existing,  if 
we  think  of  if  from  the  latter  point  of  view,  i.  e.,  as  a  Paryaya,  or  modihca- 
tion;  while  it  is  not  the  production  of  something  not  previously  existing  if 
we  look  at  it  from  the  former  point  of  view,  i.  e.,  as  a  Dravya,  or  substance. 
According  to  the  Dravyarthekaraya  view,  the  universe  is  without  beginning 
and  end;  but,  according  to  the  Paryayartheka  view,  we  have  creation 
and  destruction  at  every  moment. 

The  Jain  canon  may  be  divided  into  two  parts:  First,  Shrute  Dharma, 
i.  e.,  philosophy;  second,  Chatra  Dharma,  i.  e.,  ethics. 

The  Shrute  Dharma  inquiries  into  the  nature  of  nine  principles,  six  sub¬ 
stances,  six  kinds  of  living  beings,  and  four  states  of  existence — Jiva  (senti¬ 
ent  beings),  Ajiva  (non-sentient  things),  Punya  (merit).  Papa  (demerit).  Of 
the  nine  principles,  the  first  is  Pua  (soul).  According  to  the  Jain  view,  soul 
is  that  element  which  knows,  thinks,  and  feels.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  divine  ele¬ 
ment  in  the  living  being.  The  Jain  thinks  that  the  phenomena  of  knowl¬ 
edge,  feeling,  thinking,  and  willing  are  conditioned  on  something,  and  that 
that  something  must  be  as  real  as  anything  can  be.  This  “  soul  ”  is  in  a 
certain  sense  different  from  knowledge,  and  in  another  sense  identical  with 
it.  So  far  as  one’s  knowledge  is  concerned,  the  soul  is  identical  with  it,  but 
BO  far  as  some  one  else’s  knowledge  is  concerned,  it  is  different  from  it.  The 
true  nature  of  soul  is  right  knowledge,  right  faith,  and  right  conduct.  The 
soul,  so  long  as  it  is  subject  to  transmigration,  is  undergoing  evolution  and 
involution. 

The  second  principle  is  non-soul.  It  is  not  simply  what  we  understand 
by  matter,  but  it  is  more  than  that.  Matter  is  a  term  contrary  to  soul, 
but  non-soul  is  its  contradictory.  Whatever  is  not  soul  is  non-soul. 

The*  rest  of  the  nine  principles  are  but  the  different  states  produced  by 
the  combination  and  separation  of  soul  and  non-soul.  The  third  principle 
is  Punya  (merit).  That,  on  account  of  which  a  being  is  happy,  is  Punya. 
The  fourth  principle  is  Papa  (demerit),  that  on  account  of  which  a  being 
suffers  from  misery.  The  fifth  is  Ashrana,  the  state  which  brings  in  merit 
and  demerit.  The  seventh  is  Nirjara,  destruction  of  actions.  The  eighth 
is  Bardha,  with  bondage  of  soul,  with  Karwa,  actions.  The  ninth  is  Moksha, 
total  and  permanent  freedom  of  soul  from  allKarwas. 

Substance  is  divided  into  the  sentient,  or  conscious,  matter,  stability, 
space,  and  time.  Six  kinds  of  living  beings  are  divided  into  six  classes — 
earth  body  beings,  water  body  beings,  fire  body  beings,  wind  body  beings, 
vegetables,  and  all  of  them  having  one  organ  of  sense,  that  of  touch.  These 
are  again  divided  into  four  classes  of  beings  having  two  organs  of  sense, 
those  of  touch  and  of  taste,  such  as  tapeworms, leeches, etc.;  beings  having 
three  organs  of  sense,  those  of  taste,  touch,  and  smell,  such  'as  ants,  lice,  etc. ; 
beings  having  four  organs  of  sense,  those  of  touch,  taste,  smell,  and  sight, 
such  as  bees,  scorpions,  etc.;  beings  having  five  organs  of  sense,  those  of 
touch,  taste,  smell,  sight,  and  hearing.  There  are  human  beings,  animals, 
birds,  men  and  gods.  All  these  living  beings  have  four,  five,  or  six  of  the 


734 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


following  capacities:  Capacity  of  taking  food,  capacity  of  constructing 
body,  capacity  of  constructing  organs,  capacity  of  respiration,  capacity  of 
speaking,  and  the  capacity  of  thinking  Beings  having  one  organ  of  sense, 
that  is,  of  touch,  have  the  first  four  capacities.  Beings  having  two,  three, 
and  four  organs  of  sense,  have  the  first  five  capacities,  while  those  having 
five  organs  have  all  the 'six  capacities. 

The  Jain  Canonical  book  treats  very  elaborately  of  the  minute  divisions 
of  the  living  beings,  and  their  prophets  have,  long  before  the  discovery  of 
the  microscope,  been  able  to  tell  how  many  organs  of  sense  the  minutest 
animalcule  has.  I  would  refer  those  who  are  desirous  of  studying  Jain 
biology,  zoology,  botany,  anatomy,  and  physiology  to  the  many  books  pub¬ 
lished  by  our  society. 

I  shall  now  refer  to  the  four  states  of  existence.  They  are  naraka, 
tiryarch,  manushyra,  and  deva.  Naraka  is  the  lowest  state  of  existence, 
that  of  being  a  denizen  of  hell;  tiryarch  is  the  next,  that  of  having  an  earth 
body,  water  body,  fire  body,  wind  body,  vegetable,  of  having  two,  three,  or 
four  organs,  animals,  and  birds.  The  third  is  manushyra,  of  being  a  man, 
and  the  fourth  is  deva,  that  of  being  a  denizen  of  the  celestial  world.  The 
highest  state  of  existence  is  the  J ain  Moksha,  the  apotheosis  in  the  sense 
that  the  mortal  being,  by  the  destruction  of  all  Karwan,  attains  the  highest 
spiritualism,  and  the  soul,  being  severed  from  all  connection  with  matter, 
regains  its  purest  state  and  becomes  divine. 

Having  briefly  stated  the  principal  articles  of  Jain  belief,  I  come  to  the 
grand  questions,  the  answers  to  which  are  the  objects  of  all  religious 
inquiry  and  the  substance  of  all  creeds. 

1.  What  is  the  origin  of  the  universe? 

This  involves  the  question  of  God.  Gautama,  the  Buddha,  forbids 
inquiry  into  the  beginning  of  things.  In  the  Brahmanical  literature  bear¬ 
ing  on  the  constitution  of  cosmos,  frequent  reference  is  made  to  the  days 
and  nights  of  Brahma,  the  periods  of  Mannantara  and  the  periods  of  Per- 
oloya.  But  the  Jains,  leaving  all  symbolical  expression  aside,  distinctly 
reaffirm  the  new  previously  promulgated  by  the  previous  hierophants,  that 
matter  and  soul  are  eternal  and  can  not  be  created.  You  can  affirm  exist¬ 
ence  of  a  thing  from  one  point  of  view,  deny  it  from  another,  and  affirm 
both  existence  and  non-existence  with  reference  to  it  at  different  times.  If 
you  should  think  of  affirming  both  existence  and  non-existence  at  the  same 
time,  from  the  same  point  of  view,  you  must  say  thatjhe  thing  can  not  be 
spoken  of;  similarly  under  certain  circumstances  the  affirmation  of  exist¬ 
ence  is  not  possible,  of  non-existence  and  also  of  both. 

What  is  meant  by  these  seven  modes  is  that  a  thing  should  not  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  existing  everywhere,  at  all  times,  in  all  ways,  and  in  the  form  of 
everything.  It  may  exist  in  one  place  and  not  in  another  at  one  time.  It 
is  not  meant  by  these  modes  that  there  is  no  certainty,  or  that  we  have  to 
deal  with  probabilities  only  as  some  scholars  have  taught.  Even  the  great 
Bedantist  Shoukarachaya  has  possibly  erred  when  he  says  that  the  Jains 
are  agnostics.  All  that  is  implied  in  that  every  assertion  which  is  true  is 
true  only  under  certain  conditions  of  substance,  space,  time,  etc. 

This  is  the  great  merit  of  the  Jain  philosophy,  that  while  other  philos¬ 
ophies  make  absolute  assertions,  the  Jain  looks  at  things  from  all  stand¬ 
points,  and  adapts  itself  like  a  mighty  ocean  in  which  the  sectarian  rivers 
merge  themselves.  What  is  God,  then?  God,  in  the  sense  of  an  extra 
cosmic  personal  creator,  has  no  place  in  the  Jain  philosophy.  It  distinctly 
denies  such  creator  as  illogical  and  irrelevant  in  the  general  scheme  of  the 
universe.  But  it  lays  down  that  there  is  a  subtle  essence  underlying  all 
substances,  conscious  as  well  as  unconscious,  which  becomes  an  eternal 
cause  of  all  modifications,  and  is  termed  God.  But,  then,  the  advocate  of 
theism,  holding  that  even  primordial  matter  had  its  first  cause—  the  God — 
argues  that  “  everything  that  we  know  had  a  cause.  How,  then,  can  it  be 


NARASIMA  CHAIRA 


ETHICS  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  JAINS. 


735 


but  that  the  elements  had  a  cause  to  which  they  are  indebted  for  their 
existence?”  That' great  philosopher,  John  Stuart  Mill,  replies: 

The  fact  of  experience,  however,  when  correctly  expressed,  turns  out  to  be 
not  that  everything  which  we  know  derives  its  existence  from  the  cause,  but  only 
every  event  or  change.  There  is  in  nature  a  permanent  element,  and  also  a 
changeable;  the  changes  are  always  the  effects  of  previous  changes;  the  per¬ 
manent  existences,  so  far  as  we  know,  are  not  effects  at  all.  It  is  true  we  are 
aocustomedi  to  say,  not  only  of  events  but  of  objects,  that  they  are  produced  by 
causes,  as  water  by  the  union  of  hydrogen  and  oxygen.  But  by  this  we  only 
mean  that,  when  they  began  to  exist,  their  beginning  is  the  effect  of  a  cause.  But 
their  beginning  to  exist  is  not  an  object;  it  is  an  event.  If  it  be  objected  that  the 
cause  of  a  thing’s  beginning  to  exist  may  be  said  with  propriety  to  be  the  cause 
of  the  thing  itself  I  shall  not  qua,rel  with  the  expression.  But  that  which  in  an 
object  begins  to  exist' is  that  in  it  which  belongs  to  the  changeable  element  in 
nature,  the  outward  form  and  the  properties  depending  upon  mechanical  or 
chemical  combinations  of  its  competent  parts.  There  is  in  every  object  another 
and  a  permanent  element  viz.:  the  specific  elementary  substance  or  sub.-tances 
of  which  it  consists  and  their  inherent  properties.  These  are  not  known  to  us  as 
beginning  to  exist;  within  the  range  of  human  knowledge  they  have  no  beginning, 
consequently  no  cause ;  though  they  themselves  are  causes  or  con-cau  es  of 
everything  that  takes  place.  Experience,  therefore,  affords  no  evtdence.s  not 
even  analogies,  to  justify  our  extending  to  the  apparently  immutable  a  general¬ 
ization  grounded  only  on  our  observation  of  the  changeable. 

As  a  fact  of  experience,  then,  causation  can  not  legitimately  be  extended 
to  the  material  universe  itself,  but  only  to  its  changeable  phenomena;  of 
these,  indeed,  causes  may  be  affirmed  without  any  exception.  But  what 
causes?  The  cause  of  every  change  is  a  prior  change,  and  such  it  can  not 
but  be,  for  if  there  were  no  new  antecedent  there  would  not  be  a  new  con¬ 
sequent.  If  the  state  of  facts  which  brings  the  phenomenon  into  existence 
had  existed  always,  or  for  an  indefinite  duration,  the  effect  also  would 
have  existed  always  or  been  produced  an  indefinite  time  ago.  It  is  thus  a 
necessary  part  of  the  fact  of  causation,  within  the  sphere  of  our  experience, 
that  the  causes,  as  well  as  the  effects,  had  a  beginning  in  time  and  were 
themselves  caused.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  our  experience,  instead 
of  furnishing  an  argument  for  the  first  cause,  is  repugnant  to  it,  and  that 
the  very  essential  of  causation  as  it  exists  within  the  limits  of  our  knowl¬ 
edge  is  incompatible  with  a  first  cause. 

This  doctrine  of  the  transmigration  of  soul,  or  the  reincarnation,  is 
another  grand  idea  of  the  Jain  philosophy.  Once  the  whole  civilized 
world  embraced  this  doctrine.  Many  philosophers  have  upheld  it.  Scien¬ 
tists  like  Flammarion,  Figuir,  and  Brewster  have  advocated  it.  Theolo¬ 
gians  like  Muller,  Dorner,  and  Edward  Beecher  have  maintained  it.  The 
Bible  and  sacred  literature  of  the  East  are  full  of  it,  and  it  is  to-day 
accepted  by  the  majority  of  the  world’s  inhabitants. 

People  are  talking  of  design  in  nature.  But  what  does  the  idea  of 
design  lead  to?  Design  means  contrivance,  adaptation  of  means  to  an  end. 
But  the  necessity  of  contrivance,  the  need  of  employing  means,  is  a  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  limitation  of  power.  Who  would  have  recourse  to  means 
if  to  attain  his  end  his  mere  word  was  sufficient? 

But  how  shall  we  reconcile  God’s  infinite  benevolence  and  justice  with 
His  infinite  power,  when  we  look  around  and  see  that  some  of  His  creatures 
are  born  happy  and  others  miserable?  Why  is  he  so  partial?  Where  is 
the  moral  responsibility  of  a  person  having  no  incentive  to  lead  a  virtuous 
life?  The  problem  of  injustice  and  misery  which  broods  over  our  world 
can  only  be  explained  by  the  doctrine  of  reincarnation  and  Karma,  to 
which  I  am  presently  coming. 

That  the  soul  is  immortal  is  doubted  by  very  few.  It  is  an  old  decla¬ 
ration  that  whatever  begins  in  time  must  end  in  time.  You  can  not  say 
that  soul  is  eternal  on  one  side  of  its  earthly  period  without  being  so  in 
the  other.  If  the  soul  sprang  into  existence  specially  for  this  life,  why 
should  it  continue  afterward?  The  ordinary  idea  of  creation  at  birth 
involves  the  correlative  of  annihilation  at  death.  Moreover,  it  does  not 
stand  to  reason  that  from  an  infinite  history  the  soul  enters  this  world  for 


736 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


its  first  and  all  physical  existence,  and  then  merges  into  an  endless  spiritual 
eternity.  The  more  reasonable  deduction  is  that  it  has  passed  through 
many  lives,  and  will  have  to  pass  through  many  more  before  it  reaches  it. 
ultimate  goal.  But  it  is  directed  that  we  have  no  memory  of  past  lives. 
Can  any  one  recall  his  childhood?  Has  anyone  a  memory  of  that  wonder¬ 
ful  epoch — infancy? 

The  companion  doctrine  of  transmigration  is  the  doctrine  of  Karma. 
The  Sanskrit  of  the  word  Karma  means  action.  “With  what  measure  ye 
mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again,”  and  “Whatsoever  a  man  soweth, 
that  shall  he  also  reap  ”  are  but  the  corollaries  of  that  most  intricate  law  of 
Karmon.  It  solves  the  problem  of  the  inequality  and  apparent  injustice  of 
the  world. 

The  Karmon  in  the  Jain  philosophy  is  divided  into  eight  classes:  Those 
which  act  as  an  impediment  to  the  knowledge  of  truth;  those  which  act  as 
an  impediment  to  the  right  insight  of  various  sorts;  those  which  give  one 
pleasure  or  pain,  and  those  which  produce  bewilderment.  The  other  four 
are  again  divided  into  other  classes,  soi  minutely  that  a  student  of  Jain  Kar¬ 
mon  philosophy  can  trace  any  effect  to  a  particular  Karma.  No  other 
Indian  philosophy  reads  so  beautifully  and  so  clearly  the  doctrine  of 
Karmas.  Persons  who,  by  right  faith,  right  knowledge,  and  right  conduct 
destroy  all  Karmon,  and  thus  fully  develop  the  nature  of  their  soul,  reach 
the  highest  perfection,  become  divine  and  are  called  Jinias.  Those  Jinias 
who,  in  every  age,  preach  the  law  and  establish  the  order,  are  called 
Tirtharkaros. 

I  now  come  to  the  Jain  ethics.  Different  philosophers  have  given  differ¬ 
ent  bases  for  the  guidance  of  comfort.  The  Jain  ethics  direct  conduct  to 
be  so  adapted  as  to  insure  the  fullest  development  of  the  soul — the  highest 
happiness,  that  is  the  goal  of  human  conduct,  which  is  the  ultimate  end 
of  human  action.  Jainism  teaches  to  look  upon  all  living  beings  as  upon 
himself.  What,  then,  is  the  mode  of  attaining  the  highest  happiness?  The 
sacred  books  of  the  Brahmans  prescribe  Upasona  (devotion  and  Karma). 
The  Vedanta  indicates  the  path  of  knowledge  as  the  means  to  the  highest. 
But  Jainism  goes  a  step  farther,  and  says  that  the  highest  happiness  is  to 
be  obtained  by  knowledge  and  religious  observances.  The  five  Maharatas 
for  Jain  ascetics  are: 

Not  to  kill,  i.  e.,  to  protect  all  life. 

Not  to  lie. 

Not  to  take  that  which  is  not  given. 

To  abstain  from  sexual  intercourse. 

To  renounce  all  interest  in  worldly  things,  especially  to  call  nothing  one’s  own. 


FREE  BAPTIST  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

PROF.  J.  A.  HOWE. 

The  first  Baptist  Church  recognized  in  English  history  was  of  the  gen¬ 
eral  or  Free  Baptist  order,  and  antedated  the  first  particular  Baptist 
Church  by  a  score  of  years.  For  a  long  period  the  general  Baptists  consti¬ 
tuted  the  larger  and  more  influential  part  of  the  English  Baptists,  and, 
therefore,  we  should  expect  that  among  the  earliest  Baptist  churches  in 
America  no  small  number  would  be  of  this  persuasion,  as,  in  fact,  they 
were,  the  church  planted  by  Roger  Williams  being  properly  reckoned  as 
the  first.  With  numerous  churches  centrally  placed,  they  gave  early 
promise  of  a  large  development  in  our  country,  a  promise  that  only 
needed  fulfillment  to  have  taken  away  any  occasion  for  the  rise  of  the  free 
Baptists  as  a  separate  people.  But  this  golden  opportun^ity  was  not 
improved.  The  general  Baptists  aimed  to  be  a  spiritual  people;  aimed  at 


FREE  BAPTIST  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


737 


simplicity  and  meekness;  clung  to  crude  forms  of  worship;  neglected  to 
educate  and  support  the  ministry,  and  so  far  fell  behind  the  progressive 
age  that,  at  the  end  of  150  years  of  existence  here,  though  their  churches 
were  not  few,  they  were  yet  too  little  associated  to  be  easily  recognized  as 
a  distinct  people.  In  ignorance  of  these  Bajjtists,  therefore,  and  innocent 
of  any  sectarian  design,  Benjamin  Randall  in  1780  organized  at  New  Dun¬ 
ham,  N.  H,,  a  church  that,  by  the  grace  of  God,  proved  to  be  the  fii-st  of 
the  Free  Baptist  denomination. 

The  ministers  associated  with  Randall  and  those  who  immediately  suc¬ 
ceeded  him,  like  many  other  Baptist  preachers  of  the  day,  and  like  the 
apostles  and  preachers  of  the  1st  century,  had  received  little  theological 
training,  and  in  general  intelligence  often  did  not  much  excel  the  better 
part  of  their  congregations,  but  they  possessed  enough  strength  of  natural 
and  religious  character  both  to  gain  for  them  leadership  in  the  church  and 
to  stamp  upon  her  character  some  marked  features.  In  contrast  with  the 
clergymen  of  the  State  churches,  they  gave  special  prominence  to  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  believers  having  a  personal,  subjective  verification  of  Christian 
truth.  To  them  conversion  meant  a  sense  of  sin,  guilt,  condemnation,  of 
cries  to  God,  of  struggles  and  victory,  followed  by  a  profound  sense  of 
peace,  communion  with  God,  love  for  Christians,  and  a  lively  joy  in  Christ 
and  Christian  duties. 

Religion  without  emotion  seemed  to  them  something  paradoxical. 
Christian  truths,  if  apprehended,  were  sure  to  stir  the  soul.  Especially 
ought  the  Christian  minister  not  only  to  know  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ, 
but  to  be  deeply  affected  thereby,  and  to  be  burdened  in  spirit  over  the  lost 
condition  of  man.  He  was  expected  to  know  both  that  his  sins  were  for¬ 
given  and  just  when  and  where  this  great  transaction  took  place;  and 
because  he  had  thus  proved  for  himself  the  promise  of  God,  to  be  able  to 
preach  them  with  power.  The  Christian  life  was  judged  to  be  life  at  the 
center  of  moral  being,  always  deep,  and  active,  and  strong,  answering  to 
the  most  fervid  descriptions  of  it  found  on  the  sacred  page.  This  the  Free 
Baptist  ministry  and  church  called  “  experimental  religion.” 

Following  .still  further  apostolic  precedent,  these  spiritual  preachers 
refused  to  be  bound  to  any  one  parish.  “They  went  everywhere  preaching 
the  word.”  In  summer  or  winter  they  were  ready  to  leave  their  households 
and  go  to  any  remote  spot  where  Christ  was  not/  proclaimed  or  where  men 
were  not  turning  to  Him.  Flying  evangelists,  they  had  here  no  continuing 
city,  but  traveled  from  town  to  town,  and  State  to  State,  invading  the 
slumbering  dioceses  of  the  State  clergy,  holding  conventicles  in  the  open  air, 
in  groves,  barns,  kitchens,  schoolhouses,  and  such  meeting-houses  as  might 
be  opened  to  them,  compelling  men  to  hear  the  gospel  of  God’s  free  grace, 
and  “in  demonstration  of  the  spirit  and  of  power”  persuading  them  to 
yield  to  its  terms  of  salvation.  The  number  of  miles  that,  in  the  course  ol 
a  single  year,  many  of  these  tireless  workers  traveled  on  horseback  or  on 
foot  seems,  even  now,  when  distances  are  almost  annihilated,  somewhat 
extraordinary. 

Nor  were  their  journeys  of  ease  or  profit.  The  difficulties  encountered, 
the  hardships  endured  from  exposure,  poverty,  weariness,  and  sickness, 
from  the  opposition  of  wicked  men  and  of  sincere  but  blinded  Christians, 
besides  the  mental  anxiety  of  knowing  of  the  fight,  but  not  of  the  issue  of 
the  fight,  that  their  families  at  home  were  making  to  keep  the  wolf  from 
their  door,  converted  their  itinerant  ministry  into  martyrdom.  John 
Colby,  in  his  twenty -fourth  year,  traveled  eight  months  on  horseback,  from 
New  Hampshire  to  Ohio,  preaching  almost  every  day.  He  baptized  more 
than  one  hundred  converts  a  year  during  six  years  of  his  ministry.  Stinch- 
field  of  Maine  in  four  years  preached  more  than  one  thousand  six  hundred 
times,  baptized  six  hundred  and  seventy-three,  and  traveled  each  year 
between  two  thousand  and  three  thousand  miles.  David  Marks  in  ten 
years  traveled  42,350  miles  and  held  3,489  meetings. 


738 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


It  was  a  peculiarity  of  these  untutored  evangelists  to  rely  in  preaching 
on  the  immediate  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Following  in  the  exegetical  steps 
of  the  Puritans,  Friends,  and  Baptists  of  the  17th  century,  they  interpreted 
the  passage:  “And  when  they  lead  you  to  judgment,  and  deliver  you  up, 
be  not  anxious  beforehand  what  ye  shall  speak;  but  whatsoever  shall  be 
given  you  in  that  hour,  that  speak  ye,  for  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the 
Holy  Ghost,”  to  mean  that  illumination  and  quickening  from  on  high  were 
here  pledged  to  all  whom  Christ  sent  to  preach  His  truth.  Thus  made  con¬ 
fident  that  through  their  lips  God  would  give  His  message  to  the  people, 
they  often  became  indifferent  to  exact  preparation  for  the  pulpit;  some¬ 
times  became  intolerant  of  the  ordinary  symbols  of  such  preparation  in  the 
hands  of  other  ministers.  Study  of  the  scriptures,  prayer,  meditation,  and 
almost  any  unwritten  arrangement  of  the  truth  to  be  presented  seemed  to 
them  to  keep  within  the  bounds  of  the  Lord’s  prohibition,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  leave  the  mind  open  to  catch  the  suggestions  and  to  respond  to  the 
inspiration  coming  from  above.  The  preacher  needed  only  to  be  en  rap¬ 
port  with  the  Holy  Spirit  to  preach  with  power.  Learning  was  not  indis¬ 
pensable  to  an  apostle,  the  Holy  Spirit  was.  These  notions  had  their 
brief  day. 

It  was  another  peculiarity  of  these  preachers  to  aim  at  reaching  the 
conscience  through  the  feelings.  They  denied  the  value  of  a  dry,  intel¬ 
lectual  light  in  efforts  to  change  the  depraved  will.  However  scholarly  or 
truthful  a  sermon  might  be,  if  it  did  not  melt  preacher  and  congregation 
alike  it  was  only  a  pleasant  sound.  To  awaken  life  the  sermon  must  have 
behind  it  a  living  heart.  Hence  these  natural,  untrained  orators  studied  to 
be  moved  by  their  truth,  and  to  cultivate  a  style,  spirit,  tone  of  voice,  and 
a  mien  that  would  appeal  to  the  feelings  of  their  audiences.  Like  Paul, 
they  spoke  “  with  weeping,”  and  warned  men  “  day  and  night  with  tears.” 
By  conforming  thus  to  the  well-known  rhetorical  rule  for  moving  the 
sensibilities,  they  were  accustomed  to  have  their  congregations  so  affected 
that  a  dry  eye  could  not  be  found  among  them. 

Many  of  these  preachers  fell  into  the  way  of  intoning  their  prayers  and 
sermons.  Though  long  continued  by  some  of  their  successors,  this  practice 
has  now  ceased  altogether.  Taken  up  with  the  interests  of  pathos,  it 
unconsciously  paralleled  the  practice  of  ancient  oratory,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  of  modern  ritualism  on  the  other.  It  is  singular  to  find,  spontaneously 
rising  in  modern  times,  a  style  of  address  going  back  to  the  days  of  the 
public  recital  of  metrical  compositions,  and  to  find  that  style  viewed  as 
artificial. 

John  Colby,  standing  before  an  audience  and  looking  at  them  in  silence, 
would  sometimes  carry  conviction  to  sinners  and  move  the  whole  congre¬ 
gation  to  fear.  He  could  not  simulate  the  possession  of  feelings  not  in  his 
heart,  nor  resort  to  stage  tricks  to  express  what  he  felt.  It  was  because 
his  face  was  transparent,  and  through  it  his  earnest  soul  was  seen,  that  he 
wore  such  looks  of  seriousness,  pity,  and  yearning  love  whenever  he  gazed 
upon  a  great  congregation  destined  to  eternal  life  or  death.  Once,  as  he 
entered  a  crowded  church,  he  began  to  sing  as  he  went  to  the  pulpit,  and 
when  he  ceased  the  entire  assembly  was  melted  to  tears. 

In  the  memoirs  of  David  Marks,  one  of  the  early  Free  Baptist  preachers, 
the  reader  frequently  comes  upon  sentences  like  these:  “Many  were  in 
tears;”  “Many  wept  aloud;”  “  Much  of  the  time  many  wept;”  “Soon  the 
weeping  increased  exceedingly  in  every  part  of  the  congregation;”  “At  the 
end  of  the  sermon  I  wept  aloud.”  From  Randall’s  diary  many  similar 
expressions  might  be  taken:  “This  was  a  very  tender,  melting  season;” 

“  Great  solemnity  rested  on  the  people,  and  almost  the  whole  assembly 
appeared  to  be  melted  to  tears;”  “At  the  communion,  the  church  had  a 
very  melting  season;”  “It  was  a  blessed,  tender  season.” 

Emotion  was  a  solvent  for  hardness  of  heart,  and  a  test  of  the  preacher’s 


FREE  BAPTIST  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


739 


sincerity  and  power.  Aware  of  this,  not  infrequently  hearers  went  to 
their  meetings  with  breasts  stoutly  buttoned  against  this  fervor  and  pathos, 
but  generally  in  vain.  The  earnestness,  solemnity,  and  sincere  feeling  of 
these  preachers  could  not  be  withstood. 

Another  of  their  peculiarities  was  so  to  speak  that  their  hearers  would 
be  immediately  converted.  Their  sermons  took  effect.  During  the  service 
men  yielded  to  the  aroused  conscience,  cried  to  God  for  forgiveness  of  sins, 
and  found  it  on  the  spot.  Believing  in  the  ability  of  any  prodigal  at  any 
time  to  say,  “  I  will  arise  and  go  unto  my  Father,”  these  direct  and  practi¬ 
cal  preachers  declared  that  “to-day”  and  “now”  men  ought  to  repent, 
believe  in  Christ,  and  become  children  of  the  living  God.  Of  a  sermon  by 
Elder  Enoch  Place,  a  hearer  gives  this  account: 

But  when  he  began  to  describe  the  “swelling  of  Jordan”  his  soul  was  led  into 
the  sanctuary  of  God.  He  saw  the  end  of  the  wicked.  The  place  became  awful, 
and  the  s^cene  surpassed  description.  Every  eye  was  fixed  on  the  speaker. 
Unnumbered  faces  were  bathed  in  tears  and  many  frames  convulsed,  Avhile 
touching  groans  burst  from  sinners’  hearts,  and  all  around  seemed  like  the  judg¬ 
ment.  My  feelings  were  so  powerfully  affected  that  I  queried  whether  I  should 
lose  my  breath  or  live  througli  the  scene.— JIfemoirs  of  David  Marks,  p.  216. 

Stewart  describes  some  of  these  services  thus:  “Zechariah  Leach 
preached  three  times,  and  many  were  awakened.”  The  sermon  of  Colby 
was  from  Rev.  xiv.,  6.  “Thirty  persons  dated  their  experience  from  that 
sermon.”  Stinchfield  preached  (in  the  open  air  before  a  baptism)  from  Act. 
ii.,  41.  “  Before  that  sermon  was  ended  many  fell  under  the  power  of  God, 
and  lay  on  the  grass  at  the  beach  crying  for  mercy.”  Out  of  a  boat-load 
of  twelve  persons  who  came  in  high  glee  to  witness  the  ceremony,  eleven 
were  there  convicted  of  sin  and  were  soon  converted. 

In  the  “Life  of  Randall”  it  is  told  of  one  service  where  as  many  as  fifty 
persons  were  deeply  affected;  not  a  few  vocally  crying  for  mercy,  while 
others  were  praising  God  for  redeeming  love.  On  one  Sabbath  evening  at 
Brunswick,  Me.,  while  Randall  preached  to  a  crowded  assembly  in  a  private 
house,  “  the  power  of  God  so  fell  on  the  congregation  that  they  were  all 
either  crying  for  mercy  or  praising  God  with  loud  voices.”  The  parish 
minister  at  the  meeting-house  in  the  morning  had  opposed  Randall’s  meth¬ 
ods  and  had  refused  to  let  him  preach  or  invite  him  to  the  desk;  but  now 
he  was  himself  deeply  moved  and  cried  out  among  the  rest.  Even  a  deaf 
and  dumb  man  present  was  apparently  convicted  and  converted,  showing 
by  very  plain  signs  his  distress  for  sin,  and  then  the  joy  of  conscious  for¬ 
giveness. 

They  determined  to  reach  their  hearers,  adjusted  their  homiletical 
methods  to  this  end,  and  exerted  themselves  when  ji^’eaching  to  bring  sin¬ 
ners  at  once  to  repentance.  Charges  of  fanaticism  they  could  not  escape. 
Enthusiasm  characterized  all  their  ministrations,  and  sometimes  in  excess. 
But  their  seriousness  was  awful,  and  if  at  any  time  their  zeal  seemed  to  be 
carrying  them  into  hurtful  extravagance  it  was  soon  held  in  check.  Earn¬ 
est  men  they  were,  but  of  good  common  sense.  Between  fervor  and  fanati¬ 
cism,  the  leaders  were  compelled  to  distinguish  and  promptly  check  all 
tendencies  to  enthusiastic  disorder  that  threatened  the  overthrow  or  harm 
of  the  rising  church. 

Picture  a  cavalcade  of  ministers  and  laymen,  a  hundred  strong,  serious 
as  one  of  Cromwell’s  troops,  riding  into  a  country  town  to  an  appointed 
place  of  worship,  where  a  large  congregation  awaited  them,  filling  the  air 
as  they  draw  near  with  the  sound  of  solemn  and  plaintive  hymns,  thrilling 
the  assembled  people  and  imparting  to  them  a  contagion  of  religious  enthu¬ 
siasm.  What  the  character  of  the  worshipers  will  be  it  is  easy  to  see. 
Conceive  of  a  scene  when,  in  the  progress  of  the  meeting,  “the  power  of 
God  so  filled  the  house  that  there  was  no  room  to  enter  upon  business  for 
the  space  of  two  hours  and  upward,  ”  and  consider  the  effect  of  such  a 
spectacle  on  the  staid,  methodical,  unimpassioned  parish  clergymen. 


740 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


At  a  meeting  held  in  New  Dunham  in  the  open  air,  June,  1798,  attended 
by  2,000  people,  a  young  man  publicly  confessed  his  sinfulness,  asked  the 
forgiveness  of  his  parents,  and  acquaintances,  declared  that  God  had  for¬ 
given  him,  and  then,  with  electrical  effect,  appealed  to  his  companions  to 
repent.  Many  wept,  fell  on  their  knees,  and  began  to  cry  aloud  to  God,  the 
cries  in  different  parts  of  the  assembly  increasing  to  such  a  pitch  that  it 
was  difficult,  at  a  distance,  to  distinguish  the  voices.  The  ministers  went 
from  one  to  the  other,  exhorting,  counseling,  praying;  other  Christians  let 
responses  be  heard.  The  earnestness  and  enthusiasm  became  irresistible. 
Spectators  who  held  aloof  from  these  services  and  were  on  their  guard  lest 
they  should  be  oyertaken  by  the  influences  of  the  hour,  were  sometimes 
suddenly  impressed.  Three  young  men  in  this  temper  of  mind  stood  on 
the  outskirts  of  the  congregation,  and  seeing  their  minister  come  to  talk 
to  them,  they  turned  and  fled,  but  after  running  a  few  rods  they  all  fell  to 
the  ground  and  began  to  cry  aloud  to  God,  nor  did  they  arise  until  they 
could  say  that  God  had  been  merciful  to  them,  and  had  jjardoned  their 
sins.  In  four  days  1,000  were  converted.  The  meetings  broke  up,  only  to 
spread  revivals  in  every  direction  among  the  churches  represented  there. 
A  chronicler  says:  “  Some  formal  professors  called  this  all  confusion,  but 
to  me  it  was  most  excellent  melody.” 

For  twenty  years  Randall  and  his  associates  properly  regarded  them¬ 
selves  as  members  of  the  Baptist  denomination.  But  the  formation  of  the 
New  Hampshire  Association  of  Baptists  gradually  consolidated  churches 
of  the  Calvinistic  faith,  and  left  those  opposed  by  themselves.  The  Free 
Baptists  were  thus  forced  into  closer  relations  with  each  other,  and  as  the 
churches  multiplied,  we '6  compelled  to  adopt  some  system  of  church  policy. 

At  flrst  the  group  of  converts  in  various  places  were  too  modest  to  take 
the  name  of  churches,  and  because  they  met  once  in  a  month  for  fellow¬ 
ship  with  each  other,  called  monthly  meetings,  and  considered  themselves 
to  be  branches  of  the  New  Dunham  Church,  and  herein  was  reproduced  a 
feature  of  some  of  the  apostolic  churches. 

It  took  but  a  few  years  for  this  early  simplicity  to  give  way  before  a  full 
recognition  of  the  monthly  meeting  as  complete  churches.  Then,  as  their 
members  increased,  the  quarterly  meeting,  composed  of  churches  in  a 
restricted  locality,  and  next  the  yearly  meetings,  embracing  the  quarterly 
meetings  in  a  State,  or  large  section  of  a  State,  then,  after  fifty  years,  the 
general  conference,  at  first  an  annual,  then  biennial,  and  now  a  triennial 
body,  composed  of  all  the  yearly  meetings  and  annual  associations  in  the 
denomination — an  organization  of  remarkable  flexibility  and  completeness. 
A  similar  relation  existed  between  the  Brentwood  Baptist  Church,  in  New 
Hampshire,  and  its  numerous  branches.  At  one  time,  as  a  consequence, 
this  church  contained  1,000  members. 

The  general  conference  is  one  peculiar  feature  of  the  Free  Baptist 
Church  government.  Congregational  in  character,  it  has  for  its  object  to 
speak  for  the  entire  church  on  all  matters  of  faith,  polity,  order,  and 
within  the  limits  of  church  independency  to  make  the  denomination  homo¬ 
geneous.  It  also  publishes  brief  encyclicals  on  all  the  great  moral  ques¬ 
tions  before  the  country,  as  well  as  on  all  religious  questinna  affecting  the 
character  of  the  ministry  or  the  teachings  of  the  pulpit. 

Looking  at  4,000,000  of  human  beings  toiling  through  life  without  the 
right  to  own  property  or  to  own  wife  or  children,  or  even  themselves,  the 
conference,  without  waiting  for  other  churches,  pronounced  American  slav¬ 
ery  to  be  unchristian  and  refused  fellowship  with  those  guilty  of  it.  Letting 
their  vision  take  a  wider  sweep  they  saw  in  every  civilized  land  man’s  God¬ 
like  reason  attacked,  liable  to  be  and  accustomed  to  be  temporarily 
dethroned  and  at  the  same  time  to  have  every  evil  passion  set  on  fire  by  the 
power  of  alcoholic  drink;  and  these  sensible  men  without  hesitation 
declared  temperance  to  be  the  duty  of  every  man,  and  total  abstinence  to 


FREE  BAPTIST  CHURCH  HISTORY, 


741 


be  the  only  practical  rule  of  temperance,  and  to  this  principle  unanimously 
committed  their  ministry  and  laity.  The  early  preachers  found  in  New 
England  church  and  state  bound  together  in  unholy  alliance,  both  requir¬ 
ing  of  the  minister  a  classical  education  and  making  little  account  of  his 
need  of  a  new  heart  and  a  spiritual  life.  But  these  consecra4;ed  men,  neg¬ 
lecting  the  Hebrew  vowels  and  slighting  the  Greek  diphthong,  intent  only 
on  saving  souls,  called  for  preachers  who  knew  the  love  of  Christ  that 
passeth  knowledge — and  were  able  out  of  that  knowledge  to  call  sinners  to 
repentance. 

But  the  general  conference  took  the  matter  in  hand  and  corrected  this 
mistake,  saying:  “This  ought  ye  to  have  done,  and  not  leave  the  other 
undone,”  and  encouraged  the  building  of  academies  and  seminaries,  colleges 
and  divinity  schools  throughout  the  church,  thus  changing  the  current 
from  indifference  to  enthusiasm  for  Christian  education.  On  the  pages  of 
their  well-studied  Bibles  they  read:  “Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature.”  Impelled  by  this  command,  they  had  gone 
everywhere  bearing  the  good  news  of  salvation.  In  1830  they  received  a 
call  to  come  to  the  help  of  the  millions  of  India,  and  heartily  responded, 
sending  brilliant  and  scholarly  minds  to  reduce  heathen  languages  to  writ¬ 
ing,  to  print  Bibles,  plant  schools,  and  other  institutions  required  for  effect¬ 
ive  missionary  work. 

All  that  public  opinion  has  done  for  the  emancipation  of  woman  from 
traditional  false  sentiment,  and  to  give  her  the  free  exercise  of  her  powers, 
was  to  some  extent  anticipated  by  this  people  who  from  the  first  maintained 
her  right  in  the  church  to  pray,  prophesy,  preach,  and  hold  office.  They 
led  the  way,  also  in  New  England,  in  offering  to  her  a  collegiate  course. 
Bates  being  the  first  that  dared  take  this  position.  On  all  these  and  other 
kindred  subjects,  the  voice  of  this  people,  uttered  by  general  conference, 
has  been  entitled  to  the  respect  of  American  society.  Great  wrongs  in  our 
land  would  have  been  righted,  great  evils  averted,  great  good  wrought,  and 
the  record  of  all  American  churches  of  the  19th  century  been  as  consist¬ 
ently  Christian. 

Accepting  the  scriptures  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  the 
denomination  at  first  said  that  all  other  creeds  are  needless.  But  when 
the  rising  church  found  herself  charged  with  holding  destructive  heresies 
she  was  compelled,  in  self-defense,  to  publish  a  confession  of  faith.  As 
this  is  her  present  creed,  and  is  orthodox  at  every  point,  it  will  not  be 
necessary  for  me  to  speak  of  the  tenets  held  by  her  in  common  with  other 
evangelical  churches,  except  so  far  as  these  views  may  appear  in  answering 
the  question  how  her  creed  differs  from  that  of  other  Baptist  Churches. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  she  holds  to  believers’  baptism— one  immer¬ 
sion  in  water  in  the  name  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost — and  to  the 
necessity  of  a  regenerate  church.  But  from  one  Baptist  body  she  is 
differentiate  !  by  accepting  the  Nicene  symbol  in  respect  to  the  Divinity 
of  Christ;  from  another  Baptist  body  in  regarding  saving  faith  as  fiduciary 
rather  than  historic ;  as  antedating  rather  than  being  simultaneous  with 
the  act  of  baptism,  and  as  securing  forgiveness  independently  of  baptism, 
which  is  regarded  as  but  a  sign,  symbol,  and  public  profession  of  grace 
received;  from  a  third  Baptist  body,  in  finding  but  two  ordinances  in  the 
gospel  enjoined  on  the  churches,  and  in  viewing  the  original  government  of 
the  church  as  democratic. 

But  it  is  her  separation  from  the  regular  Baptists  that  deserves  particu¬ 
lar  mention.  Prom  this  body  the  Free  Baptist  Church  differs  on  three 
points  :  In  preferring  the  early  Greek  theology  to  the  Augustinian,  or  the 
Arminian  theology  to  the  Calvinistic ;  in  recognizing  the  churches  of 
Pedo-Baptists  as  Christian  churches;  in  holding  to  Christian  rather  than  a 
sectarian  communion  at  the  Lord’s  table.  The  peculiar  contention  of  Free 
Baptists  has  been  in  behalf  of  the  first  and  last  of  these  petitions. 


742 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


In  respect  to  the  teachings  of  Calvin,  they  have  challenged  the  truth  of 
every  one  of  his  five  points.  They  have  believed  the  decree  of  salvation  to 
be  founded  on  the  sovereign  will  of  God,  but,  therefore,  on  the  divine  nature, 
and,  therefore,  on  infinite  goodness  that  could  not  be  goodness  and  refuse 
to  rescue  as  many  as  possible  of  our  race  from  the  awful  consequences  of 
sin.  By  God’s  will,  all  men  are  equal  before  the  moral  law.  By  the  same 
will  Free  Baptists  assert  that  all  men  are  equal  before  the  eternal  princi¬ 
ples  of  grace;  that  God’s  election,  like  His  salvation,  rests  on  condition  of 
faith  in  Christ,  though  it  is  not  given  by  reason  of  that  faith,  that  faith  is 
not  the  touchstone  of  an  anterior  election,  but  the  terms  of  its  reception; 
that  when  Christ  tasted  death  for  every  man.  He  gave  the  extreme  proof  of 
His  impartial  effort  to  obtain  every  man’s  salvation. 

It  seems  to  the  Free  Baptists  also  utterly  unscientific  to  hold  that  one 
sin  of  the  first  man  shattered  and  broke  down  the  moral  faculties  of  a  soul, 
and  of  the  soul  of  all  his  descendants,  when  innumerable  subsequent  sins 
have  no  such  destructive  effects;  and  hence  that  it  is  reasonable  to  believe 
that  every  sinner  has  the  natural  ability  to  obey  God,  and  can  now  repeat 
the  resolve  and  the  penitent  return  of  the  prodigal  son. 

Moreover,  they  look  on  the  Holy  Sjjirit  as  omnipresent,  imminent  and 
ever  acting  in  making  the  infinite  benevolence  of  God  at  once  to  surround 
and  beat  upon  all  living  hearts,  and  through  the  truth  to  influence  every 
man  to  repent,  believe,  and  be  saved;  and  that,  simultaneously  with  the  sin¬ 
ner’s  first  choice  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit  enters  his  heart  to  cleanse,  renew, 
that  the  Spirit  enters  his  heart,  it  is  by  the  loss  of  faith  that  He  departs, 
and  sanctify,  and  to  fill  it  with  the  love  of  God.  Then,  since  it  is  by  faith 
and  one  who  was  made  partaker  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  had  tasted  the  good 
word  of  God  does,  in  fact,  fall  away  past  hope  of  recovery. 

In  a  word,  then.  Free  Baptists  have  been  unable  to  construe  man’s  self- 
determining  activity  in  deciding  the  supreme  questions  of  his  probation  as 
an  infringement  on  the  prerogative  of  divine  sovereignty;  nor  to  deem  it 
other  than  an  axiom  in  ethics  to  declare  that  the  strength  of  man’s  free 
will  corresponds  to  the  degree  of  his  accountability.  Hence,  “free  will,” 
“free  grace,”  “free  salvation,”  have  ever  been  watchwords  of  Free  Bap¬ 
tists,  though  thereby  separated  from  the  largest  Baptist  body. 

It  is  in  accord  with  the  spirit  of  this  theology  that  Free  Baptists  should 
be  tolerant  of  opposing  views.  They  have  conceded  to  other  Christians 
what  they  have  asked  from  other  Christians — the  right  of  private  judg¬ 
ment— and  from  this  as  a  premise  have  not  found  it  necessary  to  draw  an 
inference  against  the  validity  of  the  title  of  Pedo-Baptist  Churches. 

Different  views  of  baptism,  no  more  than  different  views  of  grace,  can 
undermine  the  ecclesia  of  any  group  of  Christ’s  people.  Christians  who  do 
not  receive  immersion,  if  they  are  yet  Christians,  read  Christ’s  law  of  bap¬ 
tism,  and,  as  they  understand  it,  obey  it — not,  indeed,  according  to  the  let¬ 
ter,  as  we  read  the  law,  but  yet  in  spirit  and  as  unto  the  Lord,  and  their 
organizations,  therefore,  become  to  Free  Baptists  true  churches  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  as  such  often  visibly  owned  and  blessed  of  Him.  This  attitude 
only  a  few  of  the  regular  Baptists  openly  indorse,  nor  all  of  the  Free  Bap¬ 
tists,  but  enough  to  give  it  the  stamp  of  a  denominational  peculiarity. 

It  is  universal  with  Free  Baptists  to  welcome  to  the  Lord’s  table  all  the 
disciples  of  Christ.  They  think  that  when  the  New  Testament  gives  no 
explicit  law  in  respect  to  a  church  practice  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  becomes 
more  binding  and  safe,  more  life-giving  and  Christian  than  any  letter  of 
man’s  sectarian  inferences.  And  that  the  tenor  of  inspired  teaching  and 
the  spirit  of  Christ  enjoin  brotherly  love  and  Christian  fellowship  among 
all  who  bow  to  Christ  as  their  Lord  and  Savior,  seems  to  this  people  as 
clear  as  the  law  of  baptism.  Hence,  seeing,  and  rejoicing  to  see,  that 
Christians  of  divers  opinions  about  church  government  and  the  plan  of 
grace,  and  ritual  observances,  may,  and  often  do,  alike  possess  “righteous- 


SPIRITUAL  IDEAS  OF  THE  BRAHMO-SOMAJ. 


743 


ness,  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,”  and,  serving  Christ  herein,  are  well 
pleasing  to  God  and  approved  of  men.  Free  Baptists  can  not  suppress  the 
impulse  to  greet  these  brethren  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and,  because  they 
belong  to  Him,  to  welcome  them  in  His  table  and  give  them  the  sacred 
emblems  of  our  Lord’s  death.  Although  this  liberality  has  kept  them  apart 
from  the  regular  Baptists,  it  has  given  them  a  pleasant  consciousness  of 
union  with  all  the  Christian  brotherhood,  and  has  allowed  them  to  add  to 
their  illiterative  signal  cries,  “free  will,”  “free  grace,”  “free  salvation,” 
another  like  note,  “  free  communion.” 

Regarded  in  itself,  the  Free  Baptist  system  of  faith  stands  out  complete, 
logical,  compact,  and  so  loyal  to  apostolic  truth  that  it  seems  to  them  but 
a  transcript  from  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament.  Above  all,  she  places 
evangelical  truths  in  the  forefront  of  the  creed.  To  it,  therefore,  the  pulpit 
accords  a  cordial  reception  as  a  body  of  divinity  that  can  be  fully  and  fear¬ 
lessly  preached.  Nor  has  it  been  found  less  adapted  to  be  taught  from 
house  to  house,  in  the  workshop,  in  the  marts  of  trade,  in  the  hospitals  of 
the  sick  and  dying,  to  the  masses  of  men  at  home  or  abroad;  not  wanting  in 
power,  when  taught,  to  touch  the  conscience,  sway  the  judgment,  melt  the 
heart,  and  draw  faith  in  Him  “  who  loved  us  and  gave  Himself  for  us.” 

A  spirit  of  change  has  hovered  over  the  Christian  world  from  the  time 
when  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  in  the  very  presence  of  the  apostles,  began 
to  move  away  from  Christian  standards  of  Christian  faith  and  conduct 
down  through  the  ages  until  our  day.  The  church  reflects  the  character 
of  the  age;for  flexible,though  stable,  are  Christian  principles,  adapting  them¬ 
selves  without  loss  of  essential  truth,  to  the  divers  conditions  of  life.  Too 
often,  however,  adjustment  to  conditions  has  meant  laxity;  too  often, 
reform  has  meant  intolerance. 

Within  a  century  the  aspect  of  the  churches  in  our  land  has  undergone 
partial  transformation;  forbidding  features  have  been  softened;  reserve 
been  changed  to  brotherly  love;  distrust  to  confidence;  jealousy  over 
another’s  success  to  rejoicing,  and  the  light  of  grace  has  caused  the  face  of 
God’s  people  to  wear  closer  resemblance  to  the  face  of  our  blessed  Lord. 
But  the  work  of  the  spirit  in  the  churches  is  not  completed,  and  still  goes 
on.  “  Back  to  Christ,”  the  call  is  heard.  To  a  better  condition,  to  a  more 
perfect  character.  Providence  is  leading  the  churches.  In  response  to  the 
influence  that  He  has  set  in  motion,  the  Free  Baptist  denomination  has,  in 
many  things,  amended  her  exterior  life  and  removed  the  clinging  defects  of 
an  earlier  day.  None  of  the  tenets  of  her  faith,  however,  has  she  seen  rea¬ 
son  to  modify.  Nor  is  the  present  trend  of  Christian  thought  in  evangel¬ 
ical  circles  away  from  her  catholicity  of  spirit  and  truth.  Rather  the 
currents  vT  practical  relief,  if  not  of  speculative  theology,  set  strongly  toward 
her  stable  and  yet  liberal  orthodoxy.  It  is  possibly  in  store  for  her  that 
she  shall  yet  not  be  the  “least  among  the  princes  of  Judah,”  even  possible 
that  she  has  been  chosen  to  resent  that  reasonable  and  attractive  center  of 
truth  for  the  coming  church,  where  the  Lord’s  scattered  sheep  shall  be 
gathered  in  one  held,  under  one  shepherd,  that 

Far  off,  divine  event 

To  which  the  whole  “  creation  moves.'* 


SPIRITUAL  IDEAS  OF  THE  BRAHMO-SOMAJ. 

B.  B.  NAGARKAR  OF  BOMBAY. 

During  the  last  few  days  various  faiths  have  been  pressing  their  claims 
upon  your  attention.  And  it  must  be  a  great  puzzle  and  perplexity  for  you 
to  accept  any  of  these  or  all  of  these.  But  during  all  these  discussions  and 


744  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

debates  I  would  earnestly  ask  you  all  to  keep  in  mind  one  prominent  fact 
— that  the  essence  of  all  these  faiths  is  one  and  the  same.  The  truth  that 
lies  at  the  root  of  them  all  is  unchanged  and  unchanging.  But  it  req Hires' 
an  impartial  and  dispassionate  consideration  to  understand  and  appreciate 
this  truth.  One  of  the  poets  of  our  country  has  said: 

When  scriptures  differ  and  faiths  disagree,  a  man  should  see  truth  reflected  in 
his  own  spirit. 

This  truth  can  not  be  observed  unless  we  are  prepared  to  forget  the 
accident  of  our  nationality.  We  are  all  too  apt  to  be  carried  away  for  or 
against  a  system  of  religion  by  our  false  patriotism,  insular  nationality,  and 
scholarly  egotism.  This  state  of  the  heart  is  detrimental  to  spiritual  cult¬ 
ure  and  spiritual  development.  Self-annihilation  and  self-effacement  are 
the  only  means  of  realizing  the  verities  of  the  spiritual  world.  The  mind 
of  man  is  like  a  lake,  and  just  as  the  clear  and  crystal  image  of  the  even¬ 
ing  moon  can  nob  be  faithfully  reflected  on  the  surface  of  the  lake  so  long 
as  the  waters  are  disturbed  by  storms  and  waves,  so,  in  the  same  way, 
spiritual  truths  can  not  be  imaged  in  the  heart  of  man  so  long  as  his  mind 
is  disturbed  by  the  storms  of  false  pride  and  partial  prejudice. 

I  stand  before  you  as  an  humble  member  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj,  and  if 
the  followers  of  other  religions  will  commend  to  your  attention  their  own 
respective  creeds,  my  humble  attempt  will  be  to  place  before  you  the 
liberal  and  cosmopolitan  principles  of  my  beloved  church. 

The  fundamental,  spiritual  ideal  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  is  belief  in  the 
existence  of  one  true  God.  Now,  the  expression,  belief  in  the  existence  of 
God,  is  nothing  new  to  you  In  a  way  you  all  believe  in  God,  but  to  us  of 
the  Brahmo-Somaj  that  belief  is  a  stern  reality;  it  is  not  a  logical  idea,  it 
is  nothing  arrived  at  after  an  intellectual  process.  It  must  be  our  aim  to 
feel  God,  to  realize  God  in  our  daily  spiritual  communion  with  Him.  We 
must  be  able,  as  it  were,  to  feel  His  touch — to  feel  as  we  were  shaking 
hands  with  Him.  This  deep,  vivid,  real,  and  lasting  perception  of  the 
Supreme  Being  is  the  first  and  foremost  ideal  of  the  theistic  faith. 

You,  in  the  Western  countries,  are  tod  apt  to  forget  this  ideal.  The 
ceaseless  demand  on  your  time  and  energy,  the  constant  worry  and  hurry 
of  your  business  activity  and  the  artificial  conditions  of  your  Western  civili¬ 
zation  are  all  calculated  to  make  you  forgetful  of  the  personal  presence  of 
God.  You  are  too  apt  to  be  satisfied  with  a  mere  belief — perhaps  at  the 
best,  a  notional  belief  in  God.  The  Eastern  does  not  live  on  such  a  belief, 
and  such  a  belief  can  never  form  the  life  of  a  life-giving  faith.  It  is  said 
that  the  way  to  an  Englishman’s  heart  is  through  his  stomach;  that  is,  if 
you  wish  to  reach  his  heart  you  must  do  so  through  the  medium  of  that 
wonderful  organ  called  the  stomach.  The  stomach,  therefore,  is  the  life  of 
an  Englishman,  and  all  his  life  rests  in  his  stomach. 

Wherein  does  the  heart  of  a  Hindu  lie?  It  lies  in  his  sight.  He  is  not 
satisfied  unless  and  until  he  has  seen  God.  The  highest  dream  of  his  spir¬ 
itual  life  is  God-vision  —  the  seeing  and  feeling  in  every  place  and  at  every 
time  the  presence  of  a  supreme  being.  He  does  not  live  by  bread,  but  by 
sight. 

The  second  spiritual  ideal  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  is  the  unity  of  truth. 
We  believe  that  truth  is  born  in  time  but  not  in  a  place.  No  nation,  no 
people,  or  no  community  has  any  exclusive  monopoly  of  God’s  truth.  It  is 
a  misnomer  to  speak  of  truth  as  Christian  truth,  Hindu  truth,  or  Moham¬ 
medan  truth. 

Truth  is  the  body  of  God.  In  His  own  providence  He  sends  it  through 
the  instrumentality  of  a  nation  or  people,  but  that  is  no  reason  why  that 
nation  or  that  people  should  pride  themselves  for  having  been  the  medium 
of  that  truth.  Thus,  we  must  always  be  ready  to  receive  the  gospel  truth 
from  w^hatever  country  and  from  whatever  people  it  may  come  to  us.  We 
all  believe  in  the  principle  of  free  trade  or  unrestricted  exchange  of  goods. 


SPIRITUAL  IDEAS  OF  THE  BRAHMO-SOMAJ. 


745 


And  we  eagerly  hope  and  long  for  the  golden  day  when  people  of  every 
nation  and  of  every  clime  will  proclaim  the  principle  of  free  trade  in  spirit¬ 
ual  matters  as  ardently  and  as  zealously  as  they  are  doing  in  secular  affairs 
or  in*  industrial  matters. 

It  appears  to  me  that  it  is  the  duty  of  us  all  to  put  together  the  grand 
and  glorious  truths  believed  in  and  taught  by  different  nations  of  the 
world.  This  synthesis  of  truth  is  a  necessary  result  of  the  recognition  of 
the  principle  of  the  unity  of  truth.  Owing  to  this  character  of  the  Brahmo- 
Somaj,  the  church  of  Indian  theism  has  often  been  called  an  eclectic 
church;  yes,  the  religion  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  is  the  religion  of  eclecticism 
— of  putting  together  the  spiritual  truths  of  the  entire  humanity  and  of 
earnestly  striving  after  assimilating  them  with  our  spiritual  being.  The 
religion  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  is  inclusive  and  not  exclusive. 

The  third  spiritual  ideal  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  is  the  harmony  of 
prophets.  We  believe  that  the  prophets  of  the  world — spiritual  teachers 
such  as  Vyas  and  Buddha,  Moses  and  Mohammed,  Jesus  and  Zoroaster,  all 
form  a  homogeneous  whole.  Each  has  to  teach  mankind  his  own  message. 
Every  prophet  was  sent  from  above  with  a  distinct  message,  and  it  is  the 
duty  of  us  who  live  in  these  advanced  times  to  put  these  messages  together, 
and  thereby  harmonize  and  unify  the  distinctive  teachingsmf  the  prophets 
of  the  world.  It  would  not  do  to  accept  the  one  and  reject  all  the  others, 
or  to  accept  some  and  reject  even  a  single  one.  The  general  truths  taught 
by  these  different  prophets  are  nearly  the  same  in  their  essence;  but, in  the 
midst  of  all  these  universal  truths  that  they  taught,  each  has  a  distinctive 
truth  to  teach,  and  it  should  be  our  earnest  purpose  to  find  out  and  under¬ 
stand  this  particular  truth.  To  me  Vyas  teaches  how  to  understand  and 
apprehend  the  attributes  of  divinity.  The  Jewish  prophets  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  teach  the  idea  of  the  sovereignty  of  God ;  they  speak  of  God  as  a 
king,  a  monarch,  a  sovereign  who  rules  over  the  affairs  of  mankind  as 
nearly  and  as  closely  as  an  ordinary  human  king.  Mohammed,  on  the 
other  hand,  most  emphatically  teaches  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  God.  He 
rebelled  against  the  trinitarian  doctrine  imported  into  the  religion  of 
Christ  through  Greek  and  Roman  influences.  The  monotheism  of  Moham¬ 
med  is  hard  and  unyielding,  aggressive  and  almost  savage.  I  have  no 
sympathy  with  the  errors  or  erroneous  teachings  of  Mohammedanism,  or 
of  any  religion,  for  that  matter.  In  spite  of  all  such  errors,  Mohammed’s 
ideal  of  the  unity  of  God  stands  supreme  and  unchallenged  in  his 
teachings. 

Buddha,  the  great  teacher  of  morals  and  ethics,  teaches  in  most  sublime 
strains  the  doctrine  of  Nirvana,  or  self-denial  and  self-effacement.  This 
principle  of  extreme  self-abnegation  means  nothing  more  than  the  subju¬ 
gation  and  conquest  of  our  carnal  self.  For  you  know  that  man  is  a  com¬ 
posite  being.  In  him  he  has  the  angelic  and  the  animal,  and  the  spiritual 
training  of  our  life  means  no  more  than  subjugation  of  the  animal  and  the 
setting  free  of  the  angelic. 

So,  also,  Christ  Jesus  of  Nazareth  taught  a  sublime  truth  when  He 
inculcated  the  noble  idea  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  He  taught  many  other 
truths,  but  the  Fatherhood  of  God  stands  supreme  above  them  all.  The 
brotherhood  of  man  is  a  mere  corollary,  or  a  conclusion,  deduced  from  the 
idea  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  Jesus  taught  this  truth  in  the  most 
emphatic  language,  and,  therefore,  that  is  the  special,  message  that  He  has 
brought  to  fallen  humanity.  In  this  way,  by  means  of  an  honest  and 
earnest  study  of  the  lives  and  teachings  of  different  prophets  of  the  world, 
we  can  find  out  the  central  truth  of  each  faith.  Having  done  this,  it  should 
be  our  highest  aim  to  harmonize  all  these  and  to  build  up  our  spiritual 
nature  on  them. 

The  religious  history  of  the  present  century  has  most  clearly  shown  the 
need  and  necessity  of  the  recognition  of  some  universal  truths  in  religion. 


14Q 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


For  the  last  several  years  there  has  been  a  ceaseless  yearning,  a  deep 
longing  after  such  a  universal  religion.  The  jjresent  Parliament  of  Relig¬ 
ions,  which  we  have  been  for  the  last  few  days  celebrating  with  so  much 
edification  and  ennoblement,  is  the  clearest  indication  of  this  universal 
longing,  and,  whatever  the  prophets  of  despondency  or  the  champions  of 
orthodoxy  may  say  or  feel,  every  individual  who  has  the  least  spark  of 
spirituality  alive  in  him  must  feel  that  this  spiritual  fellowship  that  we 
have  enjoyed  for  the  last  several  days  within  the  precincts  of  this  noble 
hall  can  not  but  be  productive  of  much  that  leads  toward  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  universal  peace  and  good  will  among  men  and  nations  of  the 
world. 

To  us  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  this  happy  consummation,  however  partial 
and  imperfect  it  may  be  for  the  time  being,  is  nothing  short  of  a  sure  fore¬ 
taste  of  the  realization  of  the  principle  of  the  harmony  of  prophets.  In 
politics  and  in  national  government  it  is  now  an  established  fact  that  in 
future  countries  and  continents  on  the  surface  of  the  earth  will  be  governed, 
not  by  mighty  monarchies  or  aristocratic  autocracies,  but  by  the  system  of 
universal  federation.  The  history  of  political  progress  in  your  own  country 
stands  in  noble  evidence  of  my  statement;  and  I  am  one  of  those  who 
strongly  believe  that  at  some  future  time  every  country  will  be  governed 
by  itself  as  an  independent  unit,  though  in  some  respects  may  be  dependent 
on  some  brother  power  or  sister  kingdom.  What  is  true  in  politics  will  also 
be  true  in  religion;  and  nations  will  recognize  and  realize  the  truths  taught 
by  the  universal  family  of  the  sainted  prophets  of  the  world. 

In  the  fourth  place,  we  believe  that  the  religion  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj 
is  a  dispensation  of  this  age;  it  is  a  message  of  unity  and  harmony;  of  uni¬ 
versal  amity  and  unification,  proclaimed  from  above.  We  do  not  believe  in 
the  revelation  of  books  and  men,  of  histories  and  historical  records.  We 
believe  in  the  infallible  revelation  of  the  spirit— in  the  message  that  comes 
to  man,  but  the  touch  of  human  spirit  with  the  Supreme  Spirit.  And  can 
we  even  for  a  moment  ever  imagine  that  the  spirit  of  God  has  ceased  to 
work  in  our  midst?  No,  we  can  not.  Even  to-day  God  communicates  His 
will  to  mankind  as  truly  and  as  really  as  He  did  in  the  days  of  ChTist  or 
Moses,  Mohammed  or  Buddha. 

The  dispensations  of  the  world  are  not  isolated  units  of  truth,  but 
viewed  at  as  a  whole,  and  followed  out  from  the  earliest  to  the  latest  in 
their  historical  sequence,  they  form  a  continuous  chain,  and  each  dispensa¬ 
tion  is  only  a  link  in  this  chain.  It  is  our  bounden  duty  to  read  the  mes¬ 
sage  of  each  dispensation  in  the  light  that  comes  from  above,  and  not 
according  to  the  dead  letter  that  might  have  been  recorded  in  the  past. 
The  interpretation  of  letters  and  words,  of  books  and  chapters,  is  a  drag 
behind  on  the  workings  of  the  spirit.  Truly  hath  it  been  said  that  the  let¬ 
ter  killeth.  Therefore,  brethren,  let  us  seek  the  guidance  of  the  spirit  and 
interpret  the  message  of  the  Supreme  Spirit  by  the  help  of  His  Holy  Spirit. 

Thus  the  Brahmo-Somaj  seeks  to  Hinduize  Hinduism,  Mohammedan- 
ize  Mohammedanism,  and  Christianize  Christianity.  And  whatever  the 
champions  of  old  Christian  orthodoxy  may  say  to  the  contrary,  mere  doc¬ 
trine,  mere  dogma  can  never  give  life  to  any  country  or  community.  We 
are  ready  and  most  willing  to  receive  the  truths  of  the  religion  of  Christ  as 
truly  as  the  truths  of  the  religions  of  other  prophets,  but  we  shall  receive 
these  from  the  life  and  teachings  of  Christ  Himself,  and  not  through  the 
medium  of  any  church,  or  the  so-called  missionary  of  Christ.  If  Christian 
missionaries  have  in  them  the  meekness  of  purpose  that  Christ  lived  in 
His  own  life  and  so  pathetically  exemplified  in  His  glorious  death  on  the 
cross,  let  our  missionary  friends  show  it  in  their  lives. 

We  are  wearied  of  hearing  the  dogmas  of  Christendom  reiterated  from 
Sunday  to  Sunday  from  hundreds  of  pulpits  in  India,  and  evangelists  and 
revivalists  of  the  type  of  Dr.  Pentecost,  who  go  to  our  country  to  sing  to 


A  WHITE  Life  for  two. 


747 


the  same  tune,  only  add  to  the  chaos  and  confusion  presented  to  the  natives 
of  India  by  the  dry  and  cold  lives  of  hundreds  and  thousands  of  his 
Christian  brethren.  They  come  to  India  on  a  brief  sojourn,  pass 
through  the  country  like  birds  of  passage,  moving  at  a  whirlwind 
speed,  surrounded  by  Christian  fanatics  and  dogmatists,  and  to  us  it 
is  no  matter  of  wonder  that  they  do  not  see  any  good,  or,  having  seen 
it  do  not  recognize  it,  in  any  of  the  ancient  or  modern  religious  systems  of 
India.  Mere  rhetoric  is  no  reason,  nor  is  abuse  an  argument,  unless  it  be 
the  argument  of  a  want  of  common  sense.  And  we  are  not  disposed  to 
quarrel  with  any  people  if  they  are  inclined  to  indulge  in  these  two  instru¬ 
ments  generally  used  by  those  who  have  no  truth  on  their  side.  For  these 
our  only  feeling  is  a  feeling  of  pity — unqualified,  unmodified,  earnest  pity, 
and  we  are  ready  to  ask  God  to  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what 
they  say. 

The  first  ideal  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  is  the  ideal  of  the  motherhood  of 
God.  I  do  not  possess  the  powers  nor  have  I  the  time  to  dwell  at  length 
on  this  most  sublime  ideal  of  the  church  of  Indian  theism.  The  world  has 
heard  of  God  as  the  Almighty  Creator  of  the  universe,  as  the  Omnipotent 
Sovereign  that  rules  the  entire  creation,  as  the  Protector,  the  Savior,  and  the 
Judge  of  the  human  race;  as  the  Supreme  Being,  vivifying  and  enlivening 
the  whole  of  the  sentient  and  insentient  nature. 

We  humbly  believe  that  the  world  has  yet  to  understand  and  realize,  as 
it  never  has  in  the  past,  the  tender  and  loving  relationship  that  exists 
between  mankind  and  their  supreme,  universal,  divine  Mother.  Oh,  what 
a  world  of  thought  and  feeling  is  centered  in  that  one  monosyllabic  word 
ma,  which  in  my  language  is  indicative  of  tha  English  word  mother. 
Words  can  not  describe,  hearts  can  not  conceive  of  the  tender  and  self-sacri¬ 
ficing  love  of  a  human  mother.  Of  all  human  relations  the  relation  of 
mother  to  her  children  is  the  most  sacred  and  elevating  relation.  And  yet 
our  frail  and  fickle  human  mother  is  nothing  in  comparison  with  the  divine 
Mother  of  the  entire  humanity,  who  is  the  primal  source  of  all  love,  of  all 
mercy,  and  all  purity. 

Let  us,  therefore,  realize  that  God  is  our  Mother,  the  Mother  of  man¬ 
kind,  irrespective  of  the  country  or  the  clime  in  which  men  and  women 
may  be  born.  The  deeper  the  realization  of  the  Motherhood  of  God,  the 
greater  will  be  the  strength  and  intensity  of  our  ideas  of  the  brotherhood 
of  man  and  the  sisterhood  of  woman.  Once  we  see  and  feel  that  God  is 
our  Mother,  all  the  intricate  problems  of  theology,  all  the  puzzling  quib¬ 
bles  of  church  government,  all  the  quarrels  and  wranglings  of  the  so-called 
religious  world  will  be  solved  and  settled.  We  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  family 
hold  that  a  vivid  realization  of  the  Motherhood  of  God  is  the  only  solution 
of  the  intricate  problems  and  differences  in  the  religious  world. 

May  the  Universal  Mother  grant  us  all  Her  blessings  to  understand  and 
appreciate  Her  sweet  relationship  to  the  vast  family  of  mankind.  Let  us 
approach  Her  footstool  in  the  spirit  of  Her  humble  and  obedient  children. 


A  WHITE  LIFE  FOR  TWO. 

FRANCES  E.  WILLARD  (eEAD  BY  PROXY). 

I  dare  aflBrm  that  the  reciprocal  attraction  of  two  natures,  out  of  a 
thousand  million  for  each  other,  is  the  strongest,  though  one  of  the  most 
unnoted,  proofs  ot  a  beneficent  Creator.  It  is  the  fairest,  sweetest  rose  of 
time,  whose  petals  and  whose  perfume  expand  so  far  that  we  are  inclosed 
and  sheltered  in  their  tenderness  and  beauty.  For,  folded  in  its  heart,  we 
find  the  germ  of  every  home  ;  of  those  beatitudes,  fatherhood  and  mother¬ 
hood;  the  brotherly  and  sisterly  affection,  the  passion  of  the  patriot,  the 


748 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


calm  and  yteadfast  love  of  the  philanthropist.  For  the  faithfulness  of  two, 
each  to  the  other,  alone  makes  possible  the  true  home,  the  pure  church, 
the  righteous  nation,  the  great,  kind  brotherhood  of  man.  These  are  the 
days  when  creeds  are  discounted,  but  here  is  a  creed  to  which  we  all  sub¬ 
scribe  : 

Comfort  our  souls  with  love, 

Love  of  all  human  kind. 

Love  special,  close,  in  which,  like  sheltered  dove, 

Each  heart  its  own  safe  nest  may  find; 

And  love  that  turns  above  adoringly,  contented  to  resign 
All  loves,  if  need  be,  for  the  love  divine. 

Marriage  is  not,  as  some  surface  thinkers  have  endeavored  to  make  out, 
an  episode  in  man’s  life  and  an  event  in  woman’s.  Any  who  hold  this  view 
should  sup  their  till  of  horrors  on  the  daily  records  of  suicides  by  young 
men  who  are  lovers,  of  sweethearts  shot,  and  murdered  wifes.  Marriage  is 
no  unequal  covenant;  it  is  the  sum  of  earthly  weal  or  woe  to  him  or  her 
who  shares  its  mystic  sacrament.  Doubtless  there  are  in  modern  lands 
and  in  this  age  of  transition  almost  as  many  noble  men  unmated  because 
they  had  to  be  as  there  are  women.  Because  of  a  memory  cherished,  an 
estrangement  unexplained,  an  ideal  unrealized,  a  duty  bravely  met,  many 
of  the  best  men  living  go  their  way  through  life  alone.  Sometimes  I  think 
that  of  the  two  it  is  man  who  loves  home  best;  for  while  woman  is  hedged 
into  it  by  a  thousand  considerations  of  expediency  and  prejudice,  he  “with 
all  the  world  before  him  where  to  choose,”  still  chooses  home  freely  and 
royally  for  her  sake,  who  is  to  him  the  world’s  supreme  attraction. 

The  past  has  bequeathed  us  no  records  more  sublime  than  the  heart 
histories  of  Dante,  of  Petrarch,  of  Michael  Angelo,  and,  in  our  own  time, 
of  Washington  Irving  and  Henry  Marty n  and  others  whom  we  dare  not 
name.  It  was  a  chief  among  our  own  poets  who  said: 

0 

I  look  upon  the  stormy  wild, 

I  have  no  wife,  1  have  no  child; 

For  mo  there  gleams  no  household  hearth, 

I’ve  none  to  love  me  on  the  earth. 

We  know  that  “he  who  wrote  home’s  sweetest  song  ne’er  had  one  of  his 
own,”  and  our  household  poet,  Will  Car leton,  sang  concerning  John  Howard 
Payne — 

Sure,  when  thy  gentle  spirit  fled. 

To  lands  beyond  the  azure  dome. 

With  arms  outstretched,  God’s  angel  said: 

“Welcome  to  heaven’s  home,  sweet  home.” 

There  are  men  and  women — some  of  them  famous,  some  unknown — the 
explanation  of  whose  uncompanioned  lives  may  be  found  in  the  principle 
that  underlies  those  memorable  words  applied  to  Washington:  “Heaven 
left  him  childless  that  a  nation  might  call  him  father.”  In  such  consider¬ 
ations  as  I  have  here  urged,  and  in  this  noblest  side  of  human  nature,  a 
constant  factor  always  to  be  counted  on,  I  found  my  faith  in  the  response 
of  the  people  to  the  worth  of  promoting  social  purity.  “Sweet  bells  jangled, 
out  of  tune,”  now  fill  the  air  with  minor  cadences,  often,  alas,  with  discords 
that  are  heartbreaks,  but  all  the  same  they  are  “sweet  bells”  and  shall 
chime  the  gladdest  music  heaven  has  heard,  “some  sweet  day,  by  and  by.” 
This  gentle  age  into  which  we  have  happily  been  born  is  attuning  the 
twain  whom  God  hath  made  for  such  great  destiny  to  higher  harmonies 
than  any  other  age  has  known  by  a  reform  in  the  denaturalizing  methods 
of  a  civilization  largely  based  on  force  by  which  the  boy  and  girl  have 
hitherto  been  sedulously  trained  apart.  They  are  now  being  set  side  by 
side  in  school,  in  church,  in  government,  even  as  God  sets  male  and  female 
everywhere  side  by  side  throughout  his  realm  of  law  and  has  declared  them 
one  throughout  his  realm  of  grace. 

Meanwhile  the  conquest,  through  invention,  of  matter  by  mind  lifts 


A  WHITE  LIFE  FOR  TWO, 


749 


•woman  from  the  unnatural  subjugation  of  the  age  of  force.  In  the  presence 
of  a  steam  engine,  which  she  could  guide  as  well  as  he,  but  which  is  an 
equal  mystery  to  both,  the  man  and  woman  learn  that  they  are  fast  equal¬ 
izing  on  the  plane  of  matter,  as  a  prediction  of  their  confessed  equalization 
upon  the  planes  of  mind  and  of  morality. 

We  are  then  beginning  to  train  those  with  each  other  who  were  formed 
for  each  other,  and  the  English-speaking  home,  with  its  Christian  method 
of  a  two-fold  headship,  based  on  laws  natural  and  divine,  is  steadily  root¬ 
ing  out  all  that  remains  of  the  medieval,  continental,  and  harem  philoso¬ 
phies  concerning  this  greatest  problem  of  all  time.  The  true  relations  of 
that  complex  being  whom  God  created  by  uttering  the  mystic  thought 
that  had  in  it  the  potency  of  paradise,  “  In  our  own  image  let  us  make 
man  and  let  him  have  dominion  over  all  the  earth,”  will  ere  long  be  ascer¬ 
tained  by  means  of  the  new  correlation  and  attuning  each  to  other,  of  a 
more  complete  humanity  upon  the  Christlike  basis  that  “there  shall  be  no 
more  curse.”  The  temperance  reform  is  this  correlation’s  necessary  and 
true  forerunner,  for  while  the  race  brain  is  bewildered  it  can  not  be  thought 
out.  The  labor  reform  is  another  part,  for  only  under  co-operation  can 
material  conditions  be  adjusted  to  a  noncombatant  state  of  society,  and 
every  yoke  lifted  from  the  laboring  man  lifts  one  still  heavier  from  the 
woman  at  his  side.  The  equal  suffrage  movement  is  another  part,  for  a 
government  organized  and  conducted  by  one-half  of  the  human  unit,  a 
government  of  the  minority,  by  the  minority,  for  the  minority,  must  always 
bear  unequally  upon  the  whole.  The  social  purity  movement  could  only 
come  after  its  heralds,  the  other  three  reforms  I  have  mentioned  were  well 
under  way,  because  alcoholized  brains  would  not  tolerate  its  expression; 
women  who  had  not  learned  to  work  would  lack  the  individuality  and  intre¬ 
pidity  required  to  organize  it,  and  women  perpetually  to  be  disfranchised 
could  not  hope  to  see  its  final  purposes  wrought  out  in  law.  But  back  of  all 
were  the  father  and  mother  of  all  reform — Christianity  and  education — to 
blaze  the  way  for  all  these  later  comers. 

The  Women’s  Christian  Temperance  Union  is  doing  no  work  more 
important  than  that  of  reconstructing  the  ideal  of  womanhood.  The 
sculptor.  Hart,  told  me,  when  I  visited  his  studio  in  Florence  many  years 
ago,  that  he  was  investing  his  life  in  the  attempt  to  work  into  marble  a  new 
feminine  type  which  should  “  express,  unblamed,  the  20th  century’s 
womanhood.”  The  Venus  de  Medici,  with  its  small  head  and  buttonhole 
eyelids,  matched  the  Greek  conception  of  women  well,  he  thought,  but 
America  was  slowly  evolving  another  and  a  loftier  type.  A  statue,  named 
by  him  “  Woman  Triumphant,”  and  purchased  by  patriotic  ladies  of  his 
native  State,  Kentucky,  adorns  the  city  hall  at  Lexington  and  shows 

A  perfect  woman,  nobly  planned. 

To  warn,  to  comfort,  and  command; 

A  creature  not  too  bright  or  good 
For  human  nature’s  daily  food. 

And  yet  a  spirit,  pure  and  bright. 

With  something  of  an  angel’s  light. 

She  is  the  embodiment  of  what  shall  be.  In  an  age  of  force,  woman’s 
greatest  grace  was  to  cling;  in  this  age  of  peace,  she  doesn’t  cling  much,  but 
is  every  bit  as  tender  and  as  sweet  as  if  she  did.  She  has  strength  and 
individuality,  a  gentle  seriousness;  there  is  more  of  a  sister,  less  of  the  siren; 
more  of  the  duchess,  and  less  of  the  doll.  Woman  is  becoming  what  God 
meant  her  to  be,  and  Christ’s  gospel  necessitates  her  being  the  companion 
and  counselor,  not  the  encumbrance  and  toy,  of  men. 

To  meet  this  new  creation,  how  grandly  men  themselves  are  growing; 
how  considerate  and  brotherly,  how  pure  in  word  and  deed.  The  world  has 
never  yet  known  half  the  aptitude  of  character  and  life  to  which  men  will 
attain  when  they  and  women  live  in  the  same  world.  It  doth  not  yet  appear 


750 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


what  they  shall  be,  or  we  either,  for  that  matter,  but  in  many  a  home  pre¬ 
sided  over  by  a  temperance  voter  and  a  white-ribbon  worker  I  have  thought 
the  heavenly  vision  was  really  coming  down  to  terra  firma.  With  all  my 
heart  I  believe,  as  do  the  best  men  of  the  nation,  that  woman  will  bless  and 
brighten  every  place  she  enters,  and  that  she  will  enter  every  place.  Its 
welcome  of  her  presence  and  her  power  will  be  the  final  test  of  any  institu¬ 
tion’s  fitness  to  survive. 

Happily  for  us,  every  other  genuine  reform  helps  to  push  forward  the 
white  car  of  social  purity.  The  great  peace  movement,  seeking  as  its  final 
outcome  a  court  of  international  arbitration  as  a  substitute  for  war,  prom¬ 
ises  more  momentum  to  our  home  cause  than  to  almost  any  other.  For,  as 
the  chief  corner-stone  of  the  peaceful  state  is  the  hearth-stone,  so  the  chief 
pulverizer  of  that  corner-stone  is  war. 

The  personal  habits  of  men  and  women  must  reach  the  same  high  level. 
On  a  low  plane,  and  for  selfish  ends,  primeval  and  medieval  man  wrought 
out,  with  fiercest  cruelty,  virtue  as  the  only  tolerated  estate  of  one-half  the 
human  race.  On  a  high  plane,  Christianity,  working  through  modern 
womanhood,  shall  yet  make  virtue  the  only  tolerated  estate  of  the  other 
half  of  the  human  race,  and  may  heaven  speed  that  day!  To-day  a  woman 
knows  that  she  must  walk  the  straight  line  of  a  white  life  or  men  will  look 
upon  her  with  disdain.  A  man  needs,  for  his  own  best  good,  to  find  that  in 
the  eyes  of  woman,  just  the  same  is  true  of  him — and  evermore  be  it  remem¬ 
bered,  this  earnest  effort  to  bring  in  the  day  of  “sweeter  manners,  purer 
laws,”  is  as  much  in  man’s  interest  as  our  own 

Why  are  the  laws  so  shamelessly  unequal  now?  Why  do  they  bear  so 
heavily  upon  the  weaker,  making  the  punishment  for  stealing  away  a 
woman’s  honor  no  greater  than  that  for  stealing  a  silk  gown;  purloining 
her  character  at  a  smaller  penalty  than  the  picking  of  a  pocket  would 
incur?  Why  is  the  age  of  protection  or  consent  but  ten  years  in  twenty 
States  of  America,  and  in  one  only  seven  years?  Who  would  have  supposed, 
when  man’s  great  physical  strength  is  considered,  that  he  would  have  fixed 
upon  an  age  so  tender  and  declared  that  after  a  child  had  reached  it  she 
could  be  held  equally  accountable  with  her  doughty  assailant  for  a  crime 
in  which  he  was  the  aggressor?  And  who  would  not  suppose  that  the 
man  who  had  been  false  to  one  woman  would  be  socially  ostracized  by  all 
the  rest  of  womankind?  What  will  explain  the  cruelty  of  man  and  the 
heartlessness  of  woman  in  this  overmastering  issue  of  womanhood’s  pro¬ 
tection  and  manhood’s  loyalty? 

The  answer  is  not  far  to  seek.  Woman  became,  in  barbarous  ages,  the 
subjects  of  the  stronger.  Besides,  what  suits  one  age  becomes  a  hindrance 
to  the  next,  and  as  Christianity  went  on  individualizing  woman,  lifting  her 
to  higher  levels  of  education  and  hence,  of  power,  the  very  laws  which  good 
men  in  the  past  had  meant  for  her  protection  became  to  her  a  snare  and 
danger.  But  while  all  this  heritage  of  a  less-developed  past  has  wrought 
such  anguish  and  injustice  upon  woman  as  she  is  to-day,  it  has  been  even 
more  harmful  to  man,  for  it  is  always  worse  for  character  to  be  sinning 
than  to  be  sinned  against.  Our  laws  and  social  customs  make  it  too  easy 
for  men  to  do  wrong.  They  are  not  sufficiently  protected  by  the  strong 
hand  of  penalty  from  themselves  from  the  sins  that  do  most  easily  beset 
them,  and  from  the  mad  temptations  that  clutch  at  them  on  every  side. 
Suppose  the  tramplers  of  wives  and  outragers  of  women,  whose  unutter¬ 
able  abominations  crowd  the  criminal  columns  of  our  newspapers  each  day, 
knew  that  life-long  imprisonment  might  be  the  penalty  that  they  must  pay, 
would  not  the  list  of  their  victims  rapidly  diminish?  The  World’s  Chris¬ 
tian  Temperance  Union  has  taken  up  this  sacred  cause  of  protection  of  the 
home,  and  we  shall  never  cease  our  efforts  until  women  have  all  the  help 
that  law  can  furnish  them  throughout  the  world  We  ask  for  heavier  pen¬ 
alties,  and  that  the  age  of  consent  be  raised  to  eighteen  years;  we  ask  for  the 


A  WHITE  LIFE  FOR  TWO. 


751 


total  prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic,  which  is  leagued  with  every  crime  that 
is  perpetrated  against  the  physically  weaker  sex,  and  ask  for  the  ballot  that 
law  and  lawmaker  may  be  directly  influenced  by  our  instincts  of  self -pro¬ 
tection  and  home  protection. 

We  hear  much  of  physical  culture  for  boys,  but  it  is  girls  that  need  this 
most.  We  hear  much  of  manual  training  schools  to  furnish  every  boy  at 
school  with  a  bread-winning  weapon,  but,  in  the  interest  of  boys  and 
girls  alike,  girls  need  this  most.  Hence  it  is  in  our  plans  to  work  for  these. 
But,  as  I  have  said,  we  are  not  working  for  ourselves  alone  in  this  great 
cause  of  social  purity.  As  an  impartial  friend  toithe  whole  human  race  in 
both  its  fractions,  man  and  woman,  I,  for  one,  am  not  more  in  earnest  for 
this  great  advance  because  of  the  good  it  brings  to  the  gentler  than 
becausetof  the  blessing  that  it  prophesies  for  the  stronger  sex.  I  have  long 
believed  that  when  that  greatest  of  all  questions,  the  question  of  a  life  com¬ 
panionship,  shall  be  decided  on  its  merits,  pure  and  simple,  and  not 
complicated  with  the  other  questions:  “Did  she  get  a 'good  home?”  “Is 
he  a  generous  provider?”  “Will  she  have  plenty  of  money?”  then  will 
come  the  first  fair  chance  ever  enjoyed  by  young  manhood  for  the  building 
up  of  genuine  character  and  conduct.  For  it  is  an  immense  temptation  to 
the  “  sowing  of  wild  oats,”  when  the  average  youth  knows  that  the  smile 
he  covets  most  will  be  his  all  the  same,  no  matter  whether  he  smokes, 
swears,  drinks  beer,  and  leads  an  impure  life,  or  not.  The  knowledge  on 
his  part  that  the  girls  of  his  village  or  “  set  ”  have  no  way  out  of  depend¬ 
ence,  reproach,  or  oddity,  except  to  say  “yes”  when  he  chooses  to 
“propose”;  that  they  dare  not  frown  on  his  lower  mode  of  life;  that  the 
world  is,  indeed,  all  before  him  where  to  choose;  that  not  one  girl  in  one 
hundred  is  endowed  with  the  talent  and  pluck  that  make  her  independent 
of  him  and  his  ilk.  All  this  gives  him  a  sense  of  freedom  to  do  wrong, 
which,  added  to  inherited  appetite  and  outward  temptation,  is  impelling  to 
ruin  the  youth  of  our  day  with  force  strong  as  gravitation  and  relentless 
as  fate. 

Besides  all  this,  the  utterly  false  sense  of  his  own  value  and  importance 
which  “  Young  England  ”  or  “  Young  America  ”  acquires  by  seeing  the  sweet¬ 
est  and  most  attractive  beings  on  the  face  of  the  earth  thus  virtually  subject 
to  him  often  develops  a  lordliness  of  manner  which  is  ridiculous  to  con¬ 
template  in  boys  who  otherwise  would  be  modest,  sensible,  and  brotherly 
young  fellows,  such  as  we  are,  most  of  all,  likely  to  And  in  co-educational 
schools,  where  girls  take  their  full  share  of  prizes,  and  where  many  young 
women  have  in  mind  a  world  trip  with  some  girl  friend,  or,  mayhap,  a 
“  career.” 

Multiplied  forces  of  law  and  gospel  are  to-day  conspiring  for  the  deliv¬ 
erance  of  our  young  men  from  the  snares  of  their  present  artificial  environ¬ 
ment  and  exaggerated  estimate  of  their  own  value;  but  the  elevation  of 
their  sisters  to  the  plane  of  perfect  financial  and  legal  independence,  from 
which  the  girls  can  dictate  equitable  terms:  “  You  must  be  as  pure  and 
true  as  you  require  me  to  be,  ere  I  give  you  my  hand,”  is  the  brightest  hope 
that  gleams  in  the  sky  of  modern  civilization  for  our  brothers;  and  the 
greater  freedom  of  women  to  make  of  marriage  an  affair  of  the  heart,  and 
not  of  the  purse,  is  the  supreme  result  of  Christianity  up  to  this  hour. 

There  is  no  man  whom  women  honor  so  deeply  and  sincerely  as  the  man  of 
chaste  life — the  man  who  breasts  the  buffetings  of  temptation’s  swelling 
waves,  like  some  strong  swimmer  in  his  agony,  and  makes  the  port  of  per¬ 
fect  self-control.  Women  have  a  thousand  guarantees  and  safeguards  for 
their  purity  of  life.  “  Abandon  hope,  all  ye  who  enter  here,”  is  written  in 
letters  of  flame  for  them  above  the  haunt  of  infamy,  while  men  may  come  and 
go,  and  are  yet  similarly  received  in  the  most  attractive  homes.  And  yet, 
thank  God,  in  spite  of  this  accursed  latitude,  how  many  men  are  pure  and 
true  I 


752 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


It  is  said  that  when  darkness  settles  on  the  Adriatic  Sea,  and  fishermen 
are  far  from  land,  their  wives  and  daughters,  just  before  putting  out  the 
lights  of  thoir  humble  cottages,  go  down  by  the  shore,  and  in  their  clear, 
sweet  voices  sing  the  first  lines  of  the  “  Ave  Maria.”  Then  they  listen 
eagerly,  and  across  the  sea  are  borne  to  them  the  deep  tones  of  those  they 
love,  singing  the  strains  that  follow,  “Oro  Pro  Nobis,”  and  thus  each  knows 
that  with  the  other  all  is  well.  I  often  think  that  from  the  home-life  of  the 
nation,  from  its  mothers  and  sisters,  daughters  and  sweethearts,  there 
sound  through  the  darkness  of  this  transition  age  the  tender  notes  of  a 
dearer  song,  whose  burden  is  being  taken  up  and  echoed  back  to  us  from 
those  far  out  amid  the  billows  of  temptation,  and  its  sacred  words  are 
“Home,  Sweet  Home.”  God  grant  that  deeper  and  stronger  may  grow  that 
heavenly  chorus  from  men’s  and  women’s  lips  and  lives,  for,  with  all  its 
faults,  and  they  are  many,  I  believe  the  present  marriage  system  to  be  the 
greatest  triumph  of  Christianity,  and  that  it  has  created  and  conserves 
more  happy  homes  than  the  world  has  ever  before  known. 

Any  law  that  renders  less  binding  the  mutual,  life-long  loyalty  of  one  man 
and  woman  to  each  other,  which  is  the  central  idea  of  every  home,  is  an 
unmitigated  curse  to  that  home  and  to  humanity.  Around  this  union,  which 
alone  renders  possible  a  pure  society  and  a  permanent  state,  the  law  should 
build  its  utmost  safeguards,  and  upon  this  union  the  gospel  should  pro¬ 
nounce  its  most  sacred  benedictions.  But  while-I  hold  these  truths  to  be 
self-evident,  I  believe  that  a  constant  evolution  is  going  forward  in  the 
home,  as  in  every  other  place,  and  that  we  may  have  but  dimly  dreamed 
the  good  in  store  for  those  whom  God  for  holiest  love  hath  made.  In  the 
nature  of  the  case  the  most  that  even  Christianity  itself  could  do  at  first, 
though  it  is  the  strongest  force  ever  let  loose  upon  the  planet,  was  to 
separate  one  man  and  one  woman  from  the  common  herd  into  each  home, 
telling  the  woman  to  work  there  in  grateful  quietness,  while  the  man  stood 
at  the  door  to  defend  its  sacred  shrine  with  fist  and  spear,  to  insist  upon 
its  rights  of  property,  and  later  on  to  represent  it  in  the  state. 

Thus,  under  the  conditions  of  civilization,  crude  and  material,  grew  up 
that  well-worn  maxim  of  the  common  law,  “  Husband  and  wife  are  one, 
and  that  one  is  the  husband.”  But  such  supreme  power  as  this  brought 
to  the  man  supreme  temptation.  By  the  laws  of  mind  he  legislated  first 
for  himself  and  afterward  for  the  physically  weaker  one  within  “his” 
home.  The  femme  couverte  is  not  a  character  appropriate  to  our  peaceful, 
home-like  communities,  although  she  may  have  been,  and  doubtless  was,  a 
necessary  figure  in  the  days  when  women  were  safe  only  as  they  were  shut 
up  in  castles  and  when  they  were  the  booty  chiefly  sought  in  war.  To-day 
a  woman  may  circumnavigate  the  world  alone  and  yet  be  unmolested.  Our 
marriage  laws  and  customs  are  changing  to  meet  these  new  conditions. 

It  will  not  do  to  give  the  husband  of  the  modern  woman  power  to  whip 
his  wife,  “provided  the  stick  he  uses  is  not  larger  than  his  finger;”  to  make 
all  the  laws  under  which  she  is  to  live;  adjudicate  all  her  penalties,  try  her 
before  juries  of  men,  conduct  her  to  prison  under  the  care  of  men,  cast  the 
ballot  fcr  her,  and,  in  general,  hold  her  in  the  estate  of  a  perpetual  minor. 
It  will  not  do  to  let  the  modern  man  determine  the  age  of  “consent,” settle 
the  penalties  that  men  shall  suffer  whose  indignities  and  outrages  upon 
women  are  worse  toithem  than  death,  and  by  his  exclusive  power  to  make 
all  laws  and  choose  all  officers,  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive,  thus  leav¬ 
ing  his  case  wholly  in  his  own  hands.  To  continue  this  method  is  to  make 
it  as  hard  as  possible  for  men  to  do  right,  and  as  easy  as  possible  for  them 
to  do  wrong;  the  magnificent  possibilities  of  manly  character  are  best 
prophesied  from  the  fact  that  under  such  a  system  so  many  men  are  good 
and  gracious.  My  theory  of  marriage  in  its  relation  to  society  would  give 
this  postulate:  Husband  and  wife  are  one,  and  that  one  is  husband  and 
wife.  I  believe  they  will  never  come  to  the  heights  of  purity,  of  power,  and 


WORSHIP  OF  GOD  IN  MAN. 


753 


peace  for  which  they  were  designed  in  heaven  until  this  better  law  pre¬ 
vails.  One  undivided  half  of  the  world  for  wife  and  husband  equally; 
co-education  to  mate  them  on  the  plane  of  mind;  equal  property  rights  to 
make  God’s  own  free  woman,  not  coerced  into  marriage  for  the  sake  of  sup¬ 
port,  nor  a  bond  slave  after  she  is  married,  who  asks  her  master  for  the  price 
of  a  paper  of  pins,  and  gives  him  back  the  change. 

I  believe  in  uniform  national  marriage  laws;  in  divorce  for  one  cause 
only;  in  legal  separation  on  account  of  drunkenness  and  other  abomina¬ 
tions;  but  I  would  guard,  for  the  childrens’  sake,  the  marriage  tie  by 
every  guarantee  that  could  make  it  at  the  top  of  society,  the  most  coveted 
estate  of  the  largest  natured  and  most  endowed,  rather  than  at  the 
bottom,  the  necessary  refuge  of  the  smallest-natured  and  most  dependent 
women.  Besides  all  this,  in  the  interest  of  men,  in  order  that  their 
incentives  to  the  bist  life  might  be  raised  to  the  highest  power,  I  would 
make  women  so  independent  of  marriage  that  men  who,  by  bad  habits 
and  niggardly  estate,  whether  physical,  mental,  or  moral,  were  least 
adapted  to  help  build  a  race  of  human  angels  should  find  the  facility  with 
which  they  now  enter  its  hallowed  precincts  reduced  to  the  lowest 
minimum. 

Until  God’s  laws  are  better  understood  and  more  reverently  obeyed, 
marriage  can  not  reach  its  best.  The  present  abnormal  style  of  dress 
among  women  heavily  mortgages  the  future  of  their  homes  and  more 
heavily  discounts  that  of  their  children.  Add  to  this  the  utter  recklessness 
of  immoral  consequences  that  characterizes  the  mutual  conduct  of  so 
many  married  pairs,  and  only  the  everlasting  tendencies  toward  good  that 
render  certain  the  existence  and  supremacy  of  a  goodness  that  is  infinite, 
can  explain  so  much  health  and  happiness  as  our  reeling  old  world  persists 
in  holding  while  it  rolls  onward  toward  some  far-off  perfection,  bathed  in 
the  sunshine  of  God’s  omnipotent  love.  Our  Boston  woman  poet,  Mrs. 
Julia  Ward  Howe,  has  given  us  the  noblest  motto  for  social  purity: 

in  the  beauty  of  the  lilies,  Christ  was  born  across  the  sea; 

With  the  glory  in  His  bosom  that  transfigures  you  and  me; 

As  He  died  to  make  men  holy,  let  us  die  to  make  men  free. 

While  God  is  marching  on. 


WORSHIP  OF  GOD  IN  MAN, 

ELIZABETH  STANTON’s  PAPER. 

As  we  have  not  yet  reached  the  ultimatum  of  religious  faith  it  may  be 
legitimate  to  ask:  What  will  the  next  step  be?  As  we  are  all  alike  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  trend  of  religious  thought,  no  one  should  feel  aggrieved  in 
hearing  his  creed  fairly  analyzed  or  in  listening  to  speculations  as  to  some¬ 
thing  better  in  the  near  future.  As  I  read  the  signs  of  the  times,  I  think 
the  next  form  of  religion  will  be  the  “  religion  of  humanity,”  in  which  men 
and  women  will  worship  what  they  see  of  the  divine  in  each  other;  the  vir¬ 
tues,  the  beatitudes,  the  possibilities  ascribed  to  Deity,  reflected  in  mortal 
beings. 

To  stimulate  our  reverence  for  the  great  spirit  of  life  that  set  all  things 
in  motion  and  holds  them  forever  in  their  places,  our  religious  teachers 
point  us  to  the  grandeur  of  nature  in  all  her  works.  We  tremble  at  the 
earthquake,  the  hurricane,  the  rolling  thunder  and  vivid  lightning,  the 
raging  tempests  by  sea  and  land;  we  are  filled  with  awe  and  admiration  by 
the  splendor  of  the  starry  heavens,  the  boundless  oceans  and  vast  conti¬ 
nents,  the  majestic  forests,  lakes  and  rivers,  and  snow-capped  mountains 
that  in  their  yearnings  seem  to  touch  the  heavens.  From  all  these  grand 


754 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


and  impressive  forces  in  nature  we  turn  with  relief  to  the  gentle  rain  and 
dew,  the  genial  sunshine,  the  singing  birds,  and  fragrant  bowers — to  the 
love  and  tenderness  we  find  in  every  form  of  life;  we  see  order  and  beauty, 
too,  in  the  changing  seasons,  the  planetary  world,  in  the  rising  sun,  moon, 
and  stars,  in  day  with  its  glorious  dawn  and  eight  with  its  holy  mysteries, 
which  all  together  thrill  with  emotion  every  chord  of  the  human  soul. 

By  all  the  wonders  and  mysteries  that  surround  us  we  are  led  to  ques¬ 
tion  the  source  of  what  we  see,  and  to  judge  the  powers  and  possibilities 
of  the  Creator  by  the  grandeur  and  beauty  of  His  works.  Measuring 
man  by  the  same  standard,  we  find  that  all  the  forces  and  qualities  the 
most  exalted  mind  ascribes  to  his  ideal  God  are  reproduced  in  a  less  degree 
in  the  noble  men  and  women  who  have  glorified  the  race.  Judging  man 
by  his  works,  what  shall  we  say  to  the  seven  wonders  of  the  world,  of  the 
Colossus  of  Rhodes,  Diana’s  Temple  at  Ephesus,  the  Mausoleum  at  Hali¬ 
carnassus  the  Pyramids  of  Egypt,  the  Pharos  at  Alexandria,  the  Hanging 
Gardens  at  Babylon,  and  the  Olympian  Zeus?  True,  these  are  all  crumb¬ 
ling  to  dust,  but  change  is  law,  too,  in  all  nature’s  works. 

The  manifestation  of  man’s  power  is  more  varied  and  wonderful  as  the 
ages  roll  on.  Who  can  stand  in  St.  Peter’s,  at  Rome,  and  listen  to  the  deeji- 
toned  organ  reverberating  from  arch  to  arch  with  a  chorus  of  human 
voices  alike  pathetic  and  triumjjhant  in  their  hymns  of  praise,  without 
feeling  the  divine  harmony  in  architecture,  poetry,  and  song?  And  yet 
man,  so  small  in  stature,  conceived  and  perfected  that  vast  cathedral,  with 
its  magnificent  dome,  strung  every  key  in  that  grand  organ  to  answer  to 
a  master’s  touch,  and  trained  every  voice  in  that  great  choir  to  melody 
to  perfect  time  and  tune  —  a  combination  in  grandeur  surpassing  far  the 
seven  wonders  of  the  world. 

And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  discoveries  and  inventions  of  the  past 
fifty  years,  by  which  the  labors  of  the  world  have  been  lifted  from  the 
shoulders  of  men,  to  be  done  henceforth  by  the  tireless  machines  ?  Behold 
the  magnitude  of  the  works  accomplished  by  man  in  our  day  and  genera¬ 
tion!  He  has  leveled  mountains  and  bridged  chasms;  with  his  railroads  he 
has  linked  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific,  the  Rocky  and  the  Allegheny  Mount¬ 
ains  toget’ner;  with  steam  and  the  ocean  cable  he  has  anchored  continents 
side  by  side  and  melted  the  nations  of  the  earth  in  one.  With  electricity 
man  has  opened  such  vistas  of  wonder  and  mystery  that  scientists  and 
philosophers  stand  amazed  at  their  own  possibilities,  and  in  the  wake  of  all 
these  triumphs  we  are  startled  with  new  mysteries  revealed  by  physical 
researches  into  what  has  hitherto  been  the  unseen  universe. 

Man  has  manifested  wisdom,  too,  as  well  as  power.  In  fact,  what  cardi¬ 
nal  virtue  has  He  not  shown,  through  all  the  shifting  scenes  of  the  passing 
centuries?  The  page  of  history  glows  with  the  great  deeds  of  noble  men 
and  women.  What  courage  and  heroism,  what  self-sacrifice  and  sublime 
faith  in  principle  have  they  not  shown  in  persecution  and  death,  ’mid  the 
horrors  of  war,  the  sorrows  of  exile,  and  the  weary  years  of  prison  life? 
What  could  sustain  mortal  man  in  this  awful  “  solitude  of  self  ”  but  the 
fact  that  the  great  moral  forces  of  the  universe  are  bound  up  in  his  organi¬ 
zation?  What  are  danger,  death,  exile,  and  dungeon  walls  to  the  great 
spirit  of  life  incarnate  in  him? 

The  old  idea  of  mankind  as  “  totally  depraved,  ”  his  morality  “  but  filthy 
rags,”  his  heart  “  deceitful  above  all  things  and  desperately  wicked,”  his 
aspirations  “but  idle  dreams  of  luxury  and  selfishness  ”  are  so  many  reflec¬ 
tions  on  the  Creator,  who  is  said  to  be  perfect  and  to  have  made  man  in 
his  own  image.  The  new  religion  will  teach  the  dignity  of  human  nature 
and  its  infinite  possibilities  for  development.  Its  believers  will  not  remain 
forever  in  the  valley  of  humiliation,  confessing  themselves  in  the  church 
service  on  each  returning  Sabbath  day  to  be  “  miserable  sinners,”  imploring 
the  good  Lord  to  deliver  them  from  the  consequences  of  violated  law,  but 


WORSHIP  OF  GOD  IN  MAN, 


755 


the  new  religion  will  inspire  its  worshipers  with  self-respect,  with  noble 
aspirations  to  attain  diviner  heights  from  day  to  day  than  they  yet  have 
reached.  It  will  teach  individual  honesty  and  honor  in  word  and  deed,  in 
all  relations  of  life.  It  will  teach  the  solidarity  of  the  race  that  all  must 
rise  or  fall  as  one.  Its  creed  will  be  justice,  liberty,  equality  for  all  the 
children  of  earth.  It  will  teach  our  practical  duties  to  man  in  this  life, 
rather  then  sentimental  duties  to  God  in  fitting  ourselves  for  the  next  life. 
A  loving  human  fellowshiji  is  the  real  divine  communion.  The  spiritual 
life  is  not  a  mystical  contemplation  of  divine  attributes,  but  the  associated 
development  of  all  that  is  good  in  human  character. 

The  Old  and  New  Testaments,  which  Christians  accept  as  their  rule  of 
life,  are  full  of  these  lessons  of  universal  benevolence.  “If  you  love  not 
man  whom  you  have  seen,  how  can  you  love  God  whom  you  have  not  seen?  ” 
Jesus  said  to  His  disciples:  “Whatsoever  you  have  done  unto  these.  My 
brethren,  ye  have  done  unto  Me.”  “When  I  was  hungry  ye  gave  Me  meat, 
when  naked  ye  clothed  Me,  when  in  prison  ye  ministered  unto  Me.”  When 
the  young  man  asked  what  he  should  do  to  be  saved,  Jesus  did  not  tell  him 
he  must  believe  certain  dogmas  and  creeds,  but  to  go  and  sell  all  that  he 
had  and  give  to  the  poor. 

The  prophets  and  apostles  alike  taught  a  religion  of  deeds  rather  than 
forms  and  ceremonies.  “  Away  with  your  new  moons,  your  Sabbaths  and 
your  appointed  feasts;  the  worship  God  asks  is  that  you  do  justice  and 
love  mercy.”  “God  is  no  respecter  of  persons.”  “  He  has  made  of  one  blood 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth.”  When  the  pulpits  in  our  lands  shall  preach 
from  these  texts  and  enforce  these  lessons,  the  religious  conscience  of  the 
people  will  take  new  form  of  expression,  and  those  who  in  very  truth 
accept  the  teachings  of  Jesus  will  make  it  their  first  duty  to  look  after  the 
lowest  stratum  of  humanity. 

To  build  a  substantial  house,  we  begin  with  the  cellar  and  lay  the 
foundations  strong  and  deep,  for  on  it  depends  the  safety  of  the  whole 
superstructure.  So  in  race  building,  for  noble  specimens  of  humanity, 
for  peace  and  prosperity  in  their  conditions,  we  must  begin  with  the  lowest 
stratum  of  society  and  see  that  the  masses  are  well  fed,  clothed,  sheltered, 
educated,  elevated,  and  enfranchised.  Social  morality,  clean,  pleasant 
environments,  must  precede  a  spiritual  religion  that  enables  man  to  under¬ 
stand  the  mysteries  binding  him  to  the  seen  and  unseen  universe. 

This  radical  work  can  not  be  done  by  what  is  called  charity,  but  by 
teaching  sound  principles  of  domestic  economy  to  our  educated  classes, 
showing  that  by  law,  custom,  and  false  theories  of  natural  rights  they  are 
responsible  for  the  poverty,  ignorance,  and  vice  of  the  masses.  Those  who 
train  the  religious  conscience  of  the  peojile  must  teach  the  lesson  that  all 
these  artificial  distinctions  in  society  must  be  obliterated  by  securing 
equal  conditions  and  opportunities  for  all;  this  can  not  be  done  in  a  day; 
but  this  is  the  goal  for  which  we  must  strive.  The  first  step  to  this  end  is 
to  educate  the  people  into  the  idea  that  such  a  moral  revolution  is  possible. 

It  is  folly  to  talk  of  just  government  and  a  pure  religion  where  the  state 
and  the  church  alike  sustain  an  aristocracy  of  wealth  and  ease,  while  those 
who  do  the  hard  work  of  the  world  have  no  share  in  the  blessings  and  riches 
that  their  continued  labors  have  made  possible  for  others  to  enjoy.  Is  it 
just  that  the  many  should  ever  suffer  that  the  few  may  shine? 

To  reconcile  men  to  things  as  they  are  we  have  sermons  from  the  texts, 
“Blessed  are  the  x>oor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven;” 
“The  poor  ye  have  always  with  you;”  “Servants,  obey  your  masters;” 
“Wives,  submit  yourselves  unto  your  husbands;”  “Render  unto  Caesar  the 
things  that  are  Caesar’s” — as  if  poverty,  servility,  and  authority  were 
decrees  of  heaven. 

Such  decrees  will  not  not  do  for  our  day  and  generation.  The  school¬ 
master  is  abroad.  Webster’s  spelling-book  is  a  classic.  The  laboring  classes 


756 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


have  tasted  the  tree  of  knowledge,  and,  like  the  gods,  •  they  begin  to  know 
good  from  evil.  With  new  liberties  and  education  they  demand  correspond¬ 
ing  improvements  in  their  environments.  As  they  reach  new  vantage-ground 
from  time  to  time  and  survey  broader  fields  of  usefulness,  they  learn  their 
rights  and  duties,  their  relations  to  one  another,  and  their  true  place  in  the 
march  of  civilization. 

“  Equal  rights  for  all  ”  is  the  lesson  this  hour.  “  That  can  not  be,”  says 
some  faithless  conservative;  “if  you  should  distribute  all  things  equally 
to-day,  they  would  be  in  the  hands  of  the  few  to-morrow.”  Not  if  the 
religious  conscience  of  the  people  were  educated  to  believe  that  the  way  to 
salvation  was  not  in  creed  and  greed,  but  in  doing  justice  to  their  fellow- 
men.  Not  if  altruism,  instead  of  egoism,  were  the  law  of  social  morals. 
Not  if  co-operation,  instead  of  competition,  were  the  rule  in  the  world  of 
work.  Not  if  legislation  were  ever  in  the  interest  of  the  many,  rather 
than  the  few.  Educate  the  rising  generation  into  these  broader  principles 
of  government,  religion,  and  social  life,  and  then  ignorance,  poverty,  and 
vice  will  disappear. 

The  reconciliation  of  man  to  his  brother  is  a  more  practical  religion 
than  that  of  man  to  his  father,  and  the  progress  is  more  easily  understood. 
The  word  religion  means  to  bind  again,  to  unite  those  who  have  been  sepa¬ 
rated,  to  harmonize  those  who  have  been  in  antagonism.  Thus  far  the 
attitude  of  man  to  man  has  been  hostile — ever  in  competition,  trying  to 
overreach  and  enslave  each  other.  With  hope  we  behold  the  dawn  of  the 
new  day  in  the  general  awakening  to  the  needs  of  the  laboring  masses. 
We  hail  the  work  of  the  Salvation  Army,  the  King’s  Daughters,  the  kinder¬ 
garten,  and  ragged  schools  for  children  of  the  poor,  the  university  settle¬ 
ments,  etc.  All  these  added  to  our  innumerable  charities  show  that  the 
trend  of  thought  is  setting  in  the  right  direction  for  the  health,  happiness, 
and  education  of  the  lowest  classes  of  humanity. 


CHRISTIANITY  AS  SEEN  BY  A  VOYAGER  AROUND 

THE  WORLD. 

REV.  FRANCIS  E.  CLARK  OF  BOSTON. 

One  very  interesting  fact  is  implied  by  the  very  title  of  our  address,  and 
that  is,  that  Christianity  is  seen  by  a  voyager  in  all  parts  of  this  round 
globe.  A  century  ago  such  a  title  as  this  would  have  been  meaningless. 
The  voyager  would  have  found  Christianity  limited  practically  to  Europe 
and  America.  Now  he  sees  a  vigorous  and  virile  type  of  Christian  piety  in 
every  great  division  of  the  earth’s  surface. 

In  no  one  of  the  five  continents  is  Christianity  utterly  a  stranger.  If  he 
takes  the  wings  of  the  morning  and  flies  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth,  even  there  he  finds  that  the  religion  of  Christ  has  gone  before  him. 
A  hundred  years  ago  Christianity  was  unknown  in  the  vast  continent  of 
Australia,  except  as  remembered  by  an  occasional  shipwrecked  sailor,  or  by 
the  ticket-of-leave  men  who,  with  all  their  faults,  did  not  leave  the  religion 
of  their  boyhood  in  the  Old  World. 

In  Japan  he  would  have  found  the  gates  of  that  marvelous  land  barred 
and  locked  with  a  triple  padlock  against  the  religion  of  Christ.  He  would 
have  found  the  memories  of  the  massacre  of  Pappenburg  still  compara¬ 
tively  fresh,  and  the  edict  against  the  religion  of  the  West  by  no  means  a 
dead  letter. 

He  would  have  found  China  equally  unresponsive  to  the  healing  touch 
of  Christ,  while  India  was  completely  in  the  grasp  of  a  monopoly  whose 


CHRISTIANITY  AS  SEEN  BY  A  VOYAGER. 


757 


ensign  would  more  properly  flaunt  the  device  of  a  puncheon  of  rum  and  an 
opium  pipe  than  the  cross  of  Christ. 

An  impression  which  was  very  strongly  made  on  the  mind  of  this 
voyager  was,  that  Christianity  is  an  exceedingly  real,  substantial,  and 
vital  thing  in  every  part  of  the  world.  In  spite  of  the  insinuations  of  prej¬ 
udiced  “  globe  trotters,”  who  will  not  allow  that  Christianity  has  made 
even  a  ripple  on  the  stagnant  pool  of  heathenism,  he  came  very  soon  to 
know  that  the  religion  of  Christ  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  among 
the  yellow-skinned,  almond-eyed  people  of  the  East  as  well  as  among  the 
Caucasians  of  the  West, 

These  persistent  and  utterly  untrue  slanders  of  certain  travelers  from 
Christian  lands,  which  are  often  blazoned  forth  in  our  papers  with  startling 
head-lines,  as  though  a  wonderful  discovery  had  been  made,  deserve  little 
attention.  These  rumors  are  often  to  the  effect  that  Christianity  is  a  dis¬ 
mal  failure,  except  in  Europe  and  America;  that  the  missionaries  are  pam¬ 
pered  sons  of  fortune,  who  live  in  elegant  houses  and  feed  on  the  fat  of  the 
land,  while  their  converts  grovel  in  the  dust  at  their  feet;  that  no  real 
impression  is  made  upon  the  superstitions  or  vices  of  heathenism;  that  all 
the  converts  are  “  rice  Christians,”  professing  allegiance  to  the  new  faith 
for  what  they  can  get  out  of  it,  and  that  even  were  a  nation  or  tribe  as 
nominally  Christianized,  it  is  but  a  surface  varnish,  or  at  the  most  a  veneer 
of  Christianity  which  kills  off  the  unfortunate  tribes,  which  are  coated 
with  it,  by  inducing  them  to  adopt  civilized  clothes  and  civilized  ways,  to 
which  their  climate  and  life  are  unsuit  able. 

Doubtless  my  hearers  have  heard  the  changes  wrung  upon  these  minor 
keys  of  present  failure  and  dismal  prophecy,  and  it  becomes  every  voyager 
around  the  world  who  knows  whereof  he  is  speaking  to  deny  flatly  and 
decidedly  these  misrepresentations  of  unsympathetic  and  prejudiced 
travelers. 

What  good  report  would  such  a  traveler  take  away  from  a  church 
prayer-meeting,  however  stimulating  and  spiritual  it  might  be;  from  a  Sun¬ 
day  school  where  hundreds  of  children  are  taught  the  way  of  life;  from  a 
Christian  Endeavor  meeting,  ail  aglow  with  the  warmth  and  glow  of  conse¬ 
crated  warm  hearts?  Doubtless  his  lip  vrould  curl  and  a  sneer  would  fall 
from  his  tongue  if  called  upon  to  speak  or  write  concerning  any  such  mani¬ 
festations  of  the  religious  life  in  most  favored  lands.  What,  then,  can  be 
expected  of  him  when,  amid  the  distractions  of  travel  and  the  dissipation  of 
foreign  life,  he  enters  a  treaty  port,  catches  up  the  first  rumor  which  floats 
to  his  ears  concerning  the  missionaries  and  missionary  work  of  the  vicinity, 
and,  without  investigating  sympathetically,  or  looking,  perhaps,  even  with 
a  prejudiced  eye  upon  the  actual  work  that  is  being  done,  hastens  home  to 
poison  the  public  mind  and  fill  the  secular  press  with  his  wonderful  discov¬ 
eries  concerning  the  absolute  failure  of  Christianity  in  the  far  lands  across 
the  sea. 

It  would  be  well  if  such  a  traveler  could  visit  some  cannibal  heathen 
island,  “before  and  after”  the  missionary  began  to  make  himself  felt.  If 
he  lived  to  visit  the  islands  the  second  time,  and  was  not  in  the  course  of 
his  first  visit  served  up  as  a  delicious  tidbit  for  the  gormand  chiefs  of  the 
island,  we  believe  that  after  his  second  visit  he  would  have  more  respect 
for  the  men  whom  he  now  decries  and  the  faith  that  he  now  belittles. 

What  makes  this  difference?  There  can  be  but  one  answer,  and  that  is 
the  religion  of  Christ.  It  is  the  only  factor  that  causes  Samoa  to  differ 
from  New  Guinea.  Surely  the  difference  is  not  caused  by  the  advent  of 
the  merchant  and  trader.  Firearms  and  gunpowder,  rum  and  tobacco, 
never  transformed  a  man-eating  tribe  into  a  gentle,  polite,  and  generous 
nation. 

Another  impression  which  is  very  distinctly  made  upon  the  mind  of  a 
voyager  around  the  world  is  that  Christianity  is  entirely  and  absolutely 


758 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


different  in  its  motive  power,  its  purifying  influence,  and  its  uplifting  inspira¬ 
tion  from  any  and  all  other  religions  with  which  it  comes  in  competition. 

The  dirty,  greasy  bull  of  Madura  and  Tanjore  has  nothing  in  common 
with  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world.  The  hope¬ 
less,  nonchalant,  indifferent  tomtom  beating  of  the  priests  of  Canton  has 
no  point  of  contact  with  the  worship  of  Him  who  must  be  worshiped  in 
spirit  and  in  truth.  Even  the  wdld  fanaticism  of  the  Buddhist  of  Japan, 
which  has  more  life  and  reality  in  it  than  the  religions  of  many  other  non- 
Christian  lands;  even  the  devotion  which  leads  women  to  sacrifice  their 
tresses  that  they  may  be  woven  into  cables  with  which  to  haul  the  beams 
for  the  temples  of  their  gods,  bear  little  resemblance  to  the  intelligent 
faith  and  hope  and  charity  which  constitute  the  strength  of  Christian 
manhood  and  the  grace  of  Christian  womanhood. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


SIXTEENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  26th. 

Julia  Ward  Howe  was  a  prominent  figure  on  the  platform  at 
the  morning  session.  Rev.  James  S.  Dennis  of  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  recited  the  universal  prayer. 
“We  have  with  us  this  morning,”  then  said  Dr.  Barrows,  “  one 
who  has  made  a  special  study  of  the  religions  of  the  world,  one 
who  is  distinguished  as  an  author,  and  a  poet,  and  a  teacher. 
He  is  to  speak  to  us  on  ‘  The  Attitude  of  Christianity  to  Other 
Religions.’  I  take  pleasure  in  introducing  Prof.  W.  C.  Wil¬ 
kinson  of  the  Chicago  University.” 


ATTITUDE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  TO  OTHER 

RELIGIONS. 

PROF.  W.  C.  WILKINSON. 

My  subject  is  narrow  and  strictly  bounded.  I  do  not  discuss  in  general 
the  relations  between  Christianity  and  the  ethnic  religions — relations  of 
priority,  of  derivation,  of  reciprocal  influence,  of  similarity,  of  intrinsic 
value,  of  present  prevalence,  of  probable  future  spread.  These  topics  have, 
all  of  them,  their  interest  and  their  importance.  But  they  are  all  of  them 
aside  from  my  present  purpose.  I  discuss  simply  and -solely  the  question 
of  the  attitude  that  Christianity  assumes  and  maintains  toward  competing 
religions.  In  passing,  I  may  say,  that  toward  the  adherents  of  non-Chris¬ 
tian  religions,  the  attitude  of  Christianity  is  an  attitude  of  sympathy,  of 
help,  of  desire  and  endeavor  to  save.  Toward  the  non-Christian  religions 
themselves,  the  attitude  of  Christianity  may  be  found  to  be  very  different. 

But  what  is  Christianity?  As  its  name  imports,  it  is  the  religion  of 
Christ.  Where  shall  we  look  to  find  the  religion  of  Christ  authoritatively 
described?  If  there  is  any  authoritative  description  of  Christianity  exist¬ 
ing,  that  description  must  be  found  in  the  collection  of  writings  called  the 
Bible.  To  the  Bible,  then,  let  us  go  with  our  question.  What  is  the  atti¬ 
tude  of  Christianity  toward  other  religions? 

I  say  to  the  Bible,  but  of  course  I  must  mean,  in  the  first  instance,  to 
that  part  of  the  Bible  which  is  called  the  New  Testament.  The  New 
Testament  purports  to  give  an  account  of  what  Christ  and  Christ’s  accred¬ 
ited  representatives  taught.  This,  evidently,  is  Christianity. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  there  is  no  question  here  of  the  nature,  the 
extent,  or  the  application  of  the  “  salvation  ”  of  which  Jesus  speaks.  It  is 

759 


760 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


not  in  the  least  a  question  to  how  many,  or  to  whom,  the  salvation  spoken 
of  flows.  It  is  simply  and  solely  a  question  whence  it  issues;  from  what 
source.  The  destination  of  the  salvation  may  be  very  wide,  may  be  as 
wide  as  the  world.  It  may  even,  so  far  as  our  immediate  purpose  is  con¬ 
cerned,  include  every  individual  soul  of  the  whole  human  race.  But  the 
origin,  the  fountain  head  of  the  salvation,  is  narrow,  it  is  single.  It  is, 
according  to  Jesus,  from  the  Jews  alone. 

Very  noteworthy  is  it  that,  in  connection  with  an  utterance  suited  to 
elicit  such  praise  from  such  a  source,  Jesus  should  have  added  the  chal¬ 
lenging  clause  of  claim  and  exclusion  which  we  are  considering,  “Salva¬ 
tion  is  from  the  Jews.”  No  doubt  in  using  those  words,  Jesus  had  refer¬ 
ence  to  Himself  as  born  a  Jew,  and  as  being  Himself  the  exclusive  personal 
bringer  of  the  salvation  spoken  of.  The  system  of  J udaism  is  contained 
in  the  Old  Testament  scriptures.  To  those  documents,  then,  we  may  go 
with  the  same  confldence  as  to  the  New  Testament  itself,  in  order  to  learn 
what  the  attitude  is  of  Christianity  toward  alien  religions.  Of  all  religions 
whatsoever,  it  may  be  said  comprehensively  that  their  ostensible  object, 
their  principal  pretension,  is  one  and  the  same,  namely,  to  be  a  means  of 
salvation  to  men.  As  to  all  religions  except  Judaism,  Jesus  teaches  that 
the  pretensions  is  false;  he  declares  that  human  salvation  is  of  (from)  the 
Jews,  and  the  force  of  the  language  is  such  as  to  carry  the  rigorous  infer¬ 
ence  that  he  meant  from  the  Jews  alone.  This  attitude  of  His  is,  of  course, 
an  attitude  of  frank  and  uncompromising  hostility  to  every  other  religion 
other  than  his  own. 

The  ethical  truth  implied  in  the  precept  against  lying,  namely,  the  truth 
that  lying  is  wrong,  is  in  Buddhism  relate  to  the  falsehood  that  successful 
lying  is  not  lying  in  such  a  way  that  the  precept  with  its  accompaniment 
becomes  rather  a  challenge  to  skill  in  the  liar’s  art  than  a  deterrent  from 
the  liar’s  sin,  unless  some  one  can  explain  Hardy’s  translation  of  Buddhism 
differently  than  I  can  understand  it. 

If  there  were  time  for  purpose  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  the 
further  capital  precept  in  Buddhist  ethics  which  forbids  the  taking  of  life 
is  similarly  made  void;  nay,  absolutely,  vitally  vicious  and  mischievous,  by 
casuistic  explanations  and  conditions  accompanying  in  the  sacred  text 
where  it  occurs. 

Buddhism  is,  by  general  consent,  high,  perhaps  even  highest,  in  ethical 
reach  among  all  the  religions  that  might  be  supposed  to  compete  with 
Christianity.  There  is  a  current  disposition  in  the  Christian  world  to  give 
this  religious  faith  quite  its  full  due  of  appreciation  and  respect.  From 
such  a  measure  of  regard  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity 
to  detract  anything  or  to  begrudge  anything.  But  truth  is  a  more  sacred 
interest  still  than  is  mere  complaisance.  I  simply  ask  of  those  who  know 
Christianity:  What  must  be  the  attitude  of  Christianity  toward  a  religious 
system  which  teaches  what  it  seems  to  be  clear  that  Buddhism  teaches  on 
the  subject  of  lying. 

Can  that  attitude  be  other  than  one  of  uncompromising  hostility?  The 
question  is  not  of  the  attitude  of  Christianity  toward  this  particular  thing 
or  that  particular  thing,  which  may  be  good  and  true  in  a  given  religious 
system,  but  of  the  attitude  of  Christianity  toward  the  system  as  a  whole. 
And  that  religious  system  is  by  Christianity  condemned  as  a  whole,  which, 
on  a  fundamental  pivotal  point  like  that  of  truth  telling,  teaches,  by 
inevitably  suggested  reference,  that  you  may  lie  if  you  only  will  take  suc¬ 
cessful  care  not  to  get  found  out  by  the  person  you  lied  to. 

I  was  shut  up  to  the  present  line  of  argument  as  to  Buddhism,  for  the 
obvious  reason  that  Christianity,  whether  in  its  Old  Testament  or  its  New 
Testament  form,  never  came  into  any  historic  contact  with  that  ancient 
Indian  faith.  If  the  best  of  the  ethnic  religions  thus  fails  at  a  crucial 
ethnical  point  to  meet  the  commendation  of  Christianity,  much  more  might 
be  expected  to  fail  religions  confessedly  inferior. 


ATTITUDE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  TO  OTHER  RELIGIONS.  761 


But  Christianity,  in  its  Old  Testament  form,  came  into  close  contact 
with  a  considerable  number  of  the  various  dominant  religions  of  the  ancient 
world.  To  say  that  its  attitude  toward  all  these  was  implacably  hostile  is 
to  understate  the  fact.  The  fact  is,  that  the  one  unifying  principle  that 
reduces  to  order  and  evolution  the  history  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament  is 
the  principle  that  it  was  a  history  divinely  directed  to  the  elfacement  in 
the  Jewish  mind  of  every  vestige  of  faith  in  any  religion  save  the  Jewish; 
that  is,  substantially,  essentially,  the  Christian  religion.  The  religions  of 
the  Egyptians,  the  Phoenicians,  the  Syrians,  the  Assyrians,  the  Chaldeans, 
the  Persians,  were  one  and  all  equally  and  inexorably  faced  by  Judaism — 
that  is,  by  Christianity  in  its  ancient  form — faced  and  condemned— no  hesi¬ 
tation,  no  reservation,  no  qualification,  no  exception,  no  complaisance,  no 
quarter  shown  of  any  kind. 

The  question  thus  raised  is  not  a  question  of  what  the  new  spirit  of  this 
closing  19th  Christian ‘century  demands;  it  is  strictly  a  question  of  what  is 
demanded  by  a  just  interpretation  of  certain  unchangeable  documents 
descended  to  us  from  near  about  the  beginning  of  the  era  called  Christian. 
What  does  the  New  Testament,  fairly  understood,  teach  us  as  to  the  atti¬ 
tude  of  Christ  and  His  apostles  toward  the  non-Christian  faith?  That,  now, 
is  a  narrower  question. 

We  have  already  found  the  necessary  implication  bearing  on  our  sub¬ 
ject,  contained  in  those  famous  words  of  Christdo  the  woman  of  Samaria, 
to  be  an  exclusive  claim  for  Christianity  as  the  trustworthy  author  of  sal¬ 
vation  to  mankind.  With  His  pregnant  choice  of  words,  Jesus,  that  weary 
Syrian  noon,  touched,  in  His  easy,  simple,  infallible  way,  upon  a  thing  that 
is  fundamental,  central  in  religion,  any  religion,  all  religion;  namely,  its 
undertaking  to  save.  However  much  truth  a  given  religion  may  incident¬ 
ally  involve,  if  its  essential  offer  is  a  fallacious  offer,  then,  by  this  rule,  it  is 
false  as  a  whole.  The  only  religion  that  can  be  accounted  true  is  the  relig¬ 
ion  that  can  trustworthily  offer  to  save.  That  religion  is,  according  to 
Jesus,  the  religion  that  springs  out  from  among  the  Jews,  which  religion, 
whether  or  not  it  be  also  Judaism,  is,  of  course,  at  any  rate,  Christianity. 

It  seems  desirable  to  pay  this  attention  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  spoken  at 
Jacob’s  well,  for  the  two-fold  reason  that,  first,  here  is  a  cause,  perhaps 
unique,  of  expressed  contrast  drawn  by  Him  between  His  own  and  a  par¬ 
ticular  competing  religion,  and,  secondly,  those  words  of  His  assumed  the 
true,  the  essential  Judaism,  Judaism  independent  of  form,  of  ritual,  to  be 
identical  with  Christianity.  But  we  are  far,  very  far,  from  being  limited  to 
that  one  instance  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  when  we  seek  to  know  His  mind 
on  the  important  subject  which  we  are  considering.  The  hostile  attitude 
of  Jesus  toward  any  and  every  offer  other  than  His  own  to  save  is  to  be 
recognized  in  many  supremely  self-asserting,  universally  exclusive  sayings 
of  His — sayings  so  many,  indeed,  that  it  would  half  absorb  my  allotment 
of  space  merely  to  quote  them  all. 

No  man  cometh  unto  the  Father  (that  is,  no  man  can  be  saved)  but  by  Me. 

I  am  the  blood  of  life. 

If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  Me  and  drink. 

I  am  the  light  of  the  world. 

I  am  the  door  of  the  sheep. 

All  that  came  before  Me  are  thieves  and  robbers. 

I  am  the  door;  by  Me,  if  any  man  enter  in,  he  shall  be  saved. 

Such  are  a  few  specimens  of  the  expressions  from  Jesus’  own  lips  of 
sole,  of  exclusive  claim  to  be  Himself  alone  the  Savior  of  man. 

It  may  be  answered,  “  But  J esus  also  said,  ‘  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw 
all  men  unto  me,’  ”  and  we  are  thence  warranted  in  believing,  of  many  souls 
involved  in  alien  religions,  that,  drawn  consciously  or  unconsciously  to 
Jesus,  they  are  saved,  notwithstanding  the  misfortune  of  their  religious 
environment.  * 


762 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


To  this,  of  course,  I  agree.  I  am  grateful  that  such  seems,  indeed,  to  be 
the  teaching  of  Christianity.  I  simply  ask  to  have  it  borne  steadily  in 
mind  that  it  is  not  at  all  the  extension  of  the  benefits  fiowing  from  the 
exclusive  power  of  Jesus  to  save  that  we  are  at  present  discussing,  but 
strictly  this  question:  “Does  Christianity  recognize  any  share  of  saving 
efficacy  as  inherent  in  the  non-Christian  religions?”  In  other  words,  is  it 
anywhere  in  scripture  represented  that  Jesus  chooses  to  exert  His  saving 
power,  in  some  degree,  greater  or  less,  through  religions  not  His  own?  If 
there  is  any  hint,  any  shadow  of  hint,  in  the  Bible,  Old  Testament  or  New, 
looking  in  the  direction  of  the  answer  yes  to  that  question,  why,  I  confess 
I  never  have  found  it.  Hints,  however,  far  from  shadowy  I  have  found, 
and  in  abundance,  to  the  contrary. 

I  feel  the  need  of  begging  you  to  observe  that  what  I  say  in  this  paper 
is  not  to  be  misunderstood  as  undertaking  on  behalf  of  Christianity  to  der¬ 
ogate  anything  whatever  from  the  merit  of  individual  men  among  the 
nations,  who  have  risen  to  great  ethical  heights  without  aid  from  historic 
Christianity  in  either  its  New  Testament  or  its  Old  Testament  form.  I 
should  like  to  name  among  these  the  sweet  and  gentle  tradition  of  that 
Indian  prince  whom  we  Westerns  best  know  by  his  title  of  Buddha,  the 
comparatively  pure,  aspiring  spirit  of  Persian  Zoroaster,  the  strict,  practical 
moralist  Confucius  of  the  Chinese,  the  classic  Athenian  Socrates,  the 
Roman  Marcus  Aurelius,  far  less  justly  renowned  as  emperor  of  the  world 
than  as  author  of  that  non-Christian,  unconscious,  Imitatio  Christi,  his 
noble  reflections  or  maxims.  I  offer  only  a  suggestive,  not  an  exhaustive 
list.  But  it  is  not  of  persons,  either  the  mass  or  the  exceptions,  that  I  task 
myself  here  to  speak.  I  am  leading  you  to  consider  only  the  attitude 
assumed  by  Christianity  toward  the  non-Christian  religions. 

Let  us  advance  from  weighing  the  immediate  utterances  of  Jesus  to 
take  some  account  of  the  utterances  of  those  upon  whom,  as  His  repre¬ 
sentatives,  Jesus,  according  to  the  New  Testament,  conferred  the  right  to 
speak  with  an  authority  equal  to  His  own. 

Olympianism  presented  the  principal  historic  contrast  for  Christianity, 
with  alien  religious  faiths.  What  attitude  did  Christianity  assume  toward 
Olympianism. 

On  Mars  Hill,  in  Athens,  the  Apostle  Paul  delivered  a  discourse,  which 
is  sometimes  regarded  as  answering  the  question,  and  answering  it  in  the 
sense  more  or  -less  favorable  to  polytheism.  This  view  of  that  memorable 
discourse  seems  to  me  not  tenable.  Indeed,  the  resort  to  that  utterance  of 
Paul’s  is  not,  as  I  think,  proper  to  be  made  in  quest  of  his  sentiments  on 
the  subject  now  under  discussion.  What  he  said  on  Mars  Hill  should  be 
studied  as  an  illustration  of  his  method  of  approaching  men  involved  in 
error,  rather  than  a  revelation  of  his  inmost  thought  and  feeling  in  regard 
to  that  particular  error  in  which  he  found  his  Athenian  auditors  involved. 
Paul  disclosed  himself  truly  as  far  as  he  went,  but  he  did  not  disclose  him¬ 
self  fully  that  day.  He  sought  a  hearing,  and  he  partly  succeeded  in  finding 
it.  It  is  probable  that  he  would  wholly  have  failed  had  he  spoken  out  to 
the  Areopagites  in  the  manner  in  which  he  spoke  out  to  Christian  disciples. 
It  is  to  his  outspoken  declarations  of  opinion  and  feeling  that  we  should 
go  to  learn  his  true  attitude  toward  Olympianism. 

Speaking  of  the  adherents  generally  of  the  Gentile  religions,  he  uses  this 
language: 

Professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they  become  fools,  and  changed  the 
incorruptible  God  for  the  likeness  of  an  image  of  corruptible  man,  and  of 
birds,  and  four-footed  beasts,  and  creeping  things. 

Man,  bird,  beast,  reptile — these  four  specifications  in  their  ladder  of 
descent  seem  to  indicate  every  different  form  of  Gentile  religion  with  which 
Christianity,  ancient  or  modern,  came  into  historic  contact.  The  conse¬ 
quences  penally  visited  by  the  offended  jealous  God  of  Hebrew  and  of 


ATTITUDE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  TO  OTHER  RELIGIONS.  763 


Christian,  for  such  degradation  of  the  innate  worshiping  instinct,  such 
profanation  of  the  idea,  once  pure  in  human  hearts,  of  God  the  incorrupt¬ 
ible,  are  described  by  Paul  in  words  whose  mordant,  flagrant,  caustic, 
branding  power  has  made  them  famous  and  familiar. 

Wherefore  God  gave  them  up  to  the  lusts  of  their  hearts,  unto  unclean¬ 
liness,  that  their  bodies  should  be  dishonored  among  themselves;  for  that 
they  exchanged  the  truth  of  God  for  a  lie,  and  worshiped  and  served  the 
creature  rather  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  forever. 

I  arrest  the  quotation  unfinished.  The  remainder  of  the  passage 
descends  into  particulars  of  blame,  well  known  and  well  known  to  be  truly 
charged  against  the  ancient  pagan  world.  No  hint  of  exception  here  in 
favor  of  points  defectively  good,  or  at  least  not  so  bad,  in  the  religions  con¬ 
demned;  no  qualification,  no  mitigation  of  sentence  suggested.  Everything 
heavy-shotted,  point-blank  denunciation.  No  idea  submitted  of  there 
being  in  some  cases  true  and  acceptable  worship  hidden  away,  disguised 
and  unconscious,  under  false  forms.  No  possibility  glanced  at  of  there 
being  a  silent  distinction  made  by  some  idolaters,  if  made  only  by  a  very 
few  discerning  among  them,  between  the  idol  server  and  the  one  incorrupt¬ 
ible,  jealous  God  as  meant  by  such  exceptional  idolaters  to  be  merely  sym¬ 
bolized  in  the  idol  ostensibly  worshiped  by  them.  Reserve  noneon  behalf  of 
certain  initiated,  illuminated  souls  seeking  and  finding  purer  religion  in 
esoteric  “  mysteries'”  that  were  shut  out  from  the  profane  vulgar.  Chris¬ 
tianity  leaves  no  loophole  of  escape  for  the  judged  and  reprobate  anti-Chris¬ 
tian  religions  with  which  it  comes  in  contact.  It  shows  instead  only 
indiscriminate  damnation  leaping  out  like  forked  lightning  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  Kis  power  upon  those  incorrigibly 
guilty  of  the  sin  referred  to,  the  sin  of  worship  paid  to  gods  other  than  God. 

There  is  no  pleasing  alleviation  anywhere  introduced  in  the  way  of 
assurance,  or  even  of  possible  hope,  that  a  benign  God  will  graciously 
receive  into  His  ear  the  ascriptions  formally  given  to  another  as  virtually, 
though  misconceivingly,  intended  for  Himself.  That  idea,  whether  just  or 
not,  is  not  scriptural.  It  is,  indeed,  anti-scriptural,  therefore  anti-Christian. 
Christianity  does  not  deserve  the  praise  of  any  such  liberality.  As  con¬ 
cerns  the  sole,  the  exclusive,  the  incommunicable  prerogatives  of  God, 
Christianity  is,  let  it  be  frankly  admitted,  a  narrow,  a  strict,  a  severe,  a 
jealous  religion.  Socrates  dying  may  have  been  forgiven  his  proposal  of  a 
cock  to  be  offered  in  sacrifice  to  .^sculapius,  but  Christianity,  the  Chris¬ 
tianity  of  the  Bible,  gives  us  no  shadow  of  reason  for  supposing  that  such 
idolatrous  act  on  his  part  was  translated  by  God  into  worship  acceptable 
to  Himself. 

It  is  much  if  a  religion  such  as  the  Bible  thus  teaches  Christianity  to 
be  leaves  us  any  chance  at  all  for  entertaining  hope  concerning  those 
remaining  to  the  last  involved  in  the  prevalence  of  false  religion  surround¬ 
ing  them.  But  chance  there  seems  indeed  to  be  of  hope  justified  by 
Christianity,  for  some  among  these  unfortunate  men.  Peter,  the  straight¬ 
ened  Peter,  the  one  apostle  perhaps  most  inclined  to  be  unalterably  Jew¬ 
ish,  he  it  was  who,  having  been  hitherto  specially  instructed,  said: 

Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation 
he  that  feareth  Him  and  worketh  righteousness  is  acceptable  to  Him. 

To  fear  God  first,  and  then  also  to  work  righteousness,  these  are  the 
traits  characterizing  ever  and  everywhere  the  man  acceptable  to  God.  But 
evidently  to  fear  God  is  not,  in  the  idea  of  Christianity,  to  worship  another 
than  He.  It  will  accordingly  be  in  degree  as  a  man  escapes  the  ethnic 
religion  dominant  about  him,  and  rises  it — not  by  means  of  it,  but  in  spite 
of  it — into  the  transcending  element  of  the  true  divine  worship,  that  the 
man  will  be  acceptable  to  God. 

Of  any  ethnic  religion,  therefore,  can  it  be  said  that  it  is  a  true  religion, 
only  not  jjerfect  ?  Christianity  says  no.  Christianity  speaks  words  of 


764 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


undefined,  unlimited  hope  concerning  those,  some  of  those,  who  shall  never 
have  heard  of  Christ.  These  words  Christians,  of  course,  will  hold  and 
cherish  according  to  their  inestimable  value.  But  let  us  not  mistake  them 
as  intended  to  bear  any  relation  whatever  to  the  erring  religions  of  man¬ 
kind.  Those  religions  the  Bible  nowhere  represents  as  pathetic  and  partly 
successful  gropings  after  God.  They  are  one  and  all  represented  as  grop¬ 
ing  downward,  not  groping  upward.  According  to  Christianity  they  hinder, 
they  do  not  help.  Their  adherents’  hold  on  them  is  like  the  blind  grasping 
of  drowning  men  on  roots  or  rocks,  that  only  tend  to  keep  them  to  the  bot¬ 
tom  of  the  river.  The  truth  that  is  in  the  false  religion  may  help,  but  it 
will  be  the  truth,  not  the  false  religion. 

According  to  Christianity,  the  false  religion  exerts  all  its  force  to  choke 
and  kill  the  truth  that  is  in  it.  Hence  the  historic  degeneration  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  first  chapter  of  Romans  as  effecting  false  religion  in  general. 
If  they  were  upward  reaching  they  would  grow  better  and  better.  If,  as 
Paul  teaches,  they  in  fact  grow  worse  and  worse,  it  must  be  because  they 
are  downward  reachings.  The  indestructible  instinct  to  worship,  that  is  in 
itself  a  saving  power.  Carefullyguarded,  carefully  cultivated,  it  may  even 
save.  But  the  worshiping  instinct,  misused  or  disused,  that  is,  depraved 
to  idolatry  or  extinguished  in  atheism — “  held  down,”  as  Paul  graphic¬ 
ally  expresses  it — is  in  swift  process  of  becoming  an  irresistible  destroying 
jjower.  The  light  that  is  in  the  soul  turns  swiftly  into  darkness.  The 
instinct  to  worship  lifts  Godward.  The  issue  of  that  instinct,,  its  abuse  in 
idolatry,  its  disuse  in  atheism,  is  evil,  only  evil,  and  that  continually. 

The  attitude,  therefore,  of  Christianity  toward  religions  other  than  itself 
is  an  attitude  of  universal,  absolute,  eternal,  unappeasable  hostility,  while 
toward  all  men  everywhere,  the  adherents  of  false  religion  by  no  means 
excepted,  its  attitude  is  an  attitude  of  grace,  mercy,  peace  for  whosoever 
will.  How  many  may  be  found  that  will,  is  a  problem  which  Christianity 
leaves  unsolved.  Most  welcome  hints  and  suggestions,  however,  it  affords, 
encouraging  Christians  joyfully  and  gratefully  to  entertain,  on  behalf  of  the 
erring,  that  relieved  and  sympathetic  sentiment  which  the  poet  has  taught 
to  call  “  the  larger  hope.” 


POSSIBLE  RESULTS  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 

Mils.  JULIA  WAED  HOWE. 

“As  we  have  attended  the  sessions  of  this  glorious  parlia¬ 
ment,”  said  Rev.  George  Dana  Boardman  of  Philadelphia,  who 
assumed  the  chair  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Dr. 

Barrows,  “  we  would  fain  have  sung  that  effusion  of  the  Ameri- 

♦ 

can  poetess :  ‘  Mine  eyes  have  seen  the  glory  of  the  coming  of 
the  Lord.’  It  will  be  our  pleasure  now  to  listen  for  ten 
minutes  to  Mrs.  Julia  Ward  Howe,  author  of  the  ‘Battle 
Hymn  of  Freedom.’  ” 

Mrs.  Howe,  who  was  received  with  loud  applause  and  the 

Chatauqua  salute,  spoke  as  follows: 

I  only  hope  you  may  be  able,  not  only  to  listen  but  also  to  hear  me. 
Your  charity  must  multiply  my  small  voice,  and  do  some  such  miracle  as 


POSSIBLE  RESULTS  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 


765 


was  done  when  the  loaves  and  fishes  fed  the  multitude  in  the  ancient  time 
which  has  just  been  spoken  of.  I  have  been  listening  to  what  our  much 
honored  friend,  Professor  Wilkinson,  has  said,  and  yet,  before  I  say  any¬ 
thing  on  my  own  account,  I  want  to  take  the  word  Christianity  back  to 
Christ  Himself,  back  to  that  mighty  heart  whose  i3ulse  seems  to  throb 
through  the  world  to-day,  that  endless  fountain  of  charity,  out  of  which  I 
believe  has  come  all  true  progress  and  all  civilization  that  deserves  the 
name.  As  a  woman,  I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  upon  any  trait  of  exclusiveness 
in  the  letter  which  belonged  to  a  time  when  such  exclusiveness  perhaps 
could  not  be  helped,  and  which  may  have  been  put  in  where  it  was  not 
expressed.  I  go  back  to  that  great  spirit  which  contemplated  a  sacrifice  for 
the  whole  of  humanity.  That  sacrifice  is  not  one  of  exclusion,  but  of  an 
infinite  and  endless  and  joyous  inclusion.  And  I  thank  God  for  it. 

I  have  turned  my  back  to-day  upon  the  great  show  in  Jackson  Park  in 
order  to  see  a  greater  spectacle  here.  The  daring  voyage  of  Columbus  across 
anunkaown  sea  we  all  remember  with  deep  gratitude.  All  that  we  have 
done  and  all  that  we  are  now  doing  is  not  too  much  to  do  honor  to  the 
loyalty  and  courage  of  that  one  inspired  man.  Put  the  voyages  of  so  many 
valorous  souls  into  the  unknown  infinite  of  thought,  into  the  deep  ques¬ 
tions  of  the  soul  between  man  and  God — oh,  what  a  voyage  is  that!  Oh, 
what  a  sea  to  sail!  And  I  thought,  coming  to  this  Parliament  of  Religions, 
we  shall  have  found  a  port  at  last ;  after  many  wanderings  we  shall  have 
come  to  the  one  great  harbor  where  all  the  fleets  can  ride,  where  all  the 
banners  can  be  displayed,  and  on  each  banner  will  be  written,  so  bright  that 
it  will  efface  the  herald’s  blazon,  these  words  that  Paul  uttered  in  Athens, 
“  to  the  unknown  God;  ”  to  the  God  who  is  not  unknown  because  we 
doubt  Him,  not  unknown  because  we  do  not  feel  that  He  is  the  life  of  our 
life,  the  soul  of  our  soul,  the  light  of  the  world  in  which  we  live  and  move, 
but  because  He,  being  infinite,  transcends  our  powers,  and  all  humanity, 
speaking  from  every  standpoint,  saying  all  it  can,  and  all  that  it  knows, 
can  not  say  that  it  knows  Him. 

T  hoped  and  still  hope  that  from  this  parliament  something  very  posi¬ 
tive  in  the  way  of  agreement  and  of  practical  action  will  come 
forth.  It  has  certainly  been  very  edifying.  My  limited  strength  has  not 
allowed  me  to  attend  here  very  much,  but  I  know  and  we  all  know  the 
drift  of  what  has  been  going  on  here.  It  has  been  extremely  edifying  to 
hear  of  the  good  theories  of  duty  and  morality  and  piety  which  the  various 
religions  advocate.  I  will  put  them  all  on  one  basis,’ Christian  and  Jewish 
and  ethnic,  which  they  all  promulgate  to  mankind.  But  what  I  think  we 
want  now  to  do  is  to  inquire  why  the  practice  of  all  nations,  our  own  as 
well  as  any  other,  is  so  much  at  variance  with  these  noble  precepts? 
These  great  founders  of  religion  have  made  the  true  sacrifice.  They  have 
taken  a  noble  human  life,  full  of  every  human  longing  and  passion  and  power 
and  aspiration,  and  they  have  taken  it  all  to  try  and  find  out  something  about 
this  question  of  what  God  meant  man  to  be  and  does  mean  him  to  be. 
But  while  they  have  made  this  great  sacrifice,  how  is  it  with  the  multitude 
of  us?  Are  we  making  any  sacrifice  at  all?  We  think  it  was  very  well  that 
those  heroic  spirits  should  study,  should  agonize  and  bleed  for  us.  But 
what  do  we  do? 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  very  important  that  from  this  parliament  should 
go  forth  a  fundamental  agreement  as  to  what  is  religion  and  as  to  what  is 
not  religion.  I  need  not  stand  here  to  repeat  any  definition  of  what  relig¬ 
ion  is.  I  think  you  will  all  say  that  it  is  aspiration,  the  pursuit  of  the 
divine  in  the  human;  the  sacrifice  of  everything  to  duty  for  the  sake  of 
God  and  of  humanity  and  of  our  own  individual  dignity.  What  is  it  that 
passes  for  religion?  In  some  countries  magic  passes  for  religion,  and  that 
is  one  thing  I  wish,  in  vie\v  particularly  of  the  ethnic  faiths,  could  be  made 
very  prominent — that  religion  is  not  magic.  I  am  very  sure  that  in  many 


7G6 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


countries  it  is  supposed  to  be  so.  You  do  something  that  will  bring  you 
good  luck.  It  is  for  the  interests  of  the  priesthood  to  cherish  that  idea. 
Of  course,  the  idea  of  advantage  in  this  life  and  in  another  life  is  very 
strong,  and  rightly  very  strong  in  human  breasts.  Therefore,  it  is  for  the 
advantage  of  the  priesthoods  to  make  it  to  be  supposed  that  they  have  in 
their  possession  certain  tricks,  certain  charms,  which  will  give  you  either 
some  particular  prosperity  in  this  world,  or  possibly  the  privilege  of 
immortal  happiness.  Now,  this  is  not  religion.  This  is  most  mischievous 
irreligion,  and  I  think  this  parliament  should  say,  once  for  all,  that  the  name 
of  God  and  the  names  of  His  saints  are  not  things  to  conjure  with. 

Europe  to-day  is  afflicted  with  a  terrible  scourge— Europe  and,  I  think, 
other  continents.  This  scourge  is  generated  by  a  pilgrimage  which  pious 
Mohammedans-- there  may  be  some  present — are  led  to  suppose  is  for  the 
benefit  of  their  souls.  They  go  to  a  spot  which  they  consider  sacred;  they 
die;  they  perish  by  thousands;  their  animals  perish;  a  terrible  atmosphere 
is  generated  which  flies  all  over  the  globe,  and  w'e  do  not  know  how  soon 
this  pestilence  will  reach  us.  It  seems  to  me,  that  we,  at  this  Parliament 
of  Religions,  can  ask  any  Avho  represent  that  religion  here  to  say  that  this 
pilgrimage  is  not  religion ;  a  pilgrimage  which  poisons  whole  continents  and 
sweeps  away  men,  women,  and  children  by  thousands  has  nothing  to  do 
with  religion  at  all.  It  would  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  world  if  we 
could  take  that  stand. 

Then  I  may  say  another  thing.  I  think  nothing  is  religion  which  puts 
one  individual  absolutely  above  others,  and  surely  nothing  is  religion  which 
puts  one  sex  above  another.  Religion  is  primarily  our  relation  to  the 
Supreme — to  God  Himself.  It  is  for  Him  to  judge;  it  is  for  Him  to  say 
where  we  belong — who  is  highest  and  who  is  not;  of  that  we  know 
nothing.  And  any  religion  which  will  sacrifice  a  certain  set  of  human 
beings  for  the  enjoyment  or  aggrandizement  or  advantage  of  another  is  no 
religion.  It  is  a  thing  which  may  be  allowed,  but  it  is  against  true  religion. 
Any  religion  which  sacrifices  women  to  the  brutality  of  men  is  no  religion. 

From  this  parliament  let  some  valorous,  new,  strong,  and  courageous 
influence  go  forth,  and  let  us  have  here  an  agreement  of  all  faiths  for  one 
good  end,  for  one  good  thing — ^really  for  the  glory  of  God,  really  for  the  sal¬ 
vation  of  humanity  from  all  that  is  low  and  animal  and  unworthy  and 
undivine. 


MESSAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  TO  OTHER 

RELIGIONS. 

REV.  JAMES  S.  DEVINE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Christianity  must  speak  in  the  name  of  God.  To  Him  it  owes  its  exist¬ 
ence,  and  the  deep  secret  of  its  dignity  and  power  is  that  it  reveals  Him. 
It  would  be  effrontery  for  it  to  speak  simply  upon  its  own  responsibility,  or 
even  in  the  name  of  reason.  "It  has  no  philosophy  of  evolution  to  pro¬ 
pound.  It  has  a  message  from  God  to  deliver.  It  is  not  itself  a  philosophy ; 
it  is  a  religion.  It  is  not  earth-born;  it  is  God-wrought.  It  comes  not 
from  man,  but  from  God,  and  is  intensely  alive  with  His  power,  alert  with 
His  love,  benign  with  His  goodness,  radiant  with  His  light,  charged  with 
His  truth,  sent  with  His  message,  inspired  with  His  energy,  regnant 
with  His  wisdom,  instinct  with  the  gift  of  spiritual  healing,  and  mighty 
with  supreme  authority. 

It  has  a  mission  among  men,  whenever  or  wherever  it  finds  them,  which 
is  as  sublime  as  creation,  as  marvelous  as  spiritual  existence,  and  as  full  of 
mysterious  meaning  as  eternity.  It  finds  its  focus,  and  as  well  its  radiating 
center,  in  the  personality  of  its  great  Revealer  and  Teacher,  to  whom, 


MESSAGE  OE  CHRISTIANITY  TO  OTHER  RELIGIONS.  767 


before  His  advent,  all  the  fingers  of  light  pointed,  and  from  whom,  since 
His  incarnation,  all  the  brightness  of  the  day  has  shown.  It  has  a  further 
and  supplemented  historic  basis  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  God  has 
been  pleased  to  give  through  inspired  writers,  chosen  and  commissioned  by 
Him.  ^ 

Its  message  is  much  more  than  Judaism;  it  is  infinitely  more  than  the 
revelation  of  nature.  It  has  wrought  in  love,  with  the  touch  of  regenera¬ 
tion,  with  the  inspiration  of  prophetic  vision,  in  the  mastery  of  spirit  con¬ 
trol,  and  by  the  transforming  power  of  the  divine  indwelling,  until  its  own 
best  evidence  is  what  it  has  done  to  uplift  and  purify  wherever  it  has  been 
welcomed  among  men. 

I  say  welcomed,  for  Christianity  must  be  received  in  order  to  accom¬ 
plish  its  mission.  It  is  addressed  to  the  reason  and  to  the  heart  of  man, 
but  does  no  violence  to  liberty.  Its  limitations  are  not  in  its  own  nature, 
but  in  the  freedom  which  God  has  planted  in  man.  It  is  not  to  be  judged, 
therefore,  by  what  it  has  achieved  in  the  world,  except  as  the  world  has 
voluntarily  received  it.  Where  it  is  now  known,  and  where  it  has  been 
ignored  and  rejected,  it  withholds  the  evidence  of  its  power,  but  where  it 
has  been  accepted,  it  does  not  shrink  from  the  test,  but  rather  triumphs  in 
its  achievements.  Its  attitude  toward  mankind  is  marked  by  gracious 
urgency,  not  compulsion;  by  gentle  condescension,  not  pride;  by  kindly 
ministry,  not  harshness;  by  faithful  warning,  not  taunting  reproaches;  by 
plain  instruction,  not  argument;  by  gentle  and  quiet  command,  not  noisy 
harangue;  by  limitless  promises  to  faith,  not  spectacular  gifts  to  sight. 

It  has  a  message  of  supreme  import  to  man,  fresh  from  the  heart  of 
God.  It  records  the  great  spiritual  facts  of  human  history;  it  announces 
the  perils  and  needs  of  men;  it  reveals  the  mighty  resources  of  redemp¬ 
tion;  it  solves  the  problems  and  blesses  the  discipline  of  life;  it  teaches 
the  whole  secret  of  regeneration  and  hope  and  moral  triumph;  it  brings  to 
the  world  the  co-operation  of  divine  wisdom  in  the  great  struggle  with  the 
dark  mysteries  of  misery  and  suffering.  Its  message  to  the  world  is  so  full 
of  quickening  inspiration,  so  resplendent  with  light,  so  charged  with 
power,  so  effective  in  its  ministry  that  its  mission  can  be  characterized 
only  by  the  use  of  the  most  majestic  symbolism  of  the  natural  universe.  It 
is  indeed  the  “  sun  of  righteousness  arising  with  healing  in  his  wings.” 

We  are  asked  now  to  consider  the  message  of  Christianity  to  other 
religions.  If  it  has  a  message  to  a  sinful  world,  it  must  also  have  a  mes¬ 
sage  to  other  religions  which  are  seeking  to  minister  to  the  same  fallen 
race  and  to  accomplish  in  their  own  way  and  by  diverse  methods  the  very 
mission  God  has  designed  should  be  Christianity’s  privilege  and  high 
function  to  discharge. 

Let  us  seek  now  to  catch  the  spirit  of  that  message  and  to  indicate  in 
brief  outline  its  purport.  We  must  be  content  simply  to  give  the  message; 
the  limits  of  this  paper  forbid  any  attempt  to  vindicate  it,  or  to  demon¬ 
strate  its  historic  integrity,  its  heavenly  wisdom,  and  its  excellent  glory. 

Its  spirit  is  full  of  simple  sincerity,  exalted  dignity  and  sweet  unselfish¬ 
ness.  It  aims  to  impart  a  blessing,  rather  than  to  challenge  a  comparison. 
It  is  not  so  anxious  to  vindicate  itself  as  to  confer  its  benefits.  It  is  not  so 
solicitous  to  secure  supreme  honor  for  itself  as  to  win  its  way  to  the  heart. 
It  does  not  seek  to  taunt,  to  disparage,  or  humiliate  its  rival,  but  rather  to 
subdue  by  love,  attract  by  its  own  excellence,  and  supplant  by  virtues  of  its 
own  incomparable  superiority.  It  is  itself  incapable  of  a  spirit  of  rivalry, 
because  of  its  own  indisputable  right  to  reign.  It  has  no  use  for  a  sneer, 
it  can  dispense  with  contempt,  it  carries  no  weapons  of  violence,  it  is  not 
given  to  argument,  it  is  incapable  of  trickery  or  deceit,  and  it  repudiates 
cant.  It  relies  ever  upon  its  own  intrinsic  merit  and  bases  all  its  claims  on 
its  right  to  be  heard  and  honored. 

Its  miraculous  evidence  is  rather  an  exception  than  a  rule.  It  was  a 


768 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


sign  to  help  weak  faith.  It  was  a  concession  made  in  the  spirit  of  conde¬ 
scension.  Miracles  suggest  mercy  quite  as  much  as  they  announce  majesty. 
When  we  consider  the  unlimited  score  of  divine  power,  and  the  ease  with 
which  signs  and  wonders  might  have  been  multiplied  in  bewildering  variety 
and  impressiveness,  we  are  conscious  of  a  rigid  conservation  of  power  and 
a  distinct  repudiation  of  the  spectacular.  The  mystery  of  Christiafl  history 
is  the  sparing  way  in  which  Christianity  has  used  its  resources.  It  is  a  tax 
upon  faith,  which  is  often  painfully* severe,  to  note  the  apparent  lack  of 
energy  and  dash  and  resistless  force  in  the  seemingly  slow  advances  of  our 
holy  religion. 

Doubtless  God  had  His  reasons,  but  in  the  meantime  we  can  not  but  rec¬ 
ognize  in  Christianity  a  spirit  of  mysterious  reserve,  a  marvelous  patience, 
of  subdued  undertone,  of  purposeful  restraint.  It  does  not  “cry,  nor  lift 
up,  nor  cause  its  voice  to  be  heard  in  the  street.”  Centuries  come  and  go, 
and  Christianity  touches  only  portions  of  the  earth,  but  wherever  it 
touches  it  transhgures.  It  seems  to  despise  material  adjuncts,  and  count 
only  those  victories  worth  having  which  are  won  through  spiritual  contact 
with  the  individual  soul.  Its  relation  to  other  religions  has  been  charac¬ 
terized  by  singular  reserve,  and  its  progress  has  been  marked  by  an  unos¬ 
tentatious  dignity  which  is  in  harmony  with  the  majestic  attitude  of  God, 
its  author,  to  all  false  gods  who  have  claimed  divine  honors  and  sought  to 
usurp  the  place  which  was  His  alone. 

We  are  right,  then,  in  speaking  of  the  spirit  of  this  message  as  wholly 
free  from  the  commonplace  sentiment  of  rivalry,  entirely  above  the  use'  of 
spectacular  or  meretricious  methods,  infinitely  removed  from  all  mere 
devices  or  dramatic  effect,  wholly  free  from  cant  or  double-facedness,  with 
no  anxiety  for  alliance  with  worldly  power  or  social  eclat,  caring  more  for 
a  place  of  influence  in  a  humble  heart  than  for  a  seat  of  power  on  a  royal 
throne,  wholly  intent  on  claiming  the  loving  allegiance  of  the  soul,  and 
securing  the  moral  transformation  of  character,  in  order  that  its  own  spirit 
and  principles  may  sway  the  spiritual  life  of  men. 

It  speaks,  then,  to  other  religions  with  unqualified  frankness  and  plain¬ 
ness,  based  upon  its  own  incontrovertible  claim  to  a  hearing.  It  has  nothing 
to  conceal,  but  rather  invites  to  inquiry  and  investigation.  It  recognizes 
promptly  and  cordially  whatever  is  worthy  of  respect  in  other  religious 
systems;  it  acknowledges  the  undoubted  sincerity  of  personal  conviction 
and  the  intense  earnestness  of  moral  struggle  in  the  case  of  many  serious 
souls  who,  like  the  Athenians  of  old,  “  worship  in  ignorance;”  it  warns, and 
persuades,  and  commands,  as  is  its  right;  it  speaks  as  Paul  did  in  the  presence 
of  cultured  heathenism  on  Mars  Hill,  of  that  appointed  day  in  which  the 
world  must  be  judged,  and  of  “that  man”  by  whom  it  is  to  be  judged;  it 
echoes  and  re-echoes  its  invariable  and  inflexible  call  to  repentance;  it 
requires  acceptance  of  its  moral  standards;  it  exacts  submission,  loyalty, 
reverence,  and  humility. 

All  this  it  does  with  a  superb  and  unwavering  tone  of  quiet  insistence. 
It  often  presses  its  claim  with  argument,  appeal,  and  tender  urgency,  yet 
in  it  all  and  through  it  all  would  be  recognized  a  clear,  resonant,  predominant 
tone  of  uncompromising  insistence,  revealing  that  supreme  personal  will 
which  originated  Christianity,  and  in  whose  name  it  ever  speaks.  It 
delivers  its  message  with  an  air  of  untroubled  confidence  and  quiet  mastery. 
There  is  no  anxiety  about  precedence,  no  undue  care  for  externals,  no  possi¬ 
bility  of  being  patronized,  no  undignified  spirit  of  competition.  It  speaks, 
rather,  with  the  consciousness  of  that  simple,  natural,  incomparable,  meas¬ 
ureless  supremacy  which  quickly  disarms  rivalry,  and  in  the  end  challenges 
the  admiration  and  compels  the  submission  of  hearts  free  from  malice  and 
guile. 

This  being  the  spirit  of  the  message,  let  us  inquire  as  .to  its  purport. 
There  is  one  immensely  preponderating  element  here  which  pervades  the 


MESSAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  TO  OTHER  RELIGIONS.  769 


whole  content  of  the  message — it  is  love  for  man.  Christianity  is  full  of 
it.  This  is  its  supreme  meaning  to  the  world — not  that  love  eclipses  or 
shadows  every  other  attribute  in  God’s  character,  but  that  it  glorifies  and 
more  perfectly  reveals  and  interprets  the  nature  of  God  and  the  history  of 
his  deahngs  with  men.  The  object  of  this  love  must  be  carefully  noted — 
it  is  mankind — the  race  considered  as  individuals  or  as  a  whole. 

Christianity  unfolds  a  message  to  other  religions  which  emphasizes  this 
heavenly  principle.  It  reveals  therein  the  secret  of  its  power  and  the 
unique  wonder  of  its  whole  redemptive  system.  “Never  spake  man  like 
this  man,”  was  said  of  Christ.  Never  religion  spake  like  this  religion,  may 
be  said  of  Christianity.  The  Christian  system  is  conceived  in  love;  it 
brings  the  provision  of  love  to  fallen  man;  it  administers  its  marvelous 
functions  in  love;  it  introduces  men  into  an  atmosphere  of  love;  it  gives  him 
the  inspiration,  the  joy,  the  fruition  of  love;  it  leads  at  last  into  the  realm 
of  eternal  love.  While  accomplishing  this  end,  at  the  same  time  it  convicts 
of  sin,  it  melts  into  humility.  We  who  love  and  revere  Christianity  believe 
that  it  declares  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  and  we  are  content  to  rest  our 
case  on  the  simple  statement  of  its  historic  facts,  its  spiritual  teachings, 
and  its  unrivaled  mystery  to  the  world.  Christianity  is  its  own  best  evi¬ 
dence. 

I  have  sought  to  give  the  essential  outline  of  this  immortal  message  of 
Christianity  by  grouping  its  leading  characteristics  in  a  series  of  code 
words,  which,  when  presented  in  combination,  give  the  distinctive  signal  of 
the  Christian  religion,  which  has  waved  aloft  through  sunshine  and  storm 
during  all  the  centuries  since  the  New  Testament  scriptures  were  given  to 
man. 

The  initial  word  which  we  place  in  this  signal  code  of  Christianity,  is 
fatherhood.  This  may  have  a  strange  sound  to  some  ears,  but  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  it  is  full  of  sweetness  and  dignity.  It  simply  means  that  the  creative 
act  of  God,  so  far  as  our  human  family  is  concerned,  was  done  in  the  spirit  of 
fatherly  love  and  goodness.  He  created  us  in  His  likeness,  and  to  express 
this  idea  of  spiritual  resemblance  and  tender  relationship,  the  symbolical 
term  of  fatherhood  is  used.  When  Christ  taught-us  to  pray  “  Our  Father,” 
He  gave  us  a  lesson  which  transcends  human  philosophy,  and  has  in  it  so 
much  of  the  height  and  depth  of  divine  feeling  that  human  reason  has 
hardly  dared  to  receive,  much  less  to  originate,  the  conception. 

A  second  word  which  is  representative  in  the  Christian  message  is 
brotherhood.  This  exists  in  two  senses — there  is  the  universal  brotherhood 
of  man  to  man,  as  children  of  one  father  in  whose  likeness  the  whole  fam¬ 
ily  is  created,  and  the  spiritual  brotherhood  of  union  in  Christ.  Here  again 
the  suggestion  of  love  as  the  rule  and  sign  of  human  as  well  as  Christian 
fellowship.  The  world  has  drifted  far  away  from  this  ideal  of  brotherhood; 
it  has  been  repudiated  in  some  quarters  even  in  the  name  of  religion,  and 
it  seems  clear  that  it  will  never  be  fully  recognized  and  exemplified  except 
as  the  spirit  of  Christ  assumes  its  sway  over  the  hearts  of  men. 

The  next  code  word  of  Christianity  is  redemption.  We  use  it  here  in 
the  sense  of  a  purpose  on  God’s  part  to  deliver  man  from  sin,  and  to  make 
a  universal  provision  for  that  end,  which,  if  rightly  used,  insures  the  result. 
I  need  not  remind  you  that  this  purpose  is  conceived  in  love.  God,  as 
Redeemer,  has  taken  a  gracious  attitude  toward  man  from  the  beginning  of 
history,  and  He  is  “  not  far  from  every  one  ”  in  the  immanence  and  omni¬ 
presence  of  His  love.  Redemption  is  a  world-embracing  term;  it  is  not 
limited  to  any  age  or  class.  Its  potentiality  is  world- wide;  its  efficiency  is 
unrestrained,  except  as  man  limits  it;  its  application  is  determined  by  the 
sovereign  wisdom  of  God,  its  author,  who  deals  with  each  individual  as  a 
possible  candidate  for  redemption,  and  decides  his  destiny  in  accordance 
with  his  spiritual  attitude  toward  Christ. 

Where  Christ  is  unknown,  God  still  exercises  his  sovereignty,  although 


770 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


he  has  been  pleased  to  maintain  a  significant  reserve  as  to  the  possibility, 
extent,  and  spiritual  tests  of  redemption  where  trust  is  based  on  God’s 
mercy  in  general,  rather  than  upon  His  mercy  as  specially  revealed  in 
Christ.  We  know  from  His  word  that  Christ’s  sacrifice  is  infinite.  God 
can  apply  its  saving  benefits  to  one  who  intelligently  accepts  it  in  faith,  or 
to  an  infant  who  receives  its  benefits  as  a  sovereign  gift,  or  to  one  who,  not 
having  known  of  Christ,  so  casts  himself  upon  God’s  mercy  that  divine 
wisdom  sees  good  reason  to  exercise  the  prerogative  of  compassion  and 
apply  to  the  soul  the  saving  power  of  the  great  sacrifice. 

Another  cardinal  idea  in  the  Christian  system  is  incarnation.  God 
clothing  Himself  in  human  form  and  coming  into  living  touch  with  mankind. 
This  He  did  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  It  is  a  mighty  mystery, 
and  Christianity  would  never  dare  assert  it  except  as  God  has  taught  its 
truth.  Granted  the  purpose  of  God  to  reveal  Himself  in  visible  form  to 
man,  and  He  must  be  free  to  choose  His  own  method.  He  did  not  consult 
human  reason.  He  did  not  ask  the  advice  of  philosophy.  He  did  not  seek 
the  permission  of  ordinary  law.  He  came  in  His  spiritual  chariot  in  the 
glory  of  the  supernatural,  but  He  entered  the  realm  of  human  life  through 
the  humble  gateway  of  nature.  He  came  not  only  to  reveal  God,  but  to 
bring  Him  into  contact  with  human  life.  He  came  to  assume  permanent 
relations  to  the  race.  His  brief  life  among  us  on  earth  was  for  a  purpose, 
and  when  that  was  accomplished,  still  retaining  His  humanity.  He  ascended 
to  assume  His  kingly  dominions  in  the  heavens. 

We  are  brought  now  to  another  fundamental  truth  in  Christian  teach¬ 
ing — the  mysterious  doctrine  of  atonement.  Sin  is  a  fact  which  is  indis¬ 
putable.  It  is  universally  recognized  and  acknowledged.  It  is  its  own 
evidence.  It  is,  moreover,  a  barrier  between  man  and  his  God.  The  divine 
holiness,  and  sin,  with  its  loathsomeness,  its  rebellion,  its  horrid  degrada¬ 
tion,  and  its  hopeless  ruin,  can  not  coalesce  in  any  system  of  moral  govern¬ 
ment.  God  can  not  tolerate  sin,  or  temporize  with  it,  or  make  a  place  for  it 
in  His  presence.  He  can  not  parley  with  it;  He  must  punish  it.  lie  can 
not  treat  with  it;  He  must  try  it  at  the  bar.  He  can  not  overlook  it;  He 
must  overcome  it.  He  can  not  give  it  a  moral  status;  He  must  visit  it 
with  the  condemnation  it  deserves. 

Atonement  is  God’s  marvelous  method  of  vindicating,  once  for  all,  before 
the  universe.  His  eternal  attitude  toward  sin,  by  the  voluntary  self-assump¬ 
tion  in  the  spirit  of  sacrifice,  of  its  penalty.  This  He  does  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ,  who  came,  as  God  incarnate,  upon  this  sublime  mission.  The 
facts  of  Christ’s  birth,  life,  death,  and  resurrection  take  their  place  in  the 
realm  of  veritable  history,  and  the  moral  value  and  propitiatory  efficacy  of 
His  perfect  obedience  and  sacrificial  death,  in  a  representative  capacity, 
become  a  mysterious  element  of  limitless  worth  in  the  process  of  readjust¬ 
ing  the  relation  of  the  sinner  to  his  God. 

Christ  is  recognized  by  God  as  a  substitute.  The  merit  of  His  obedience 
and  the  exalted  dignity  of  His  sacrifice  are  both  available  to  faith.  The 
sinner,  humble,  penitent,  and  conscious  of  unworthiness,  accepts  Christ  as 
his  Redeemer,  his  intercessor,  his  savior,  and  simply  believes  in  Him,  trusting 
in  His  assurances  and  promises,  based,  as  they  are,  upon  His  atoning  inter¬ 
vention,  and  receives  from  God,  as  the  gift  of  sovereign  love,  all  the  benefits 
of  Christ’s  mediatorial  work.  This  is  God’s  way  of  reaching  the  goal  of 
pardon  and  reconciliation.  It  is  His  way  of  being  Himself  just  and  yet 
accomplishing  the  justification  of  the  sinner.  Here  again  we  have  the 
mystery  of  love  in  its  most  intense  form  and  the  mystery  of  wisdom  in  its 
most  august  exemplification. 

This  is  the  heart  of  the  gospel.  It  throbs  with  mysterious  love;  it  pul¬ 
sates  with  ineffable  throes  of  divine  feeling;  it  bears  a  vital  relation  to  the 
whole  scheme  of  government;  it  is  in  its  hidden  activities  beyond  the  scru¬ 
tiny  of  human  reason;  but  it  sends  the  life-blood  coursing  through  history, 


MESSAGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  TO  OTHER  RELIGIONS  771 


and  it  gives  to  Christianity  its  superb  vitality  and  its  undying  vigor.  It  is 
because  Christianity  eliminates  sin  from  the  problem  that  its  solution  is 
complete  and  final. 

We  pass  now  to  another  word  which  is  of  vital  importance — it  is 
character.  God’s  own  attitude  to  the  sinner  being  settled,  and  the 
problem  of  moral  government  solved,  the  next  matter  which  presents 
itself  is  the  personality  of  the  individual  man.  It  must  be  purified,  trans¬ 
formed  into  the  spiritual  likeness  of  Christ,  trained  for  immortality.  It 
must  be  brought  into  harmony  with  the  ethical  standards  of  Christ.  This 
Christianity  insists  upon,  and  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  end  it  is 
gifted  with  an  influence  and  impulse,  a  potency  and  winsomeness,  an 
inspiration  and  helpfulness,  which  are  full  of  spiritual  mastery  over  the  soul. 
Christianity  uplifts,  transforms,  and  eventually  transfigures  the  personal 
character.  It  is  a  transcendent  school  of  incomparable  ethics.  It  honors 
the  rugged  training  of  discipline;  it  uses  it  freely  but  tenderly.  It  accom¬ 
plishes  its  purpose  by  exacting  obedience,  by  teaching  submission,  by  help¬ 
ing  to  self-control,  by  insisting  upon  practical  righteousness  as  a  rule  of 
life,  and  by  introducing  the  Golden  Rule  as  the  law  of  contact  and  duty 
between  man  and  man. 

In  vital  connection  with  character  is  a  word  of  magnetic  impulse  and 
unique  glory  which  gives  to  Christianity  a  sublime  practical  power  in 
history.  It  is  service.  There  is  a  forceful  meaning  in  the  double  influence 
of  Christianity  over  the  inner  life  and  the  outward  ministry  of  its  followers. 
Christ,  its  founder,  glorified  service  and  lifted  it  in  his  own  experience  to 
the  dignity  of  sacrifice.  In  the  light  of  Christ’s  example  service  becomes 
an  honor,  a  privilege,  and  a  moral  triumph;  it  is  consummated  and  crowned 
in  sacrifice. 

Christianity,  receiving  its  lesson  from  Christ,  subsidizes  character  in 
the  interest  of  service.  It  lays  its  noblest  fruitage  of  personal  gifts  and 
spiritual  culture  upon  the  altar  of  philanthropic  sacrifice.  It  is  unworthy 
of  its  name  if  it  does  not  reproduce  this  spirit  of  its  master;  only  by  giving 
itself  to  benevolent  ministry,  as  Christ  gave  himself  for  the  world,  can  it 
vindicate  its  origin.  Christianity  recognizes  no  worship  which  is  altogether 
divorced  from  work  for  the  weal  of  others;  it  indorses  no  religious  profes¬ 
sions  which  are  unmindful  of  the  obligations  of  service;  it  allows  itself  to 
be  tested  not  simply  by  the  purity  of  its  motives  but  by  the  measure  of  its 
sacrifices.  The  crown  and  goal  of  its  followers  are:  “  Well  done,  good 
and  faithful  servant.” 

One  other  word  completes  the  code.  It  is  fellowship.  It  is  a  word 
which  breathes  the  sweetest  hope  and  sounds  the  highest  destiny  of  the 
Christian.  It  gives  the  grandest  possible  meaning  to  eternity,  for  it  sug¬ 
gests  that  it  is  to  be  passed  with  God.  It  illumines  and  transfigures  the 
present,  for  it  brings  God  into  it,  and  places  Him  in  living  touch  with  our 
lives,  and  makes  Him  a  helper  in  our  moral  struggles,  our  spiritual  aspira¬ 
tions,  and  our  heroic,  though  imperfect,  efforts  to  live  the  life  of  duty.  It 
is  solace  in  trouble,  consolation  in  sorrow,  strength  in  weakness,  courage  in 
trial,  help  in  weariness,  and  cheer  in  loneliness;  it  becomes  an  unfailing 
inspiration  when  human  nature,  left  to  its  own  resources,  would  lie  down 
in  despair  and  die.  Fellowship  with  God  implies  and  secures  fellowship 
with  each  other  in  a  mystical  spiritual  union  of  Christ  with  His  people,  and 
His  people  with  each  other.  An  invisible  society  of  regenerate  souls,  which 
we  call  the  kingdom  of  God  among  men,  is  the  result.  This  has  its  visible 
product  in  the  organized  society  of  the  Christian  church,  which  is  the 
chosen  and  honored  instrument  of  God  for  the  conservation  and  propaga¬ 
tion  of  Christianity  among  men. 

This,  then,  is  the  message  which  Christianity  signals  to  other  religions 
as  it  greets  them  to-day:  Fatherhood,  brotherhood,  redemption,  incarna¬ 
tion,  atonement,  character,  service,  fellowship. 


772 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT  IN  FRANCE. 

PROF.  G.  BONET-MAUEY  OF  PARIS. 

I  am  very  thankful  that  Dr.  Barrows  has  given  me  the  opportunity  of 
widening  the  topic  of  my  announced  paper  on  French  Liberal  Protestant¬ 
ism,  and  of  presenting  to  you  some  general  views  on  the  religious  state  of 
my  country.  Indeed,  I  was  most  anxious  about  the  voice  of  Prance  being 
missed  in  this  great  symphony  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  You  might 
have  inferred  from  its  silence  that  the  French  Reiiublic  had,  become  quite 
indifferent  to  religious  matters,  and  that  all  Frenchmen  were  positivists  or 
atheists.  Not  at  all ;  the  French  nation  is  always  Christian,  although 
Christianity  had  to  fight  there  the  struggle  of  life.  But  the  French  people 
hold  in  abhorrence  intolerance  and  hypocrisy,  so  that  they  could  never 
endure  the  spirit  of  Pharisees  and  Jesuits. 

There  are  in  my  country  three  leading  powers  which  are  shaping  the 
future  religion  of  France:  Roman  Catholicism,  Protestantism,  and  phi¬ 
losophy. 

I  will  say  very  little  of  the  first  one,  not  only  because  I  am  a  Protestant, 
but  also  because  this  power  is  weakening,  little  by  little,  in  the  theological 
and  religious  field.  The  greater  part  of  the  Roman  Catholic  people  is  nom¬ 
inally  Catholic,  by  chance  of  birth  only.  They  don’t  believe  in  the  dogmas 
of  the  old  church  nor  use  its  sacraments  except  in  extreme  cases.  Most  of 
the  bishops  care  little  for  preaching,  overloaded  as  they  are  by  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  things  temporal. 

This  capital  office  of  the  pulpit  is  generally  performed  by  members  of 
various  monastic  orders;  Jesuits  who  are  exerting  great  social  influence  by 
the  confessional  and  by  educational  institutions;  Capuchins,  or  disciples  of 
St.  Franciscus,  whose  oratory  is  more  popular,  and  Dominicans,  among 
whom  were  found  some  of  our  most  enlightened  scholars,  viz.,  the  late 
Lacordaire  and  Father  Didon,  who  is  still  living  and  is  principal  of  the 
important  college  of  Albert  le  Grand,  near  Paris. 

However,  among  French  Roman  Catholics  the  leading  power  belongs 
now  to  some  godly  and  highly  gifted  laymen,  viz.,  M.  Chesnelong, 
president  of  the  Roman  Catholic  congresses;  Comte  Albert  de  Mun, 
formerly  an  officer  in  the  army  and  now  lay  jjreacher,  who  originated  the 
clubs  for  working  people  and  is  helping  in  many  charities;  Comte 
Melchior  de  Vogue,  one  of  our  most  brilliant  writers,  who  was  just  now 
elected  as  a  deputy  to  the  house  of  representatives.  He  is  a  leading  con¬ 
noisseur  in  Russian  literature  and  is  most  beloved  by  the  students  of  our 
Paris  University.  He  was  one  of  the  prime  movers  of  our  neo-Christian 
revival.  Happily  this  revival  provoked  strong  opposition  from  some  of  our 
free-thinkers.  Mr.  Aulard,  professor  at  the  Sorbonne,  raised  up  a  contra- 
league  of  the  republican  youth,  and  this  opposition  checked  the  Catholic 
movement. 

I  am  sorry  to  say  that  Father  Hyacinthe  has  failed  in  his  purpose  for 
want  of  support  from  his  adherents;  he  was  obliged  to  give  up  his  Gallican 
chapel  in  Paris  to  the  old  Catholic  church  of  Holland.  Therefore,  the 
influence  of  Roman  Catholicism  in  Prance  is  mostly  confined  to  charities, 
to  education,  to  social  and  political  works. 

Of  French  Protestantism  I  will  say  but  few  words,  not  because  we  are 
a  small  minority  in  our  country.  Indeed,  the  value  of  a  church  is  not  to 
be  measured  by  the  number  of  its  faithful,  but  by  the  fervor,  morality,  and 
the  truthfulness  of  their  ideals;  since  there  were  religions  on  earth,  there 
were  minorities  which  have  led  the  religious  world  No!  I  should  have 
too  much  to  say  of  the  works  of  Protestantism  in  my  country.  But  go  to 
the  Manufactures  Building  at  the  World’s  Pair,  in  the  Liberal  Arts  section 
of  economical  science,  ask  for  the  golden  book  of  French  Protestantism,  nnd 


RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT  IN  FRANCE. 


773 


you  will  find  therein  full  information  on  the  charities,  associations  for 
mutual  help  and  spiritual  work  of  our  people.  Thus  I  hope  you  will  ascer¬ 
tain  that  French  Protestants  have  not  degenerated  from  their  glorious  fore¬ 
fathers,  the  Huguenots. 

Concerning  the  liberal,  or  non-confessionalist  party,  I  would  quote  only 
three  facts: 

First,  the  strong  impulse  given  to  the  study  of  theology  by  the  “  Revue 
de  Strasbourg  ”  (1850-1869)  and  continued  since  by  our  faculty  of  Protest¬ 
ant  theology  at  Paris,  under  the  direction  of  Dean  F.  Litchenberger. 
Among  the  results  of  this  theological  progress  the  most  remarkable  is  the 
entire  discomposure  of  old  Calvinism  and  the  starting  of  a  middle  party, 
originating  with  Alexander  Vinet,  culminating  in  Prof.  Aug.  Sabatier,  and 
which  has  got  rid  of  the  capital  doctrines  of  the  La  Rochelle  creed. 

Second,  the  concentration  of  our  capital  by  the  side  of  our  Protestant 
faculty  of  the  foremost  leaders  of  the  undenominational  party.  When 
people  saw  Albert  Reville  and  J.  Fouque  lecturing  at  the  College  de 
France,  A.  Viguie  and  Waddington  Jalabert  and  Planchon  teaching  in  our 
Paris  university,  Rabier,  the  philosopher,  acting  as  general  director  of  our 
secondary  public  education,  F.  Buisson,  F.  Pecant,  and  J.  iSteeg  organiz¬ 
ing  our  primary  schools  and  training  colleges  (mostly  according  to  the 
American  plan  of  education),  they  understood  that  there  was  in  liberal 
Protestantism  a  pregnant  seed  of  scientitic  improvement,  of  ethical  and 
educational  progress;  they  ascertained  this  truth — that  there  is  a  logical 
connection  between  non-confessionalist  Protestantism  and  self-government. 

Third,  however,  the  fact  which,  perhaps,  has  had  the  largest  share  in 
the  magic  spell  exercised  by  modern  Protestantism  on  public  opinions  is 
the  unconcealed  sympathy  shown  for  us  by  many  of  our  celebrated  writers. 
It  will  be  sufficient  to  quote  the  names  of  Michelet  and  Quinet,  Charles  de 
Remusat,  and  Prevost  Pardol,  Henri  Martin,  and  Eugene  Pelletan,  Ernest 
Renan,  and  Henri  Taine.  Those  leaders  of  French  history,  philosophy,  and 
critics  not  only  bestowed  the  greatest  encomiums  on  Protestantism,  and 
vindicated,  in  some  cases  of  intolerance,  the  rights  of  our  church,  but  some 
married  Protestant  ladies  got  for  their  children  the  benefit  of  biblical 
instruction.  Even  the  late  Prevost  Pardol,  in  his  preface  to  the  new  edi¬ 
tion  of  Samuel  Vincent’s  “  Views  on  Protestantism”  (1859),  prophesied  the 
final  victory  of  Calvinistic  Christianity  over  Roman  Catholicism. 

Whatever  else  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  Christianity  will  have  to  take 
into  account  philosophy,  viz.,  the  freeireligious  thought.  There  are  in  Prance 
four  or  five  great  schools  of  philosophy— the  positivist  school,  originated 
by  August  Comte  and  Littre,  which  has  gained  ground  among  the  med¬ 
ical  men,  the  scientists  and  working  classes,  with  Pierre  Laffitte  for  its 
leader;  the  empiric  school,  of  which  T.  H.  Ribaut  is  the  representative 
man;  the  spiritualist  school,  originated  by  Victor  Cousin,  and  now  repre¬ 
sented  by  G.  Simon,  P.  Janet,  Lachelier;  the  criticist  school,  originated 
by  Charles  Renouvier,  and  represented  by  Pillon,  editor  of  the  Critique 
Philosophique,  and  the  idealistic  school,  independent  of  official  creed,  and 
of  which  Ernest  Renan  and  J.  Darmestetter  are  representative  men. 

Of  these  different  schools,  the  first  two  care  nothing  for  religion.  The 
two  following  only  give  marks  of  respect  and  sympathy  to  Christianity; 
but  the  last  took  the  deepest  interest  in  and  exercised  the  greatest  influence 
on  religious  thought  in  Prance.  Therefore,  I  would  like  to  give  you  some 
more  detail  on  the  last  school,  and  especially  on  its  late  leader,  Ernest 
Renan.  I  would  not  stand  for  every  word  of  Renan’s  books.  I  am  of 
opinion  that  he  has  failed  in  interpreting  Christ’s  ethical  character,  and  that 
he  has  published  in  late  years  too  many  things  which  were  rather  the  off¬ 
spring  of  his  fancy  or  of  familar  chats  than  the  results  of  mature  reflection. 
However,  on  the  whole,  he  was  a  most  learned  and  respectable  man,  loving 
and  tender  brother,  good  husband,  excellent  father. 


774 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


He  was  a  religious  thinker,  and  procured  a  Christian  teaching  for  all  his 
children.  He  was  a  faithful  friend,  and  benevolent  to  every  suffering  soul, 
but  he  could  not  agree  to  any  Christian  creed.  He  had  sacrificed  his  liveli¬ 
hood,  and  even  a  brilliant  career  in  the  Ex^man  Catholic  hierarchy,  for  rea¬ 
sons  of  sincerity,  and,  having  rejected  the  Pope’s  authority,  he  was  not 
willing  to  submit  to  any  other.  Then  he  had  shaped  for  himself  his  own 
fate,  and  from  a  few  quotations  of  his  work  I  shall  show  you  that  he  was 
not  at  all  an  atheist  and  an  enemy  to  Christianity.  On  the  contrary,  the 
elements  of  his  religion  were  drawn  from  anti-Nicene  Christianity,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  rule  suggested  by  Bunson,  and  just  now  recovered  by  Prof. 
Max  Muller,  in  his  remarkable  letter  to  the  chairman  of  this  parliament. 
Well,  here  are  the  prominent  features  of  Renan’s  religious  thought: 

Those  men  know  me  very  little  who  are  of  opinion  that  I  mean  to  diminish 
the  amount  of  religion  which  is  still  remaining  in  the  world,  but  1  trust  that, 
once  the  sympathy  of  the  truly  religious  souls  shall  come  back  to  me,  they 
will  perceive  that  the  reason  of  my  absolute  frankness,  which  does  not  admit 
tliat  truth  is  wanting  even  in  the  lies  of  politicians,  was  in  reality  a  feeling  of  deep 
respect  to  religion.  I  have  believed  in  all  relations  which  are  at  the  bottom  of 
man’s  heart;  never  the  one  prevented  me  from  hearing  the  others.  I  always 
have  thought  that  their  contradictions  were  but  apparent,  and  that  the  rule  of 
enforcing  the  silence  of  criticism  for  the  sake  of  the  moral  and  religious  instincts 
was  not  at  all  a  mark  of  respect  to  divinity.  Science  is  not  an  enemy  to  religion, 
conceived  as  such,  and,  the  latter  ought  not  to  'mistrust  science.  The  scientific 
spirit  is  an  integral  part  of  religion,  and  without  it  nobody  can  become  a  true 
worshiper. 

God  does  not  reveal  Himself  through  wonders;  He  reveals  Himself 
through  the  heart.  Therefore,  in  Renan’s  eyes,  the  groundwork  of  religion 
is  the  ethical  sense.  Hear  Renan  again: 

Philosophy  in  science  will  unceasingly  seek  for  the  solution  of  the  cosmolog¬ 
ical  problem,  but  there  is  unquestionabiy,  as  man  will  find  to  the  end  of  his  life,  a 
fulcrum  for  his  flights;  good  is  good,  bad  is  bad.  We  want  no  system  to  be  abie 
to  love  the  first  and  to  hate  the  other.  In  that  way  hate  and  love,  although  appar¬ 
ent  without  link  with  reason,  are  the  main  foundations  of  moral  cet  titude;  they 
are  the  only  means  man  has  for  understanding  whence  he  came  and  whither  he 
is  going. 

F’or  this  ethical  basis  Renan  was  indebted  to  his  Christian  mother  and 
sister,  and  the  religious  training  of  his  childhood  at  the  Roman  Catholic 
seminaries  of  Treguier  and  Sulpice.  If  the  first  part  of  Renan’s  faith  was 
positive,  the  second  was  a  negative.  He  did  not  admit  the  supernatural 
belief  in  wonders.  His  reason  was  that  such  belief  is  incompatible  with 
the  general  laws  of  the  material  world  so  far  as  they  are  known  to  modern 
science.  He  did  not  reject  the  supernatural  in  se,  but  he  said  that  none  of 
the  so-called  miracles  were  proved  by  satisfactory  testimonies.  However, 
he  affirmed  that  religion  did  not  depend  on  the  supernatural.  “  Religion,” 
says  he,  “  is  eternal.  On  the  day  when  it  would  disappear  the  very  heart 
of  mankind  would  be  destroyed.  Religion  is  as  eternal  as  poetry,  as  love; 
it  will  outlive  the  destruction  of  all  illusions,  even  the  death  of  thebeloved 
one.  *  *  *  Therefore,  to  sever  the  forever  victorious  cause  of  religion 
from  the  last  cause  of  miracles,  is  to  do  service  to  religion.” 

The  real  wonders,  in  Renan’s  opinion,  were  the  works  of  Christian 
faith  and  love,  but  the  wonder  of  wonders  was  the  belief  in  immortality, 
the  unbroken  belief  that  the  soul  is  of  divine  essence  and  can  not  die. 
Here  are  the  significant  words  he  wrote  soon  after  he  had  recovered  from 
a  dangerous  attack  of  fever  during  his  journey  to  Syria  (1861):  “I  have 
faced  death,  and  I  have  brought  back  from  the  threshold  of  the  infinite  a 
more  than  ever  living  faith  in  the  reality  of  the  ideal  world.  It  is  that 
world  which  exists  and  the  physical  one  which  seems  to  exist.  Leaning  on 
this  conviction,  I  expect  the  future  with  quietness.  The  consciousness  of 
doing  right  is  enough  for  my  tranquility.” 

Now,  as  to  Renan’s  opinion  about  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
outlook  of  Christianity,  here  are  his  words  in  the  last  chapter  of  his  “  Life 
of  Christ  ”:  “  The  perfect  idealism  of  Christ  is  the  highest  rule  of  the 


RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT  IN  FRANCE, 


775 


unselfish  and  virtuous  life.  He  has  created  the  heavenly  home  of  all  pure 
souls.”  “We  ought  thus  to  place  Jesus  at  the  highest  top  of  human 
greatness.”  “The  Sublime  Person  we  may  call  divine,  not  in  the 
sense  that  He  has  absorbed  every  divine  life,  but  that  He  brought  man¬ 
kind  the  nearest  to  the  divine  ideal.  *  *  *  Him  was  con¬ 

densed  every  good  and  noble  element  of  our  nature.  Nobody  has  ever, 
as  much  as  He  did,  sacrificed  the  meanness  of  self-love  to  the  good  of 
mankind.  Unreservedly  devoted  to  His  faith.  He  has  trampled  on  all  joys 
of  the  home,  on  all  worldly  cares,  and  by  His  heroic  will  Jesus  has  con¬ 
quered  for  us  heaven.” 

At  last  here  is  Renan’s  opinion  of  the  outlook  of  Christianity:  “There 
are  in  Christianity,  as  it  results  from  the  preaching  and  the  ethical  type  of 
its  Founder,  the  seeds  of  every  improvement  of  mankind.  Except  the 
scientific  spirit,  which  Jesus  could  not  have,  nothing  is  lacking  for  His  relig¬ 
ion  to  be  the  pure  kingdom  of  God.  He  can  not  be  surpassed.  His  worship 
will  unceasingly  grow  young  again.  His  life  will  bring  into  the  most  beau¬ 
tiful  eyes  tears  which  will  never  dry  up;  His  sufferings  will  move  the  best 
hearts;  all  centuries  will  proclaim  that  among  the  sons  of  men  none  was 
born  greater  than  Jesus.”  Such  was  Renan’s  testimony  to  Christ  and  to 
Christianity.  Well,  that  is  the  man  who  has  been  treated  as  an  atheist, 
as  a  destroyer  of  all  religion,  and  as  an  enemy  of  Christ. 

Let  us  see  what  are  the  outlooks  of  religion  in  France.  I  do  not  boast 
of  being  a  prophet,  but,  so  far  as  I  am  acquainted  with  the  inmost  aspira¬ 
tions  of  my  country,  I  dare  assert  these  three  points: 

France  will  remain  a  Christian  nation,  the  land  of  St.  Louis  and  Jeanne 
d’Arc,  of  Calvin  and  St.  Vincent  de  Paul.  Thus  the  20th  century  will 
not,  as  was  frequently  foretold,  see  the  decay  of  the  religion  of  Christ;  on 
the  contrary,  it  will  see  the  end  of  every  temporal  religion,  of  every  church 
founded  on  social  or  political  authority  and  wanting  an  ethical  basis  or 
freedom  of  conscience. 

The  next  century  will  see  the  full  expansion  of  the  religion  of  Jesus, 
shaped  in  new  form,  better  accommodated  to  the  needs  of  our  age.  This 
new  Christianity  (will  combine  the  aesthetic  and  social  characters  of  Roman 
Catholicism  with  the  ethical  and  individualistic  elements  of  Calvinism. 

But  no  doubt  it  will  preserve  Some  features  of  Renan’s  faith,  viz.,  his 
spontaneity  and  sincerity,  his  toleration  and  respect  for  every  sincere  belief, 
his  sympathy  for  the  conquered  and  oppressed,  his  untiring  benevolence  for 
every  doubtful  and  inquiring  soul,  but,  above  all,  his  unbroken  faith  in  the 
improvement  of  mankind  and  the  eternal  life  in  God. 

Here  are,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  the  characteristic  features  of  future  relig¬ 
ion  in  France,  and  perhaps  they  will  be  the  same  in  the  United  States,  for 
there  are  between  the  two  nations  many  common  links.  Both  hold  in 
abhorrence  intolerance  and  hypocrisy;  both  are  fond  of  the  ideal,  and  of 
freedom,  and  of  social  progress.  The  first  Parliament  of  Religions  reminds 
me  of  the  splendid  manifestation  of  self-denial,  of  freedom  and  of  frater¬ 
nity  which  took  place  a  century  ago  at  the  beginning  of  our  French  revo¬ 
lution.  It  is  also,  as  it  were,  a  pentecost  of  humanity,  a  pouring  out  of 
the  holy  ghost  of  justice,  of  toleration,  and  of  human  brotherhood.  May 
God,  the  Almighty  Father,  let  it  bring  the  most  practical  results;  may  it 
instance  always  the  brotherhood  of  Christian  unity  spread  over  the  whole 
world.  I  hail  this  first  Parliament  of  Religions  as  the  star  of  good  hope 
for  all  religious  people  seeking  for  peace  and  harmony  in  the  Old  as  in  the 
New  World. 


776 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


RESULTS  OF  PROTESTANT  MISSIONS 

IN  TURKEY. 

REV.  MARDIROS  IGNADOS. 

(Read  by  Herant  M.  Kiretchjian.) 

Turkey  was  the  former  cradle  of  humanity  and  the  great  nations  and 
governments  of  earlier  days.  It  has  also  been  the  cradle  of  Judaism,  Chris¬ 
tianity,  and  Mohammedanism.  In  that  land  are  now  to  be  found  millions 
of  followers  of  these  religions,  each  having  there  a  source  of  strength;  the 
Jews,  for  example,  their  Jerusalem,  the  Mohammedans  their  Khaliff,  and 
the  Christians  the  churches  established  in  the  beginning  by  the  Christian 
apostles.  Together  with  these  religious  institutions,  Turkey  has  such  a 
geographical  position  that  gives  it  a  peculiar  fitness  to  be  the  arena  of 
great  political  events.  Those  who  appreciate  these  characteristics  of 
Turkey  will  consider  with  deep  interest  the  results  which  Protestant  Chris¬ 
tianity  has  produced  and  may  yet  produce  in /Great  Asia. 

Protestant  Christianity  was  established  in  Turkey  principally  through 
the  Protestant  Bible  societies  and  missions.  These  societies  published  the 
Holy  Scriptures  by  revisions  or  new  translations,  and  offered  them  to  the 
people  at  prices  within  the  reach  of  all.  To  these  were  added  the  labors  of 
the  American  board  of  commissioners  for  foreign  missions,  which  about 
thirty  year';  ago  were  divided  into  the  Congregationalist  and  Presbyterian 
branches,  the  Congregationalist  branch  occupying  Northern  Turkey  and 
the  Presbyterian  the  Southern  field.  The  former  have' labored  until  now 
principally  among  the  Armenians,  Bulgarians,  and  Greeks,  the  latter  among 
the  Syrians  and  Nestorians  and  Kopts.  The  Church  of  England  and  the 
Scotch  Presbyterian  Church  also  have  missions  in  Turkey  *f or  the  Jews. 
Missionaries  of  the  former  labor  also  among  the  Kopts  in  Egypt.  During 
the  past  twenty-five  years  missions  were  established  in  Turkey  by  the 
American  Baptist  Churches,  the  Disciples  of  Christ,  and  other  denomi¬ 
nations.  All  these  societies  have  labored  more  or  less  among  the  Turks  and 
Hebrews,  giving  them  the  Bible  in  their  own  languages,  but  I  will  not 
enlarge  upon  that  branch  of  the  work,  confining  my  remarks  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  peoples,  since  among  them  can  be  seen  more  definitely  the  results  of 
the  labors  of  Protestant  societies  and  native  preachers. 

Protestantism  has  had  great  and  palpable  results  among  the  Armenian 
Christians,  who  are  considered  leaders  among  the  Asiatics,  and  who,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  accepted  Christianity  both  individually  and 
also  as  a  nation,  and  they  have  to  this  day  kept  Christianity  in  the  national 
or  Gregorian  church.  Among  the  40,000  Protestants  of  Turkey,  30,000  are 
Armenians,  as  well  as  three-fourth:  of  the  Evangelical  Protestant  churches. 

Protestantism  is  an  incentive  to  mental  development  and  ideas  of 
liberty.  Therefore,  its  results  are  generally  seen  first  upon  mental  educa¬ 
tion.  It  is  so  among  the  people  in  Turkey.  The  Christians  in  Turkey,  and 
especially  the  Armeniai  s,  began  to  think  and  speak  freely  and  boldly  upon 
religious  subjects.  They  knew  that  to  do  this  properly  they  must  have 
learning  about  all  important  subjects.  Therefore,  those  who  are  working 
among  them  paid  great  attention  to  the  work  of  satisfying  their  minds. 
This  was  done  by  the  Protestant  ministers  and  missionaries  in  Turkey 
from  the  beginning  and  is  carried  on  to  this  day.  The  result  is  apparent 
in  the  common  schools,  in  the  education  of  girls,  and  colleges  and  theo¬ 
logical  seminaries,  which  are  to  be  found  in  Turkey.  Many  of  these  began 
with  Protestantism,  and  were  developed  with  that  movement  in  a  way  that 
no  one  can  deny. 

Three-quarters  of  a  century  ago  there  were  only  a  few  places  even  in  the 


RESULTS  OF  PROTESTANT  MISSIONS, 


T77 

larger  cities  of  Turkey  which  could  be  called  schools.  Half  a  eentury  ago 
such  schools  were  established  even  in  the  smallest  cities.  Since  a  quarter 
of  a  century,  schools  were  opened  even  in  villages,  where  the  children  of 
Protestants  are  proportionately  more  numerous.  Moreover,  in  many  vil¬ 
lages  and  other  places  it  is  the  Protestants  who  establish  such  schools.  On 
the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  in  my  native  city,  the  Protestant  schools  became 
an  example  for  emulation,  so  that  other  schools  were  developed.  There  the 
Protestants  opened  the  first  school  for  girls  and  others  followed  their  exam¬ 
ples.  Adult  women  and  even  old  people  began  there  to  study  reading,  desir¬ 
ing  to  read  the  Bible. 

It  was  the  result  of  these  schools  that  adults  in  general  began  to  read 
and  the  young  to  go  to  school.  I  know  this  has  been  the  case  in  many 
other  cities,  not  only  among  the  Armenians,  but  also  among  other  nationali¬ 
ties,  by  the  influence  of  the  Protestants  among  them.  As  a  result  of  this 
movement  are  introduced  new  text  books,  new  systems  of  education,  and 
new  methods  of  administration.  For  example,  Protestant  missionaries  in 
Smyrna  introduced  kindergarten  schools,  which  were  adopted  by  other 
Armenian  and  Greek  schools.  Night  schools,  classes  for  adults,  and 
especially  Sunday  schools,  were  also  begun  and  are  carried  on  by  Protestants 
in  these  as  well  as  other  communities. 

Protestant  missions  have  rendered  great  services  for  higher  education. 
About  sixty  years  ago  there  was  need  for  a  large  number  of  Protestant 
preachers.  So,  under  the  care  of  Dr.  Cyrus  Hamlin,  a  high  school  was 
opened  for  young  men,  where  lessons  were  given  on  scientific  and  religious 
subjects.  This  institution  excited  the  emulation  of  Roman  Catholic  mis¬ 
sionaries  and  other  Christian  communities,  who  also  established  high 
schools  in  the  larger  cities.  The  government  also  became  conscious  of  the 
necessity  of  such  a  higher  education,  and  established  institutions  for 
young  men  where  languages,  science,  and  arts  are  taught.  In  this  way, 
every  city  now  has  its  high  school,  and  even  college;  the  Protestant  insti¬ 
tutions,  almost  everywhere,  being  the  first  and  most  important. 

The  missionaries  begin  to  work  for  the  people.  They  learned  their 
modern  languages,  and  translated  the  Bible  into  languages  used  by  them 
or  easily  understood,  and  offered  it  to  the  people.  As  a  result  of  this,  mod¬ 
ern  Armenian  began  to  be  used  in  our  religious  services,  whereas,  in  the 
national  church,  ancient  Armenian  is  used.  The  Protestant  people  began 
to  use  in  family  worship  and  public  prayers  the  modern  language,  while 
other  Christians  are  accustomed  to  repeat  written  prayers  which  they  have 
committed  to  memory.  Preachers  began  to  write  in  the  colloquial  language 
letters  to  the  people,  while  the  ancient  languages  are  used  by  ministers  of 
other  churches.  The  missionaries  started  a  periodical  publication  called 
Treasury  of  Useful  Informatio7i,  which,  by  its  excellent  modern  Armenian, 
became  an  example  for  other  Protestant  publications,  so  modern  Armenian 
became  a  literary  language,  was  developed  and  enriched  rapidly,  so  that 
even  those  of  the  nation  who  love  the  ancient  language  were  compelled  tc 
use  the  modern  in  all  things  except  the  services  of  the  church. 

Thus,  the  common  people  found  many  useful  publications  which  they 
could  understand,  and  therefore  began  to  acquire  the  habit  of  reading. 
Children  also,  having  learned  to  study  in  school,  continued  their  studies 
when  they  left  school.  In  order  to  satisfy  this  demand,  and  also  as  a  source 
of  profit,  many  engaged  in  the  work  of  writing  and  translating  novels  and 
other  books.  All  this  awakened  among  the  people  the  love  of  reading, 
which  is  the  first  step  in  the  development  of  ideas  and  initiating  reforma¬ 
tion.  It  became  the  duty  of  the  missionaries  to  give  food  to  these  people 
who  wanted  to  read  by  offering  them  religious  and  moral  truths  through 
their  publications.  So  books  were  published  on  scientific,  historical,  and 
popular  subjects.  The  educated  people  began  to  study  the  scriptures  with 
reverence,  and  found  it  published  by  the  Bible  societies  in  the  twenty 


778 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


languages  used  in  Turkey.  The  American  Bible  Society  has  begun  to  do  a 
work  which  merits  specially  the  gratitude  of  the  Armenian  people,  namely, 
publication  of  the  Bible  in  the  ancient  Armenian  language,  which  is  used 
in  the  national  church. 

The  people  of  Turkey  are  generally  conservative.  Old  things  do  not 
change  there  very  easily,  especially  ecclesiastical  and  religious  matters. 
But  Protestantism  proved  mightier  than  ritualism,  especially  among  the 
Armenian  Christians.  Among  them  ceremonies  and  rites  that  were  con¬ 
sidered  sacred  were  either  abandoned  or  kept  with  a  new  meaning. 
For  example,  the  Lenten  fast  was  abandoned  and  other  fasts  moderated. 
They  do  not  now  go  on  pilgrimages  to  obtain  salvation.  They  do  not  wor¬ 
ship  the  pictures  of  saints  and  sacred  things,  but  they  use  them  as  things  of 
excellent  values.  They  do  not  believe  that  light  descends  upon  the  tomb 
of  Christ  on  Easter  day  miraculously,  but  they  have  it  descend  as  a  symbol 
of  a  higher  fact.  Such  reformations  are  preparations  for  greater  internal 
reformation.  A  pious  people,  when  not  satisfied  with  outward  rites  and 
ceremonies,  naturally  seeks  the  internal  and  spiritual,  and  it  has,  in  fact, 
been  thus  in  Turkey,  especially  among  those  who  have  apprehended  the 
truths  of  the  Holy  Book. 

The  morality  of  the  Christian  communities  has  been  elevated.  Until 
the  beginning  of  this  century,  even,  great  evils  were  prevalent  in  spite  of 
great  pressure.  In  the  capital  it  is  forbidden  to  frequent  coffee  shops  and 
even  to  smoke,  but  even  under  such  laws  coffee  shops  gradually  developed 
into  wine  shops,  and  smokers  became  addicted  to  drink.  Now  there  is 
liberty  for  all  things  that  are  not  contrary  to  morality,  and  unprincipled 
men  of  low  character  have  a  free  field  to  carry  pn  secretly  whatever  their 
greed  may  dictate.  But  in  the  presence  of  these  corrupting  influences  even 
the  youth  are  well-behaved  and  modest,  more  than  the  men  of  a  few 
generations  ago.  Through  the  gospel  and  the  labors  of  those  who  advo¬ 
cate  abstinence  and  simplicity,  many  young  men  voluntarily  abandon  the 
use  of  intoxicating  drinks  and  even  smoking.  Our  young  women,  too,  do 
not  favor  following  the  fashions  as  much  as  they  would  naturally  under 
the  circumstances.  Truthfulness,  honesty,  and  faithfulness  in  business 
are  more  respected,  especially  among  Christians,  than  they  were  a  century 
ago.  The  spirit  of  charity  also  has  taken  root  in  the  hearts  of  the  Christian 
people.  They  give  ten  times  more  than  those  who  preceded  them,  not  only 
for  churches  and  schools,  but  also  to  establish  institutions  for  the  poor  or 
orphanages,  hospitals,  and  help  those  stricken  by  famine,  or  poverty,  or 
suffering  from  disasters. 

The  last  great  and  direct  fruit  of  Protestantism  has  been  reformation  in 
the  heart  or  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  By  the  leadership  of  Protestant 
missionaries  and  the  efforts  of  native  ministers,  in  half  a  century  there  have 
been  established  in  Turkey  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  evangelical 
Protestant  churches,  with  more  than  fifteen  thousand  living  members,  and 
we  have  the  sure  hope  that  God  will  raise  from  among  these,  evangelists  full 
of  spirit,  and  fearless  reformers.  By  their  efforts,  with  the  preparations  so 
far  made,  there  will  come  such  religious  reformation  among  the  Armenians, 
Greeks,  Bulgarians,  and  Kopt  churches  as  has  been  in  the  past  in  Germany 
and  in  England.  Then  the  Oriental  Church  will  be  strengthened  with  a 
new  life  and  youthful  spirit,  and  will  join  hands  with  her  Western  sister 
church.  Thus  will  shine  with  a  glorious  light  the  one  universal  Catholic 
Church,  to  which  will  come  also  the  non- Christian  nation  to  form  one  fold 
and  one  shepherd,  and  the  one  great  head  of  the  church  of  God. 

This  Parliament  of  Religions  is  called  to  glorify  God  by  having  its 
blessed  influence  upon  the  evangelistic  work  of  the  missions  in  Turkey. 
There  is  much  to  be  accomplished  there  yet,  of  which  I  desire  to  point  out 
three  directions,  namely: 

1.  An  institution  of  refuge  for  boys  and  girls  who  are  homeless  in  the 


WHAT  BUDDHISM  HAS  DONE  FOR  JAPAN, 


779 


city  of  Smyrna,  where  they  may  be  cared  for,  as  they  would  had  they 
homes,  and  receive  Christian  education. 

2.  The  publication  of  a  family  paper  which  may  be  a  guide  to  the 
women  of  our  people  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  their  life. 

3.  A  most  important  matter  is  to  send  evangelists  to  Turkey  who  may 
preach  the  gospel  without  interfering  with  ecclesiastic  or  denominational 
questions. 

These  three  enterprises  are  wants  in  the  country,  and  are  in  the  spirit 
of  this  parliament.  These  would  be  new  avenues  through  which  the 
abundant  blessings  of  the  gospel  would  flow  throughout  Turkey,  together 
with  which  all  Christian  hearts  would  rejoice. 


WHAT  BUDDHISM  HAS  DONE  FOR  JAPAN. 

HORIN  TOKI. 

I  have  had  the  pleasure  of  speaking  something  about  Buddhism,  and  I 
now  again  take  the  liberty  of  speaking  something  further  about  Bud¬ 
dhism,  so  that  you  may  understand  that  religion,  as  well  as  its  relation  to 
our  sunrise  land  of  Japan,  much  better.  In  “chidown,”  which  means, 
translated  into  English,  “  degrees  of  wisdom,”  it  is  said  that  all  Buddhas 
teach  in  two  ways.  One  is  to  teach  the  truth  of  doctrine;  the  other  is  to 
guide  the  goodness  and  righteousness  of  mankind.  The  former  teaches  us 
that  our  body  and  spirit  are  always  in  constant  connection  with  the  out¬ 
side  world  and  regulated  by  the  absolute  truth,  which,  having  no  beginning 
or  no  end.  Alls  the  universe  and  yet  performs  the  endless  action  of  cause 
and  effect  as  in  a  circle.  For  instance,  God  in  Christianity,  the  absolute 
extremity  in  Confucianism,  Ameno  Minaka  nushi  no  mikoto  in  Shintoism, 
Borankamma  in  Brahmism,  are  established  in  order  to  show  the  truth  of 
the  universe. 

The  latter — that  is  to  guide  the  goodness  and  righteousness  of  mankind 
— inspires  us  with  purity  and  righteousness  in  our  body  and  mind.  In  other 
words,  it  teaches  us  that  absolute  truth  is  constantly  acting  to  make  a  man 
on  the  surface  of  the  earth  complete  his  purity  and  goodness.  Therefore, 
should  I  speak  from  the  side  of  goodness,  I  should  say  that  Buddhism 
teaches  ten  commandments,  such  as  not  to  kill,  not  to  steal,  not  to  commit 
adultery,  not  to  tell  a  falsehood,  not  to  joke,  not  to  speak  evil  of  others,  not  to 
use  double  tongue,  not  to  be  greedy,  neither  be  stingy,  not  to  be  cruel. 
Such  commandments  guide  us  into  morality  and  goodness  kindly  and 
minutely,  by  regulating  our  every-day  personal  action.  Such  command¬ 
ments,  by  pacifying,  purifying,  and  enlightening  our  passions,  as  well  as  our 
wisdom,  shall  in  the  run  of  its  course  make  the  present  society,  which  is 
full  of  vice,  hatred,  and  struggles  of  race,  just  like  hungry  dogs  or  wolves, 
a  holy  paradise  of  purity,  jjeace,  and  love.  The  regulating  power  of  such 
commandments  shall  turn  this  troublesome  world  into  the  spiritual  king¬ 
dom  of  fraternity  and  humanity. 

This  is  only  one  illustration  of  Buddhist  preaching.  Therefore,  you  see 
tnat  Buddhism  does  not  quarrel  with  other  religions  about  the  truth.  If 
there  were  a  religion  which  teaches  the  truth  in  the  same  way.  Buddhism 
regards  it  as  the  truth  of  Buddhism  disguised  under  the  garment  of  other 
religion.  Buddhism  never  cares  what  the  outside  garment  might  do.  It 
only  aims  to  promote  the  purity  and  morality  of  mankind.  It  never  asks 
who  discovered  it.  It  only  appreciates  the  goodness  and  righteousness.  It 
helps  the  others  in  the  purilication  of  mankind.  Buddha  himself  called 
Buddhism  “a  round,  circulating  religion,”  which  means  the  truth  common 
to  every  religion,  regardless  of  the  outside  garment.  The  absolute  truth 


780 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS: 


must  not  be  regarded  as  the  monopolization  of  one  religion  of  other.  The 
truth  is  the  broadest  and  widest.  In  short,  Buddhism  teaches  us  that  the 
Buddhism  is  truth,  the  goddess  of  truth  who  is  common  to  every  religion, 
but  who  showed  her  true  phase  to  us  through  the  Buddhism. 

And  now  let  me  tell  you  that  this  Buddhism  has  been  a  living  spirit  and 
nationality  of  our  beloved  Japan  for  so  many  years  and  will  be  forever. 
Consequently  the  Japanese  people,  who  have  been  constantly  guided  by 
this  beautiful  star  of  truth  of  Buddhas,  are  very  hospitable  for  other  relig¬ 
ious  and  countries,  and  are  entirely  different  from  some  other  obstinate 
nations.  I  say  this  without  the  least  boast.  Nay,  I  say  this  from  sim¬ 
plicity  and  purity  of  mind.  The  Japanese  of  thirty  years  since—  that  is  since 
we  opened  our  country  for  foreigners — will  prove  to  you  that  our  country 
is  quite  unequaled  in  the  way  of  picking  up  what  is  good  and  right,  even 
done  by  others.  We  never  say  who  invented  this?  which  country  brought 
that?  The  things  of  good  nature  have  been  most  heartily  accepted  by  us, 
regardless  of  race  and  nationality.  Is  this  not  the  precious  gift  of  the 
truth  of  Buddhism,  the  spirit  of  our  country? 

But  don’t  too  hastily  conclude  that  we  are  only  blinded  in  imitating 
others.  We  have  our  own  nationality;  let  me  assure  you  that  we  have  our 
own  spirit.  But  we  are  not  so  obstinate  to  deny  even  what  is  good.  So  we 
trust  in  the  unity  of  truth,  but  do  not  believe  in  the  creator  fancied  out  by 
the  imperfect  brain  of  human  beings.  We  also  firmly  reserve  our  own 
nationality  as  to  manner,  customs,  arts,  literature,  benevolence,  architect¬ 
ure,  and  language.  We  have  a  charming  and  lovely  nationality,  which 
characterizes  all  customs  and  relation  between  the  sexes,  between  old  and 
young,  and  so  on  with  peace  and  gentleness.  You  may  think  me  too  boast¬ 
ful,  but  allow  me  to  warrant  you  that  in  traveling  into  the  interior  of 
Japan  you  will  never  be  received  with  the  salutation  of  “  Hello,  John.” 
You  will  never  be  received  with  the  salutation,  “Hello,  Jack.”  Nay,  our 
people  are  not  so  impolite  —  none  of  them.  Everywhere  you  go  you  will 
receive  hearty  welcome  and  kind  hospitality. 

Not  only  this,  you  are  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  Japan  has  her  own 
originality  in  fine  arts,  sculpture,  painting,  architecture,  etc.  Should  you 
doubt  me,  please  trouble  yourself  to  come  over  to  Japan,  where  the  beauti¬ 
ful  mountains  and  clear  streams  will  welcome  you  with  smiles  and  open 
heart.  Japan,  though  small  in  area,  with  the  glorious  rising  as  well  as  the 
setting  sun,  which  shines  over  the  beautiful  cherry-tree  flowers,  will  do  her 
very  best  to  please  you.  The  Japanese  fine-arts  productions,  which  abound 
in  all  the  cities  of  Japan,  will  tell  you  their  own  history.  Not  only  is  there 
the  beautiful  climate,  which  will  tempt  you  to  forget  the  departure  from 
Japan,  but  I  say  that  you,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  are  not  so  weak  as  to 
be  tempted  by  climate,  or  other  things,  so  far  as  to  forget  your  country, 
but  the  respect,  courtesy,  kindness,  and  hospitality  you  will  constantly 
receive  there  might,  perhaps,  make  it  too  hard  for  you  to  leave  Japan  with¬ 
out  shedding  tears.  You  must  think  that  this  is  spoken  by  one  mortal, 
Horin  Toki  of  Japan,  but  it  is  spoken  to  you  by  the  truth,  who  borrowed 
my  tongue.  Truly,  it  is. 

And  let  me  ask  you,  who  do  you  think  originated  such  beautiful 
customs,  and  the  fine  arts  of  world-wfide  reputation  in  Japan?  Allow 
me  to  assure  you  that  it  was  ‘Buddhism.  I  have  no  time  to  count,  one 
by  one,  what  Buddhism  has  wrought  in  Japan  during  the  past  1,100 
years.  But  one  word  is  enough — Buddhism  is  the  spirit  of  Japan;  her 
nationality  is  Buddhism.  This  is  the  true  state  of  Japan.  But  it  is  a  pity 
that  we  see  some  false  and  obstinate  religionists,  who,  comparing  these 
promising  Japanese  with  the  South  Islanders,  have  been  so  carelessly  try¬ 
ing  to  introduce  some  false  religion  into  our  country.  As  I  said  before,  w^e 
Buddhists  welcome  any  who  are  earnest;  seekers  after  the  truth,  but  can 
we  keep  silent  to  see  the  falsehood  disturbing  the  peace  and  nationality  of 


RELIGIOUS  UNION  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE. 


781 


our  country?  The  hateful  rumor  of  the  collision  taking  place  between  the 
two  parties  is  sometimes  spread  abroad.  We,  from  the  standpoint  of  love 
to  our  country,  can  not  overlook  this  falsehood  and  violation  of  peace  and 
fraternity.  Do  you  think  it  is  right  for  one  to  urge  upon  a  stranger  to 
believe  what  he  does  not  like,  and  call  that  stranger  foolish,  barbarous, 
ignorant,  and  obstinate,  on  account  of  the  latter  denying  the  proposition 
made  by  the  former?  Do  you  think  it  is  right  for  the  former  to  excite 
the  latter  by  calling  so  many  names  and  producing  social  disorder?  I 
should  say  that  such  a  one  as  that  is  against  peace,  love,  and  order,  fra¬ 
ternity  and  humanity.  I  should  say  that  such  a  one  as  that  is  against  the 
truth.  He  who  is  against  the  truth  had  better  die.  Justice  does  conquer 
injustice,  and  we  are  glad  to  see  that  the  cloud  of  falsehood  is  gradually 
disappearing  before  the  light  of  truth.  Also,  you  ladies  and  gentlemen 
who  are  assembled  now  here  are  the  friends  of  truth.  Nay,  you  are  amidst 
the  truth.  You  breathe  the  truth  as  you  do  the  air.  And  you  surely 
indorse  my  opinion,  because  it  is  nothing  but  the  truth. 


RELIGIOUS  UNION  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE. 

EEV.  JOHN  GMEINEE  OF  ST.  PAUL. 

A  deep  thinker.  Lord  Bacon,  truly  said:  “A  little  philosophy  inclineth 
man’s  mind  to  atheism,  but  much  philosophy  bringeth  men’s  minds  about 
to  religion.”  Just  as  naturally  as  the  needle  of  a  comi^ass  tends  to  point 
toward  the  magnetic  pole  the  human  mind  tends  toward  its  supreme 
source  and  ultimate  end — God.  Hence  another  great  thinker,  St.  Augustine, 
observed;  “  Thou,  O  God,  hast  made  us  for  Thee,  and  our  heart  is  unquiet 
until  it  will  rest  in  Thee.”  The  consciousness  of  our  relation  to  God,  includ¬ 
ing  the  corresponding  duties  toward  Him,  ourselves,  and  our  fellowmen,  is 
what  we  call  religion.  Religion  is  the  most  sublime  gift  of  human  nature, 
the  crowning  perfection  of  man’s  rational  faculties.  It  is,  next  to  God  Him¬ 
self,  the  most  fundamental,  the  most  important,  and  the  most  interesting 
matter  which  can  engage  the  attention  of  a  serious  mind.  It  is  the  ever 
new  and  ever  live  question  of  questions  of  reflecting  mankind,  on  the  solu¬ 
tion  of  which  the  solutions  of  all  other  great  questions  in  science,  philoso¬ 
phy,  private  morality,  and  public  policy  ultimately  depend.  It  is  religion 
which  gives  the  most  characteristic  coloring  and  the  most  decided  direction 
to  human  life  in  all  its  phases  -private,  social,  and  public. 

It  is  not  rivers  or  seas,  mountains  or  deserts,  language  or  race,  that 
cause  the  deepest  and  widest  separations  between  man  and  man,  but  relig¬ 
ion.  Differences  of  religion  constitute  the  most  marked  dividing  line 
between  people  of  even  the  same  language,  same  race,  and  same  country; 
but  wherever  people  may  meet,  no  matter  what  different  language  they 
may  speak,  to  what  different  races  they  may  belong,  or  what  tint  of  color 
their  features  may  exhibit,  as  soon  as  they  know  they  are  one  in  religion, 
a  profoundly  felt  bond  of  sympathy  unites  them  as  members  of  one  great 
family,  as  children  of  one  great  supreme  power.  Hence  there  is  no  greater 
means  to  promote  it  among  all  men  than  sincere  fraternity,  equality,  peace, 
and  happiness,  and  no  greater  blessing  on  earth  that  could  be  conferred  on 
human  society  than  religious  union  founded  on  truth.  To  promote  the 
same  as  far  as  our  limited  ability  may  permit,  we  have  assembled  from  all 
parts  of  the  surface  of  the  earth,  here  in  the  center  of  the  great  continent 
of  human  liberty,  happiness,  and  progress. 

We  have  met  here  from  various  countries,  various  climes,  various  nations, 
to  reconsider  seriously  what  St.  Paul  declared  centuries  ago  at  Athens, 
when  he  said: 

God  who  made  the  world  and  all  things  that  are  in  it  hath  made  of  one  all 
mankind,  to  dwell  upon  the  whole  face  of  the  earth,  determining  appointed 


782 


THE  parliament  OF  RELIGIONS. 


times  and  the  limits  of  their  habitation  that  they  should  seek  God,  if  haply 
they  may  feel  after  Him  or  And  Him.  although  He  is  not  far  from  everyone  of 
us.  For  in  Him  we  live  and  we  move  and  we  are,  as  some  also  of  your  own 
poets  said:  “  For  we  are  also  His  offspring.” 

These,  then,  are  the  great  truths  which  are  to  engage  our  attention  at 
present:  First,  God  has  made  of  one  all  mankind.  As  there  was  originally 
but  one  human  family,  so  there  was  also  but  one  primitive  religion.  Sec¬ 
ondly,  as  mankind  separated  into  various  tribes  and  nations  “to  dwell 
upon  the  whole  face  of  the  earth,”  men  became  naturally  estranged,  and  the 
primitive  religious  union  was  broken  up  in  a  great  number  of  different 
religious  forms.  Thirdly,  as  mankind  under  the  guidance  of  Providence  is 
nowadays  becoming  daily  more  united  again,  socially  and  intellectually,  we 
may  hopefully  look  to  the  comparatively  near  future  when  this  union  of 
mankind  will  be  fitly  crowned  by  religious  unity,  and  the  first  and  greatest 
law  will  reign  supreme  all  over  the  earth,  “  Love  God  above  all  and  every 
fellow-man  as  thyself.” 

When  did  man  first  receive  this  religion?  At  the  very  instant  when  the 
Creator  breathed  into  him  the  immortal  soul  the  germ  of  religion  was 
implanted  in  his  inmost  nature.  It  is  a  great  error  to  consider  religion  as 
something  merely  imparted  to  man  by  some  external  agency,  like  the 
knowledge  of  the  alphabet,  or  of  the  statute  laws  of  aland.  Religion  is 
fundamentally  inborn  in  every  human  soul.  Hence  St.  Paul  said  that  the 
Gentiles,  who  have  not  the  Mosaic  law,  do  by  nature  those  things  that  are  of 
the  law;  they  are  a  law  to  themselves;  they  show  the  work  of  the  law  writ¬ 
ten  in  their  hearts,  or  man’s  consciousness  of  his  relations  to  his  Creator, 
and  of  his  consequent  duties,  is  fundamentally  inborn  in  the  very  nature  of 
man,  filling  him  with  high,  noble,  and  indelible  aspirations,  or  for  infinite 
truth,  goodness,  and  immortality. 

Centuries  ago  the  wise  men  of  Greece  and  Rome  were  forcibly  struck 
by  this  potent  and  sublime  fact.  Thus  Seneca  observed:  “In  all  men  a 
belief  concerning  God  is  implanted.”  And  Plutarch  declared: 

When  you  visit  countries  you  may  find  communities  without  walls,  letters, 
laws,  houses,  wealth,  or  money,  ignorant  of  gymnasiums  and  theatres,  but  a  city 
without  temples  and  gods,  without  the  use  of  prayers,  the  oath,  the  oracle,  with¬ 
out  sacrifices  to  obtain  favors  or  to  avert  evil,  nobody  has  ever  seen. 

If  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  more  recent  or  now  living  tribes  of  men, 
even  those  whom  we  may  consider  as  little  advanced  in  what  we  vaguely 
call  civilization,  we  find  the  same  to  be  true.  Take  for  illustration  the 
aborigines  of  our  own  country.  There  is  one  who  has  for  years  extensively 
traveled  and  carefully  observed  among  them.  George  Catlin  says: 

I  fearlessly  assert  to  the  world,  and  I  defy  contradiction,  that  the  North 
American  Indian  is  everywhere  in  his  native  state  a  highly  moral  and  religious 
being,  endowed  by  his  Maker  with  an  intuitive  knowledge  of  some  great  author 
of  his  being  and  the  universe,  in  dread  of  whose  displeasure  he  constantly  lives, 
with  the  apprehension  before  him  of  a  future  state,  where  he  expects  to  be 
rewarded  or  punished  according  to  the  merits  he  has  gained  or  forfeited  in 
this  world.  I  have  made  this  a  subject  of  unceasing  inquiry  during  all  my 
travels,  and  from  every  individual  Indian  with  whom  I  conversed  on  the  sub¬ 
ject,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest  aud  most  pitiably  ignorant,  I  have  received 
evidence  enough,  as  well  as  from  their  numerous  and  humble  modes  of  worship, 
to  convince  the  mind  of  any  man. 

Such  words  may,  indeed,  be  a  revelation  to  many.  Yet  what  is  true  of 
our  aborigines  is  true  of  all  tribes  of  men  thus  far  discovered.  Atheism 
may  occasionally  be  met  with,  or  rather  professed,  by  individuals  or  limited 
schools,  as  De  Quaterfage  observes,  in  an  erratic  condition,  especially  in 
France,  and,  above  all,  in  the  so-called  higher  classes  of  society  in  Paris. 
Yet,  even  here,  we  have  again  the  testimony  of  Abbe  Mullois,  formerly 
chaplain  to  Emperor  Napoleon  III.,  that  also  in  these  cases  the  words  of 
the  Psalmist  are  true:  “The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God,” 
but  he  does  not  believe  so. 

As  Lord  Bacon  observed,  “  Atheism  is  rather  in  the  lip  than  in  the  heart 
Qf  man.”  “  The  man,”  Abbe  Mullois  remarks,  “  who  in  all  sincerity  tiays,  ‘  I 


RELIGIOUS  UNION  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE. 


783 


don’t  believe,’  often  deceives  himself.  There  is  in  the  depth  of  his  heart  a 
root  of  faith  which  never  dies.”  Hence  many  centuries  ago  Tertullian 
truly  declared  that  the  human  soul  is  by  nature  Christian.  How  delight¬ 
fully  pure  must  this  light  have  illumined  the  souls  of  the  first  men,  as  they 
had  proceeded,  as  yet  undefiled  by  uninherited  depravity,  from  the  hands 
of  the  Creator!  Yet  here  I  may  answer  briefly  an  objection  that  might  be 
raised  by  some  admirers  of  the  theory  of  evolution,  who  claim  that  man 
has  acquired  all  his  faculties  by  slow  forms  of  life,  consequently  also  the 
so-called  religious  sentiment.  Without  entering  deeply  into  the  question 
of  evolution  at  present  I  shall  briefly  state: 

There  are  two  leading  views  on  the  evolution  of  the  visible  universe. 
According  to  one  all  existing  beings  have,  by  some  continuous,  regular,  and 
uniform  progress,  from  the  less  perfect  to  the  more  perfect,  from  the  primi¬ 
tive  cosmic  nebula  to  man,  been  evolved  from  the  potency  of  matter  in 
accordance  with  certain  fixed  laws.  The  origin  of  these  laws,  as  also  of 
matter,  is  “  unknowable.”  This  view  is  justly  rejected,  for  reason  of  both 
science  and  sound  philosophy,  by  others,  who  also  maintain  the  theory  of 
evolution  as  far  as  it  accords  with  the  principles  of  sound  reason  and  the 
establishment  of  facts  of  science.  According  to  the  second  view,  the  Crea¬ 
tor  has  indeed  brought  His  visible  work  of  creation  to  its  present  perfection 
in  accordance  with  the  grand  plan  of  evolution,  yet  not  a  monotonously 
uniform,  but  rather  rhythmically  diversified,  plan  of  evolution,  in  the  prog¬ 
ress  of  which  various,  we  may  say,  critical  periods  or  stages  appear. 

We  know,  for  instance,  that  certain  gases  may,  by  a  process  of  gradual 
development  or  cooling,  bo  changed  into  water  or  ice.  Is  this  done  with 
monotonous  uniformity  or  evolution?  No!  The  gases  may  cool  a  long  time 
and  yet  remain  gases.  Suddenly,  when  they,  having  become  united,  reach 
a  certain  degree  of  temperature,  they  change  into  hot  vapor.  This  hot 
vapor  may  cool  again  a  long  while.  All  of  a  sudden,  on  reaching  a  certain 
point  of  temperature,  it  changes  into  ordinary  water.  This  water  may 
again  cool  a  long  while  till,  reaching  a  certain  point  of  the  thermometer,  it 
turns  into  ice. 

Also  the  visible  universe,  as  a  whole,  came  to  its  present  perfection,  not  by 
a  monotonous  uniform  evolution,  but  in  accordance  with  a  rhythmically 
ordered  plan.  At  first  there  was  only  what  we  call  the  chemical  elements. 
Next  appeared  something  inexplicably  new,  growing  organisms  or  plants. 
Next  appeared  again  something  perfectly  new  and  perfectly  inexplicable, 
growing  organism  endowed  with  the  feelings  of  pleasure,  of  pain,  of  appe¬ 
tite — animals.  And  after  these  had  gone  tlirough  a  long  cycle  of  evolution 
there  suddenly  appeared  something  again  perfectly  new,  not  merely  an 
animal  endowed  with  sensitive  faculties,  but  an  animal  organism,  indeed, 
yet  one  endowed  with  something  perfectly  new — with  reason,  with  the 
faculty  of  apprehending  the  true,  the  good,  the  beautiful,  the  eternal— and 
this  something  new  was  man,  the  crown  of  the  visible  universe. 

In  vain  have  theorists,  holding  to  the  view  of  a  monotonous  uniformity 
of  evolution,  been  looking  for  years  for  the  missing  link  between  rational 
man  and  merely  sensuous,  irrational  animals.  In  vain  have  they,  to  cover 
the  weak  spot  in  their  view,  been  claiming  an  immense  antiquity  for  the 
human  race.  After  carefully  sifting  the  mere  assertions,  opinions,  or  sup¬ 
positions  of  certain  scientists  from  the  established  facts  of  science,  we  find, 
too,  that  neither  history,  nor  archaeology,  nor  geology  has  thus  far  advanced 
any  reasonably  reliable  proof  that  man  has  appeared  more  than,  let  us  say, 
10,000  years  ago.  And  as  we  may  infer  from  the  generally  rhythmical  plan 
of  evolution,  this  happened  suddenly  at  the  appointed  critical  period. 

Hence  we  reject  the  unfounded  assumption  that  the  religious  faculty  of 
man  has  been  gradually  evolved  from  some  animal  faculties,  but  maintain 
that,  like  reason  itself,  of  which  it  is  the  complement,  it  was  a  primitive 
gift  of  his  Creator.  Besides,  we  have  reasons  to  believe,  not  only  on  the 


784 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


authority  of  the  inspired  books  but  also  from  reliable  historical  data,  that 
the  primitive  human  family  were  not  only  endowed  with  the  religious 
faculty,  but  that  they  had  also  received  particular  revelations  from  their 
Creator,  the  acquisition  of  which  transcended  the  abilities  of  their  merely 
natural  faculties. 

How  was  this  knowledge  and  worship  of  the  true  God  gradually  lost  ? 
In  the  first  place,  the  conception  of  God  became  gradually  obscured  or 
diminished  by  the  gradually  changing  general  mental  conceptions  of  the 
various  tribes.  Even  a  child  will  form  for  itself  a  conception  of  God  differ¬ 
ent  from  that  entertained  by  its  more  intelligent  parent.  It  has  been  said 
with  much  truth,  “  An  honest  man  is  the  noblest  work  of  God.”  Secondly, 
to  the  same  God  often  different  names  were  given,  and  gradually  the  differ¬ 
ent  names  were  considered  to  denote  different  gods.  Thirdly,  God  was 
often  honored  under  different  symbols.  Thus,  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars 
were,  as  light  or  fire,  at  first  considered  as  symbols  of  the  Deity;  but  gradu¬ 
ally  the  different  symbols  were  construed  to  denote  different  gods.  Fourthly, 
at  first  the  one  God  was  worshiped  by  different  manifestations  of  His 
power  and  goodness  in  nature,  but  gradually  these  different  manifestations 
were  taken  for  the  works  of  different  gods. 

In  such  and  similar  ways  the  primitive  belief  in  the  one  true  God  was 
gradually  obscured  and  lost  among  the  great  part  of  mankind;  and  with 
this  fundamental  belief  also  other  religious  beliefs,  for  instance,  concerning 
prayer,  sacrifice,  or  the  state  of  immortality,  were  gradually  changed  and 
vitiated.  Yet,  in  the  midst  of  the  chaos  of  polytheism  and  idolatry,  pre¬ 
cious  germs  of  religion — the  belief  in  the  existence  of  invisible  superior 
things,  their  active  interest  in  the  affairs  of  men,  the  voice  of  conscience 
admonishing  to  do  right  and  to  shun  wrong,  and  the  conviction  of  immor¬ 
tality — still  remained  indestructible  in  every  human  soul. 

While  we  profoundly  respect  the  God-given  sentiments  in  every  human 
heart,  we,  as  children  of  one  Heavenly  Father,  can  not  but  deeply  deplore 
the  lamentable  religious  disunion  in  the  human  family.  Can  it  be  the  will 
of  the  one  good  common  Father  of  us  all  that  this  chaotic  disharmony  of 
His  children  should  be  a  permanent  state?  Certainly  not.  He  whose 
guiding  hand  has  led  order  and  harmony  out  of  the  discordant  conflicting 
elements  of  the  universe,  who  has  made  a  cosmos  out  of  chaos,  will, 
undoubtedly  also  lead  His  children  on  earth  again  to  religious  unity,  so 
that  they  will  live  together  again  as  members  of  one  family,  with  but  one 
heart  and  one  soul,  as  you  read  of  the  first  Christians. 

Judging  the  future  by  the  past,  we  can  not  but  look  upon  the  religion 
of  Christ  as  the  one  evidently  predestined  from  the  very  dawn  of  human 
history  to  become  under  the  guiding  hand  of  Providence  the  religion 
which  will  ultimately  reunite  the  entire  human  family  in  the  bonds  of 
truth,  love,  and  happiness. 

Thanks  to  the  Eternal  Father  of  us  all,  the  time  has  come,  as  this  ever 
memorable  Congress  of  Religions  proves,  when  mankind  will  gradually 
cease  to  be  divided  into  mutually  hostile  camps  by  mere  ignorance  and 
blind  bigotry.  A  feeling  of  mutual  respect  and  mutual  fraternal  charity  is 
beginning  to  pervade  not  only  Christendom  but  the  entire  human  family. 
With  the  gradual  disappearance  of  the  mists  and  clouds  of  prejudices, 
ignorances,  and  antipathies,  there  will  be  always  more  clearly  seen  the 
heavenly  majestic  outlines  of  that  house  of  God,  prepared  on  the  top  of  the 
mountains  for  all  to  see,  and  countless  many  on  entering  will  be  surprised 
how  it  was  possible  that  they  had  no  sooner  recognized  this  true  home  for 
all  under  God,  in  which  they  so  often  professed  to  believe  when  they  rever¬ 
ently  called  it  by  its  providentially  given  and  preserved  name,  known  all 
over  the  world — ‘‘  tho  Holy  Catholic  Church.” 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH. 


785 


THE  ARMENIAN  CHURCH. 

PROF.  MINAZ  TCHERAZ. 

The  first  monarch  who  bowed  the  knee  before  the  cross  of  Golgotha 
was  an  Armenian  king.  Thaddeus  founded  the  first  Christian  church, 
and  intrusted  its  direction  to  Atteus,  whom  he  consecrated  bishop ;  thence 
is  the  cradle  of  the  Armenian  Church,  which  became  the  first  national 
church  in  the  history  of  Christendom.  It  was  the  same  apostle  who 
handed  down  the  gospel  precepts  enshrined  in  the  Armenian  religious 
books,  and  especially  in  the  Ganonakirk  (book  of  the  canons).  Besides 
Thaddeus,  the  apostle  Bartholomew  went  and  preached  in  Armenia,  which 
was  visited  likewise  by  the  apostle  Xumas.  The  Armenian  Church  has 
thus  a  perfect  right  to  regard  itself  as  apostolic,  primitive,  and  independent, 
and  as  the  most  ancient  of  the  historic  churches. 

The  number  of  Christians  was  so  great  that  in  the  reign  of  Adrian  more 
than  ten  thousand  were  crucified  on  Mount  Ararat.  The  final  conversion 
of  Armenia  took  place  in  302,  ten  years  before  Constantine  the  Great  beheld 
the  shining  cross.  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator  preached  the  Christian 
faith  for  sixty-six  days  at  Vaghardiabad,  the  capital  of  Tridates,  who 
embraced  it  with  his  household  and  helped  the  saint  to  found  Etchmiadzin, 
seat  of  the  supreme  patriarchate  of  the  Armenian  church,  to  extirpate 
idolatry  and  to  convert  the  inhabitants.  After  the  Nicene  Council,  com¬ 
menced  that  long  series  of  bloody  wars  which  the  kings  of  Persia  waged 
against  Arrnenia  in  order  to  substitute  the  law  of  Zoroaster  for  the  faith  of 
Christ.  The  Persians  had  hardly  retired  from  the  canton  of  Daron  when 
the  Arabs  made  their  appearance.  Electrified  by  their  victories  in  the 
other  parts  of  Western  Asia,  they  ravaged  Armenia  with  fire  and  sword  for 
almost  a  century,  after  which  the  Catholic  John  the  Philosopher  obtained 
from  the  Caliph  Omar  a  short  respite  for  his  flocks. 

After  him,  the  Arabs,  the  Persians,  the  Tartars,  the  Egyptians  the  Tur¬ 
comans,  Turks,  and  the  other  followers  of  Islamism,  recommenced,  with 
incredible  cruelty,  their  work  of  destruction  in  Armenia  and  Cilicia,  where 
the  fourth  and  last  Armenian  dynasty  held  sway.  It  was  during  this 
dynasty  that  the  Crusades  took  place. 

The  Armenians,  filled  with  enthusiasm  at  seeing  Christians,  who  came 
from  the  extremity  of  Europe  to  fight  the  enemies  of  the  cross,  from  the 
first  moment  made  common  cause  with  them.  Many  Europeans  have  writ¬ 
ten  the  history  of  the  Crusades,  but  who  has  ever  a-ked  what  became  of 
the  Christians  of  Asia  who  fraternized  with  the  Crusaders?  Left  alono  in 
the  presence  of  Saracens,  who  overran  Europe  after  two  centuries  of  Hom¬ 
eric  struggles,  the  Armenians  endured  their  formidable  onset,  and  after  a 
heroic  resistance,  Cilicia,  the  victim  of  Christian  solidarity,  was  deluged  in 
the  blood  of  her  children.  It  was  thus  that  the  last  bulwark  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  Asia  succumbed. 

The  persecutions  directed  against  the  Armenian  Church  have  served 
to  strengthen  the  character  of  the  faithful  who  have  survived  them.  At 
Constantinople  I  have  seen  many  Christians  from  Poland  and  Hungary 
embrace  Islamism  without  difficulty  in  order  to  obtain  employment  in  the 
Turkish  army  or  administration,  but  very  few  Armenians  succumb  to  this 
temptation  and  if  an  Armenian  turns  Mohammedan  he  raises  the  murmur 
of  the  whole  community  against  him,  who  never  pardon  this  apostasy. 

The  Christian  religion  has  rendered  inestimable  services  in  its  turn  — 
has  organized  charity  and  spread  instruction.  It  has  maintained  the 
Armenian  nationality.  The  spirit  of  charity  which  forms  the  very  basis  of 
the  Christian  religion  has  penetrated  the  heart  of  the  people.  Innumera¬ 
ble  houses  of  piety  and  benevolence  have  been  erected  in  all  parts  of  the 
country.  The  revolution  brought  about  by  Christianity  in  the  ideas  a£ 


786 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  American  people  has  pushed  them  forward  in  the  way  of  instlUCtiClh 
The  Armenians  formed  their  own  alphabet,  and  from  the  Greek  text  of 
the  Septuagint  and  Syriac  version  called  Peshito,  they  translated  the  Bible. 
They  have  produced,  in  the  silence  of  a  number  of  flourishing  cloisters,  an 
immense  literature. 

Christianity,  when  it  became  a  national  church,  maintained  the  Arme¬ 
nian  nationality.  Without  it  the  Armenians  would  have  been  absorbed  in 
Zoroastrianism,  and  at  a  later  period  in  Islamism,  for,  in  that  nest  of  relig¬ 
ions  which  goes  by  the  name  of  the  East,  religion  makes  nationality,  and 
the  peoples  are  nothing  but  religious  communities.  That  is  why  the  Arme¬ 
nians,  especially  after  the  loss  of  their  political  independence,  look  askance 
at  every  attempt  to  detach  the  faithful  from  their  church.  Surrounded  at 
the  present  day  by  orthodoxy,  Catholicism,  and  Protestantism,  each  of  which 
aims  at  bringing  this  martyrized  church  into  its  course,  they  believe  it  is 
their  duty  to  maintain  the  status  quo,  because  they  would  not  be  able  to 
satisfy  the  three  churches  all  at  once,  and  because  their  church  is  the  last 
refuge  of  their  nationality.  They  possess  a  national  church  just  as  they 
possess  a  national  language  and  literature,  with  a  national  alphabet,  a 
national  era,  and  a  national  history,  a  national  music,  and  a  national  archi¬ 
tecture,  and  they  do  not  wish  to  sacrifice  them  to  the  national  characteris¬ 
tics  of  the  more  numerous  nations. 

Blessed  be  the  church  which  should  undertake  to  propagate  among 
the  Christians  of  Armenia,  not  such  and  such  a  form  of  Christianity,  but  an 
instruction  and  an  education  which  render  a  people  capable  of  reconciling 
respect  for  the  past  with  the  exigencies  of  the  modern  spirit.  Prom  this 
point  of  view  the  American  college  at  Constantinople  renders  greater 
services  than  those  who  waste  their  time  in  inculcating  Puritan  simplicity 
in  the  brilliant  imagination  of  an  Eastern  people. 

Ttie  Armenian  Church  belongs  to  the  Eastern  church,  and  its  rites  do 
not  differ  much  from  those  of  the  Greek  Church,  but  it  is  completely 
autonomous,  and  is^ruled  by  its  deacons,  priests,  and  bishops,  whose  ecclesi- 
*  astical  vestments  recall  those  of  the  Greeks  and  Latins.  It  admits  the 
seven  sacraments,  only  administers  extreme  unction  to  the  ecclesiastics, 
does  not  recognize  either  expiatory  or  indulgences,  and  celebrates  the  com¬ 
munion  with  unleavened  bread  and  wine  without  water.  It  holds  Easter 
at  the  date  assigned  by  Christians  before  the  Nicene  Council,  and  the 
Nativity  and  Epiphany  on  the  6th  of  January.  It  prescribes  fastings  on 
Wednesday  and  Friday,  and  has  a  period  of  fasting  and  an  order  of  saints 
which  are  peculiar  to  it.  It  believes  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from 
the  Father. 

Toleration  is  one  of  the  glories  of  the  Armenian  Church.  Its  adherents 
have  given  manifold  proof  of  it  to  the  Christians  of  all  denominations,  and 
if  you  happen  to  visit  Etchmiadzin,  you  will  see  the  tomb  of  Sir  John  Mac¬ 
Donald,  who  was  British  envoy  in  Persia,  quite  close  to  the  entrance  of  the 
cathedral,  among  the  tombs  of  the  greatest  jjatriarchs  of  modern  Armenia. 
The  church  founded  by  the  Illuminator  prays  daily  ‘‘for  all  holy  and  ortho¬ 
dox  bishops,”  and  “for  the  peace  of  the  whole  world  and  the  stability  of  the 
holy  church  ”  and  beseeches  the  mercy  of  God  “  by  the  prayers  and  inter¬ 
cessions  of  those  who  invoke  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  sanctity,  in  any  coun¬ 
try,  from  the  rising  to  the  setting  sun.” 

Another  glory  of  the  Armenian  Church  is  its  democratic  spirit.  No 
obstacle  is  put  in  the  way  of  its  adherents  to  read  and  study  the  Bible. 
In  the  mass  it  practices  the  ceremony  of  cordial  salutation,  which  the  faith¬ 
ful  render  to  one  another  with  the  holy  kiss.  Its  deacons  and  priests,  who 
are  married,  live  on  the  voluntary  offerings  of  their  flocks,  and  it  is  the 
high  clergy  only,  who  are  bound  to  celibacy,  who  receive  a  very  moderate 
stipend.  No  annual  payment  is  required,  as  in  certain  civilized  countries, 
to  have  a  pew  in  the  church;  every  Christian  is  received  gratuitously,  and 


WORLD'S  RELIGIOUS  DEBT  TO  AMERICA, 


787 


rich  and  poor  alike  bow  the  head  side  by  side  before  the  Eternal.  The 
clergy,  from  the  humblest  deacon  to' the  supreme  patriarch,  are  elected  by 
the  free  will  of  the  ecclesiastics  and  the  laity.  In  the  very  midst  of  the 
consecration  of  a  candidate,  the  bishop  stops!  to  ask  the  congregation  if  ho 
is  worthy  of  receiving  orders.  If  one  single  individual  calls  out  that  he  is 
not  worthy  of  them,  the  consecration  is  suspended,  and  if  this  individual 
proves  his  assertion  to  the  bishop,  the  candidate  is  immediately  discarded. 
It  may  well  be  said  that  the  Armenian  clergy  are  the  servants  and  not  the 
masters  of  the  church. 

Such  is  the  Armenian  Church,  venerable  by  reason  of  its  antiquity, 
proud  of  its  orthodoxy,  and  glorious  in  the  purple  mantle  of  its  martyrdom. 
Every  stone  of  its  sanctuary  is  cemented  with  the  tears  and  the  blood  of 
its  persecuted  children.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  seat  of  the  Illumi¬ 
nator  is  so  firmly  established,  and  with  so  much  vigor  raises  aloft  its  five 
domes— symbols  of  the  five  Armenian  patriarchates  of  Etchmiadzin,  Sis, 
Aghtamar,  Constantinople,  and  Jerusalem.  Sentinel  of  civilization  and 
advance-guard  of  Christianity,  the  Armenian  Church  ha  3  bravely  done  its 
duty  on  the  confines  of  the  Eastern  world.  It  has  sun.  ed  the  attacks  of 
Zoroastrianism  and  of  Islamism,  as  it  has  survived  the  attacks  of  Christians 
who  did  not  understand  liberty  of  conscience,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  pain¬ 
ful  crisis  which  it  is  going  through  at  the  present  time,  it  sends  a  fraternal 
salutation  to  all  the  pious  souls  who  are  gathered  together  at  this  truly 
ecumenical  council,  and  it  blesses  the  first  steps  of  the  Parliament  of  Relig¬ 
ions  in  the  path  of  universal  tolerance  and  charity,  and  the  noble  efforts  of 
the  great  American  people  to  spread  the  marvelous  rainbow  of  human 
brotherhood  over  the  deluge  of  long-standing  hatreds. 


WORLD’S  RELIGIOUS  DEBT  TO  AMERICA. 

MRS.  CELIA  PARKER  WOOLLEY  OF  CHICAGO. 

America  at  once  suffers  and  is  proud  when  any  comparison  is  made 
between  herself  and  older  countries  in  mental  productivity,  for  the  mental 
life  with  her  has  manifested  itself  thus  far  more  in  a  higher  average  of  gen¬ 
eral  intelligence  and  culture  than  in  any  great  creative  work  or  genius.  When 
we  try  to  measure  her  contribution  to  the  religious  life  by  the  side  of  that 
of  Asia  or  Europe,  we  note  at  once  those  inevitable  and  marked  differences 
which  must  reveal  themselves  between  a  country  so  young  as  ours  and  such 
older  forms  of  civilization  as  are  represented  in  the  names  of  Zoroaster, 
Buddha,  Confucius,  Moses,  or  those  types  of  culture  of  less  ancient  date 
which  the  names  of  Homer  and  Socrates,  Seneca  and  Petrarch  have  made 
illustrious. 

The  religious  growth  of  these  older  climes  runs  back  into  the  dim  begin¬ 
ning  of  time.  We  trace  it  through  volumes  of  myth,  legend,  and  song, 
which  the  adoration  of  ages  has  elevated  to  the  rank  of  scripture,  each, 
an  expression  of  the  same  human  need  and  longing,  equally  divine  in 
origin,  a  permanent  contribution  to  the  world’s  spiritual  treasures.  All 
that  the  past  has  of  legend  therein,  of  wisdom  and  lore,  of  beautiful  myth 
or  fable,  aspiring  hymn  or  prayer,  or  elaborate  ceremony  or  ritual,  embody¬ 
ing  these,  is  ours,  here  in  latter-day  America,  as  historical  bequest  rather 
than  indigenous  growth  and  possession. 

America  did  not  spring  fully  equipped  from  the  brain  of  omnipotent 
might  and  wisdom,  as  Minerva  did,  but  she  was,  nevertheless,  grown  up 
when  she  began.  We  are  in  the  same  line  of  general  inheritance  as  that 
England  from  which  we  separated  ourselves  100  years  ago,  but  spiritually, 
this  line  of  inheritance  runs  much  farther  back,  to  far-off  Aryan  sources, 


788 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


with  special  nourishment  of  another  sort  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  which  we 
have  been  trained,  so  that,  religiously,  we  are  Semitic  as  well  as  Aryan,  and 
may  claim  cousinship  with  the  representatives  of  the  most  distant  faiths 
on  this  platform. 

The  world,  it  must  be  admitted  at  the  outset,  owes  but  little  to  America 
for  that  wealth  of  tradition  that  lies  at  the  roots  of  its  religious  life,  as  it 
owes  almost  as  little  for  that  mass  of  doctrinal  literature  which  marks  a 
later  stage  of  development.  In  deep^poetic  percejition  of  the  great  truths 
relating  to  God  and  the  soul  of  man,  the  seer’s  trust  and  knowledge  in  all, 
or  nearly  all,  that  belongs  to  the  worship  side  of  religion,  we  are  more 
indebted  to  Asia  and  tofthat  dreamy,  mystic,  all-surveying  mind  she  pro¬ 
duces  than  to  any  other  single  source. 

“  One  of  the  great  lessons  which  India  teaches  is  introspection,”  said  Mr. 
Mozoomdar,  the  other  day,  “  by  which  man  beholds  the  spirit  of  God  in  his 
own  heart.”  And  again:  “Asiatic  philosophy  is  the  jihilosophy  of  the 
spirit,  the  philosophy  of  the  supreme  substance,  not  of  phenomena  alone. 
With  us  Oriental  worship  is  not  a  mere  duty;  it  is  an  instinct,  a  longing, 
a  passion.” 

Coming  farther  West  we  have  to  acknowledge  a  debt  as  vast  and  more 
tangible.  In  Europe  religious  thought  grew  less  diffused^  subtle,  and  pro¬ 
found,  but  more  active.  Celtic  and  Teutonic  brains  secreted  blood  and 
nerve  currents  of  a  livelier  order  than  Egypt  or  Persia  could  supply;  a 
harsher  climate  demanded  constant  exercise  of  body  and  mind,  compelling 
thought  to  more  practical  issues.  Looked  at  from  one  point  of  view, 
Christianity  appears  but  one  long  theological  warfare,  a  record  of  innu¬ 
merable  battles  of  sword  and  pen;  but  a  record  more  fairly  described  as  one 
long,  grand  intellectual  conquest,  in  which  the  devout  and  liberty-loving 
heart  of  man  has  continually  gained  new  triumph  over  those  twin  foes  of 
the  human  mind,  ignorance  and  tyranny.  Here  was  the  arena  of  the 
world’s  greatest  mental  struggles. 

Europe  also  had  her  mine  of  religious  myth  and  tradition  lying  back  of 
the  period  of  Christian  culture;  a  living  juice,  puretend  strong  as  the  native 
made  of  her  sturdy  Northern  tribes,  which,  unlike  the  lotus  blossom  of  the 
East,  had  no  power  to  soothe  or  enervate,  but  rather  stimulated  to  wild 
excess.  Back  among  the  worship  of  Thor  and  Odin  we  find  those  ideas  of 
personal  independence  and  integrity  which  have  made  our  Western  civili¬ 
zation  what  it  is;  man,  a  creature  of  action,  not  of  contemplation,  who 
must  struggle  to  live.  Out  of  this  struggle  the  race  began  to  evolve  its  first 
ideal  of  true  selfhood.  In  the  home,  the  state,  the  church,  this  struggle  of 
evolving  selfhood  went  on. 

In  the  East,  man  had  dreamed  of  an  ideal  of  perfect  wisdom  and  good¬ 
ness  until  all  other  desires  merged  into  one,  to  unite  himself  with  that  ideal, 
to  realize  and  possess  God,  Nirvana,  reabsorption  into  the  infinite.  Heaven 
v/as  attained  through  longing,  not  through  will.  But  the  Occidental  mind 
likes  to  have  a  hand  in  the  creation  of  its  own  benefit,  to  help  build  its  own 
heaven. 

A  regenerated  and  active  will  became  the  first  requisite  of  a  religious 
life.  The  merits  of  a  life  study  and  contemplation  still  remained,  as  the 
various  monastical  institutions  of  Europe  testified.  Nearly  all  were  derived 
Tom  non -Christian  origin;  but  the  genius  of  the  new  time  found  incom- 
niete  expression  in  the  cloister  and  cell,  and  truer  exercise  in  camp  and 
court.  The  mind  of  man  was  fully  awake.  Religious  devotion  now  took 
the  form  of  religious  dialectics,  spiritual  culture  gave  way  to  spiritual 
instruction.  It  was  no  longer  enough  for  the  soul  to  live  in  contemplation 
of  itself;  to  religious  being  must  be  added  that  other  idea  derived  from  the 
new  gospel,  religious  doing. 

Awake,  my  soul,  stretch  every  nerve! 

In  a  sense,  religion  hardened  and  narrowed  during  this  period.  It  was 


789 


WORLD'S  RELIGIOUS  DEBT  TO  AMERICA. 


the  age  of  the  theologians  and  the  creed-makers,  but  it  was  also  the  age  of 
the  religious  missionaries.  Man  had  never  felt  his  responsibility  in  matters 
of  faith  as  now.  This  missionary  spirit  belonged,  in  a  degree,  to  all  the 
great  ethnic  systems  preceding  Christianity — we  know  that  Buddha  came 
from  a  high  position  to  save  mankind,  as  Jesus  was  raised  from  a  low  one — 
yet  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  finds  wider  illustration  in  the  later  era. 

To  Asia,  then,  the  sentiment  of  religion;  to  Europe,  its  conviction  or 
dogma.  It  is  to  the  civilization  of  Galileo,  Dante,  Calvin,  Rousseau,  Vol¬ 
taire,  Bacon,  Newton,  Darwin,  and  Huxley  that  vre  are  chiefly  indebted  for 
the  thought  life  of  religion.  All  was  action  on  the  material  and  mental 
planes,  until  one  continent  no  longer  afforded  sufficient  outlet  for  the  seeth¬ 
ing  heart  and  brain  of  man,  the  new  impulses  and  ideas  taking  shape 
everywhere  in  the  social  and  religious  world. 

Religious  belief  and  aspiration,  religious  conviction  and  devotion,  had 
been  bestowed  by  the  Old  World,  the  power  to  feel  and  to  think;  but  there 
arose  in  time  another  need  which  neither  the  tropical  imagination  of  one 
continent  nor  the  busy  intellect  of  another  should  supply.  With  power  to 
think  must  go  room  to  think.  Man  had  gained  some  theoretical  knowl¬ 
edge  of  liberty  in  the  Old  World,  a  vision  of  the  promised  land,  but  he 
yearned  for  a  chance  to  apply  the  knowledge.  With  all  his  powers  alive 
and  eager  for  action,  where  was  the  field?  Nowhere,  but  in  an  unknown 
land  across  an  uncharted  sea. 

The  world’s  religious  debt  to  America  is  defined  in  one  word,  oppor¬ 
tunity.  The  liberty  men  had  known  only  as  a  distant  ideal  now  reached 
the  stage  of  practical  experiment.  It  is  true,  if  we  try  to  estimate  this 
debt  in  less  abstract  terms,  we  shall  find  we  have  made  a  special  contribu¬ 
tion  of  no  mean  degree  in  both  men  and  ideas.  We  have  had  our  theo¬ 
logians  of  national  and  world-wide  fame,  men  of  the  highest  learning  their 
age  afforded,  of  consecrated  lives  and  broad  understanding. 

There  were  the  Mathers,  Edwards,  and  Higginsons  of  the  earlier  days, 
one  of  whom  plainly  declared  that  New  England  was  “  a  plantation  of 
religion,  not  of  trade.”  These  and  others  like  them  were  men,  as  one 
writer  described,  “  who  felt  themselves  to  be  in  personal  covenant  with  God, 
like  Israel  of  old,  who  framed  their  state  as  a  temple  and  invited  the 
Eternal  to  rule  over  them,  whose  state  assembly  was  a  church  council, 
whose  voters  were  church  members,  only  voters  because  members,  only 
citizens  because  saints.” 

Along  with  these  rigid  disciplinarians  were  believers  of  a  gentler  order, 
like  Anne  Hutchinson,  Roger  Williams,  Dr.  Hopkins,  and  later  the  Nortons 
and  Dr.  Channing.  We  have  had  our  clear,  bold  teachers  of  the  word,  of 
golden-mouthed  fame,  like  Chrysostom  of  old,  ourWhitefields,  Lyman  Beech¬ 
ers,  Father  Taylors,  Theodore  Parkers,  and  Dwight  L.  Moodys,  each  of 
whom  stands  for  some  new  “great  awakening”  of  the  spiritual  life.  But 
each  of  these  stands  for  a  fresh  and  stronger  utterance,  for  a  principle  or 
method  of  thought  already  well  understood,  rather  than  for  any  original 
discovery. 

The  discovery  of  America  did  not  so  much  mark  the  era  of  higher  discov¬ 
eries  in  the?  realm  of  ideas  as  it  provided  a  chance  for  the  application  of  these 
ideas.  The  conditions  were  new,  the  experiment  of  self-government  was 
new,  under  which  all  the  lesser  experiments  in  religious  faith  and  practice 
were  carried  on,  but  the  thing  to  be  tried,  the  ideal  to  be  tested,  that  was 
well  understood.  They  knew  what  they  wanted,  those  stanch,  daring 
ancestors  of  ours. 

It  would  be  hard  to  say  when  or  where  the  gift  of  liberty  was  first 
bestowed  upon  man.  Professor  John  Fiske,  in  his  “  Discovery  of  America,  ” 
shows  how,  after  repeated  experiments — failures  each  leading  to  the  final 
triumph,  no  one  standing  for  that  triumph  alone — this  discovery  was,  in 
his  words,  “  not  a  single  event,  but  gradual  process.”  Still  more  are  the 
moral  achievements  of  mankind  “  gradual  processes,  ”  not  single  events. 


790 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  instinct  of  freedom  is  part  of  nature’s  savage  and  beast-like  prog¬ 
eny,  a  Caliban  of  the  cave  and  wilderness.  Could  we  read  the  pages  of 
man’s  prehistoric  progress  as  readily  as  the  others — and  we  are  learning  to 
read  them — we  should  find  the  record  of  as  many  struggles  in  behalf  of  men¬ 
tal  integrity  and  personal  rights  there  as  elsewhere.  In  the  historic  X)eriods 
we  have  learned  little  more  than  how  to  mark  the  times  and  places  in  which 
this  struggle  culminated;  we  can  name  the  captains  of  the  host;  we  know 
where  a  Moses,  aSocrates,  a  Jesus,  a  Washington,  a  Lincoln  belong,  but  the 
principle  for  which  each  of  these  worked  and  died  is  older  than  the  oldest, 
older  than  time  itself,  its  source  being  less  human  than  cosmic. 

To  say,  therefore,  that  iVmerica’s  contribution  to  the  race  lies  less  in  the 
principle  of  liberty  than  in  the  opportunity  to  test  and  apply  this  princij)le 
is  to  say  enough.  Whatever  the  religious  consciousness  of  man  gained 
was  ours  to  begin  with.  This  adult  stage  of  thought,  in  which  our  national 
life  began,  deprived  us  of  many  of  those  poetic  and  picturesque  elements 
which  belong  to  earlier  forms  of  thought. 

The  faith  of  the  new  world,  being  Protestant,  aggressively  and  dogmat¬ 
ically  Protestant  at  times,  felt  itself  oblige  to  disf^ense  with  the  large  body 
of  stored  and  storied  literature  gathered  by  mother  church,  and  thus 
impoverished  itself  in  the  effective  presentation  of  the  truths  it  held  so 
dear.  Our  New  England  forefathers  were  very  distrustful  of  this  so-called 
poetic  and  picturesque  side  of  life.  They  had  seen  the  selfishness  and  cor¬ 
ruption  of  the  court  of  Charles  II.  ujjheld  in  the  name  of  grace  and  good 
manners,  had  seen  honest  opinion  scorned  and  publicly  murdered  in  defense 
of  order  and  respectability,  had  seen  religion  and  the  Bible  made  the 
excuse  for  war,  lust,  and  tyranny,  until  sham  and  oijpression  in  all  their 
forms  had  grown  hateful  to  them  and  a  passion  for  reality  filled  their 
hearts. 

It  has  been  well  said  that  the  Puritan  ideal  was  allied  to  the  Israelitish; 
in  both  we  find  the  same  stern  insistence  on  practical  righteousness  as  a 
fundamental  requirement  of  the  religious  life.  It  was  a  fundamental  over¬ 
laid  with  a  mass  of  hard  and  dreary  doctrine,  of  weary  sijeculation  on 
themes  impossible  for  the  human  intellect  to  grasp,  but  through  it  all 
burned  and  glowed  the  moral  ideal.  The  religious  man  must  be  the  good 
man.  He  might  be  a  harsh  or  narrow  man,  he  might  not  be  a  dishonest  or 
impure  man.  He  might,  in  the  cause  of  God,  burn  witches  or  whijj  Quak¬ 
ers,  but  he  must  pay  his  debts,  send  his  children  to  school,  be  a  good  neigh¬ 
bor  and  citizen;  his  sins  were  of  an  abstract  order,  springing  from  mistaken 
notions  of  God’s  government  on  earth  and  his  share  in  it  as  God’s  vice¬ 
regent;  his  virtues  were  personal  and  his  own.  Personal  integrity— this  was 
the  root  of  the  Puritan  ideal  in  public  and  private  life,  one  which  this  nation 
must  continue  to  observe  if  it  would  prosper,  which  it  will  prove  its  sure 
loss  and  destruction  to  ignore. 

We  hear  a  great  deal  in  the  present  day  about  “ethical  religion,”  an 
“ ethical  basis  in  religion,”  the  “ethical  element  in  religion,”  phrases  that 
well  define  the  main  modern  tendency  in  the  evolution  of  a  new  religious 
ideal.  But  this  ethical  element  in  religion,  like  the  principle  of  mental 
freedom  to  which  it  is  allied,  is  less  an  absolute  and  new  discovery  of  our 
own  age  and  country  than  a  restatement  of  a  truth  long  understood.  We 
find  struggling  witness  of  one  or  the  other  far  back  in  the  earliest  period 
of  human  history,  and  at  every  one  of  those  historic  points  at  which  we 
note  a  fresh  affirmation  of  the  principle  of  freedom  we  find  new  and  stronger 
emphasis  laid  upon  the  moral  import  of  things.  Hand  in  hand  those  two 
ideals  of  heavenly  birth,  freedom  and  goodness  have  led  the  steps  of  man 
down  the  tortuous  path  of  thealogical  experiment  and  trial  out  under  the 
blue  open  of  a  pure  and  natural  religion.  Natural  religion!  Where  upon 
all  the  green  expanse  of  this,  our  earth,  under  the  wide  dome  of  sky  that 
hangs  projectingly  over  every  part  of  it,  can  so  fitting  a  place  for  the 


WORLD'S  RELIGIOUS  DEBT  TO  AMERICA. 


791 


practical  demonstration  of  such  a  religion  be  found  as  now  and  here  in  our 
loved  and  free  America?  This  is  not  said  in  reproach  or  criticism  of  any 
other  land,  but  in  just  command  and  exhortation  to  ourselves.  Where, 
except  under  republican  rule,  can  the  experiment  so  well  be  tried  of  a  per¬ 
sonal  religion,  based  on  no  authority  but  that  of  the  truth,  finding  its 
sanction  in  the  human  heart,  demonstrating  itself  in  deeds  of  practical 
helpfulness  and  good  will? 

How  sadly  will  our  boasted  Republic  fail  in  its  ideal  if  it  realize  not  in 
the  near  future  this  republic  of  mind.  The  principle  of  democracy,  once 
accepted,  runs  in  all  directions.  Religion  is  fast  becoming  democratized 
in  these  days.  If  America  is  to  present  the  world  with  a  new  type  of  faith, 
it  must  be  as  exclusive  as  those  principles  of  human  brotherhood  on  which 
her  political  institutions  rest  and  embody  a  great  deal  of  Yankee  common 
sense.  Its  sources  of  supply  will  be  as  various  as  the  needs  and  activities 
of  the  race.  If  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  is  to  be  named  one  of  its  prophets, 
Thomas  Edison  must  be  counted  another. 

If  the  world’s  religious  debt  to  America  lies  in  this  thought  of  oppor¬ 
tunity  or  religion  applied,  it  is  a  debt  the  future  will  disclose  more  than 
the  past  has  disclosed  it.  If  ours  is  the  opportunity,  ours  is  still  more  the 
obligation.  Privilege  does  not  go  without  responsibility;  where  much  is 
bestowed,  much  is  required.  If  a  new  religious  ideal,  based  on  the  unhin¬ 
dered  action  of  the  mind  in  the  search  of  the  truth,  with  no  fear  but  of  its 
own  wrong-doing,  justifying  itself  only  as  an  aid  to  human  virtues  and 
happiness  —  if  such  a  faith  were  to  be  evolved  here,  and  by  us,  how  proud 
our  estate! 

But  such  a  faith  when  evolved,  even  as  we  see  it  evolving  to-day, 
will  not  be  the  product  of  one  age  or  people,  nor  is  it  a  result  the  future 
alone  is  to  attain.  Its  roots  will  search  ever  deeper  into  the  past,  not 
in  timorous  enslavement,  but  for  true  nourishment,  as  its  branches  will 
stretch  toward  skies  of  growing  beauty  and  emprise.  Alike  pagan  and 
Christian  in  source,  it  will  be  more  than  either  pagan  or  Christian  in 
result,  for  a  faith  to  be  universally  applied  must  be  universally  derived. 

From  the  heart  of  man  to  the  heart  of  man  it  speaketh.  It  is  this 
natural  religion,  springing  from  one  human  need  and  aspiration,  which 
binds  our  nearts  together  here  to-day  and  will  never  let  them  be  wholly 
loosed  from  each  other  again.  How  pale  grows  the  phantom  of  a  partial 
religion,  the  religion  of  intellectual  assent,  before  the  large,  sweet,  and 
comprehensive  spirit  that  has  ruled  in  these  halls!  How  strong  and  beauti¬ 
ful  the  disclosing  figure  of  that  coming  faith  that  owns  but  two  motives, 
love  of  God  and  love  to  man ! 

“We  need  not  travel  all  around  the  world  to  know  that  everywhere  the 
sky  is  blue,”  said  Goethe.  We  need  not  be  Buddhists,  Parsees,  Moham¬ 
medans,  Jews,  and  Christians  in  turn,  and  all  the  little  Christians  besides, 
Methodists,  Baptists,  Episcopalians,  and  Unitarians,  to  know  that  in  each 
and  all  God  is  choosing  His  own  best  way  to  demonstrate  Himself  to  the 
hearts  of  His  children.  Knowledge  gaining  slow  upon  ignorance,  truth 
upon  error,  goodness  steadily  gaining  new  power  to  heal  the  world’s  wicked¬ 
ness  and  misery,  man  overcoming  himself,  growing  daily  in  the  divine  like¬ 
ness,  not  into  which  he  was  born,  but  which  he  was  born  to  attain — thus 
the  soul’s  life  proceeds  wherever  found,  by  the  Indus  or  the  Nile,  the  shores 
of  the  Mediterranean  or  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  whether  it  prays 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  or  of  Cyrus,  wears  black  or  yellow  vestments. 

“The  World’s  Religious  Debt  to  America!  ”  Measure Jas  large  in  actual 
accomplishment  or  future  possibility  and  desire  as  our  fondest  fancy  or 
most  patriotic  wish  can  fashion  it,  there  is  a  debt  larger  than  this,  one 
which  will  grow  larger  still  with  time,  which  we  acknowledge  with  glad  and 
grateful  hearts  to-day  and  can  never  discharge,  and  that  is  America’s 
religious  debt  to  the  world. 


792 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


CONTACT  OF  CHRISTIAN  AND  HINDU  THOUGHT; 
POINTS  OF  LIKENESS  AND  CONTRAST 

REV.  R.  A.  HUME  OF  NEW  HAVEN. 

When  Christian  and  Hindu  thought  first  came  into  contact  in  India, 
neither  understood  the  other.  This  was  for  two  reasons,  one  outward,  the 
other  inward.  The  outward  reason  was  this:  The  Christian  saw  Hindu¬ 
ism  at  its  worst.  Polytheism,  idolatry,  a  mythology  explained  by  the 
Hindus  themselves  as  teaching  puerilities  and  sensualities  in  its  many 
deities,  caste  rampant,  ignorance  widesj^read  and  profound — these  are  what 
the  Christian  first  saw  and  supposed  to  be  all  of  Hinduism.  Naturally  he 
saw  little  except  evil  in  it. 

The  outward  reason  why  the  Hindu,  at  first  contact  with  Christianity, 
failed  to  understand  it  was  this:  Speaking  generally,  every  child  of  Hindu 
parents  is  of  course  a  Hindu  in  religion,  whatever  his  inmost  thoughts  or 
conduct.  The  Hindu  had  never  conceived  of  such  an  anomaly  as  an 
un-Hindu  child  of  Hindu  parents.  Much  less  had  they  conceived  of  an  un- 
Christian  man  from  a  country' where  Christianity  was  the  religion.  Seeing 
the  early  comers  from  the  West  killing  the  cow,  eating  beef,  drinking  wine, 
sometimes  imxjure,  sometimes  bullying  the  wild  Indian,  the  Hindu  easily 
supposed  that  these  men,  from  a  country  where  Christianity  was  the 
religion,  were  Christians.  In  consequence  they  despised  what  they  sup¬ 
posed  was  the  Christian 'religion.  They  did  not  know  that  in  truth  it  was 
the  lack  of  Christianity  which  they  were  despising.  Even  in  truly  Chris¬ 
tian  men  they  saw  things  which  seemed  to  them  unlovely. 

Moreover,  Christianity  was  to  the  Hindu  the  religion  of  the  conquerors 
of  his  country.  For  this  outward  reason,  at  the  first  contact  of  Christianity 
and  Hindu  thought,  neither 'understood  the  other. 

But  there  was  an  additional,  an  inward  reason,  why  neither  understood 
the  other.  It  was  the  very  diverse  natures  of  the  Hindu  and  the  Western 
mind.  The  Hindu  mind  is  supremely  introspective.  It  is  an  ever-active 
mind  which  has  thought  about  most  things  in  “  the  three  worlds,”  heaven, 
earth,  and  the  nether  world.  But  it  has  seen  them  through  the  eye  turned 
inwardly.  The  faculties  of  imagination  and  of  abstract  thought,  the  fac¬ 
ulties  which  depend  least  on  external  tests  of  validity,  are  the  strongest  of 
the  mental  powers  of  the  Hindu. 

The  Hindu  mind  has  well  been  likened  to  the  game  of  chess,  where  there 
is  the  combination  of  an  active  mind  and  a  jjassive  body.  A  man  may  be 
strong  at  chess  while  not  strong  in  meeting  the  problems  of  life.  The 
Hindu  mind  cares  little  for  facts,  except  inward  ideal  ones.  When  other 
facts  conflict  with  such  conceptions,  the  Hindu  disposes  of  them  by  calling 
them  illusions. 

A  second  characteristic  of  the  Hindu  mind  is  its  intense  longing  for 
comprehensiveness.  “  Ekam  eva  advitiya,”  i.  e.,  “There  is  but  one  and  no 
second,”  is  the  most  cardinal  doctrine  of  jihilosophical  Hinduism.  So  con¬ 
trolling  is  the  Hindu’s  longing  for  unity  that  he  places  contradictory 
things  side  by  side  and  serenely  calls  them  alike  or  the  same.  To  it,  spirit 
and  matter  are  essentially  the  same.  In  short,  it  satisfies  its  craving  for 
unity  by  syncretism,  i.  e.,  by  attempts  to  unify  irreconcilable  matters. 

In  marked  contrast,  the  Western  mind  is  practical  and  logical.  First 
and  foremost,  it  cares  for  external  and  historical  facts.  It  needs  to  culti¬ 
vate  the  imagination.  It  naturally  dwells  on  individuality  and  differences 
which  it  knows.  It  has  to  work  for  comprehension  and  unity.  Above  all, 
it  recognizes  that  it  should  act  as  it  thinks  and  believes.  This  extreme 
unlikeness  between  the  Hindu  and  the  Western  mind  was  the  inward 
reason  why,  at  the  first  contact  of  Christian  and  Hindu  thought,  neither 
understood  the  other. 


CONTACT  OF  CHRISTIAN  AND  HINDU  THOUGHT.  793 


But,  in  the  providence  of  God,  the  Father  of  both  Christian  and  Hindu, 
these  two  diverse  minds  came  into  contact.  Let  us  briefly  trace  the  result. 

Apart  from  the  disgust  at  the  un-Christian  conduct  of  some  men  from 
Christendom,  when  the  Hindu  thinker  first  looked  at  Christian  thought  he 
viewed  with  lofty  contempt  its  pietensions  and  proposals. 

Similarly,  in  its  first  contact  with  Hinduism,  the  Western  mind  saw  only 
that  which  awakened  contempt  and  pity.  The  Christian  naturally  sup¬ 
posed  the  popular  Hinduism  which  he  saw  to  be  the  whole  of  Hinduism,  a 
system  of  many  gods,  of  idols,  of  puerile  and  sometimes  immoral  mytholo¬ 
gies,  of  mechanical  and  endless  rites,  of  thoroughgoing  caste  and  often 
cruel  caste.  The  Christian  reported  what  he  saw,  and  many  Christians  felt 
pity.  In  accordance  with  the  genius  of  the  Western  mind  to  act  as  it 
thinks,  and  under  the  inspiration  of  Christian  motive,  Christians  began 
efforts  to  give  Christian  thought  and  life  to  India. 

Longer  and  fuller  contact  between  Christian  and  Hindu  thought  has 
caused  a  modiflcation  of  first  impressions. 

Both  Christian  and  Hindu  thought  recognize  an  infinite  being  with 
whom  is  bound  up  man’s  rational  and  spiritual  life.  Both  magnify  the 
indwelling  of  this  infinite  being  in  every  part  of  the  universe.  Both  teach 
that  this  great  being  is  ever  revealing  itself;  that  the  universe  is  a  unit, 
and  that  all  things  come  under  the  universal  laws  of  the  infinite. 

To  Christianity  God  is  the  Heavenly  Father,  always  and  infinitely  good; 
God  is  love. 

To  philosophical  Hinduism  man  is  an  emanation  from  the  infinite, 
which,  in  the  present  stage  of  existence,  is  the  exact  result  of  this  emana¬ 
tion  in  previous  stages  of  existence.  His  moral  sense  is  an  illusion,  for  he 
can  not  sin. 

To  popular  Hinduism,  man  is  partially  what  he  is  to  philosophical  Hin¬ 
duism,  determined  by  fate ;  partially  he  is  thought  of  as  a  created  being, 
more  or  less  sinful,  dependent  on  God  for  favor  or  disfavor. 

To  Christianity,  man  is  the  child  of  his  Heavenly  Father,  sinful  and 
often  erring,  yet  longed  for  and  sought  after  by  the  Father. 

To  Christianity,  caste,  which  teaches  that  a  pure  and  learned  man  of 
humble  origin  is  lower  than  an  ignorant,  proud  man  of  higher  origin,  and 
that  the  shadow  of  the  former  could  defile  the  latter,  and  that  eating  the 
same  food  together  is  a  sin,  is  a  disobedience  to  God. 

To  popular  Hinduism  caste  is  ordained  of  God,  and  is  the  chief  thing  in 
religion.  Says  Sir  Monier  Williams:  “The  distinction  of  caste  and  the 
inherent  superiority  of  one  class  over  the  three  others  were  thought  to  be 
as  much  a  law  of  nature  and  a  matter  of  divine  appointment  as  the  creation 
of  separate  classes  of  animals,  with  insurmountable  differences  of  x>hysical 
constitution,  such  as  elephants,  lions,  horses,  and  dogs.” 

Pre-eminently  does  the  contrast  between  Christian  and  Hindu  thought 
appear  in  God’s  relation  to  sin  and  the  sinner. 

According  to  philosophical  Hinduism,  there  is  no  sin  or  sinner  or  savior. 

According  to  popular  Hinduism,  sin  is  mainly  a  matter  of  fate. 

According  to  Christianity,  sin  is  the  only  evil  in  the  universe.  But  it  is 
so  evil  that  God  grieves  over  it;  suffers  to  put  it  away,  and  will  suffer 
until  it  is  put  away.  The  revelation  of  Himself  in  Jesus  Christ  was  pre¬ 
eminently  of  this  character  and  to  this  end. 

To  philosophical  Hinduism  (mukti),  salvation  is  passing  from  the  igno¬ 
rance  and  illusion  of  conscious  existence  through  inconsciousness  into  the 
infinite. 

To  popular  Hinduism,  salvation  is  getting  out  of  trouble  into  some  safe 
place  through  merit  somehow  acquired. 

To  Christianity,  salvation  is  present  deliverance  from  sin  and  moral 
union  with  God,  begun  here  and  to  go  on  forever. 


794 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


FUTURE  OF  RELIGION  IN  JAPAN. 

NOBUTA  KISHIMOTO  OF  JAPAN. 

Japan  at  present  is  the  battlefield  between  religion  and  no  religion,  and 
also  between  Christianity  and  other  systems  of  religion.  To  answer  the 
question,  What  will  be  the  future  of  religion  in  Japan?  it  is  best  to 
understand  the  nature  of  this  two-fold  warfare.  Let  us  study  this  a  little. 

The  prevailing  attitude  of  our  educated  classes  toward  any  system  of 
religion  is  one  of  co-indifference  if  not  strong  antagonism.  Among  them 
the  agnosticism  of  Spencer,  the  materialism  of  Comte,  and  the  pessimism 
of  Schoppenhauer  and  Hartmann,  are  the  most  influential.  To  them  God  is 
either  the  product  of  our  own  imagination  or,  at  most,  is  unknowable.  To 
them  religion  is  nothing  but  superstition;  to  them  the  universe  is  a  chance 
work,  and  has  no  end  or  meaning.  Again,  to  them  men  are  nothing  but 
lower  animals  in  disguise,  without  the  image  of  God  in  them,  and  without 
a  bright  future  before  them. 

The  religions  of  Japan,  whatever  they  may  be,  have  to  contend  with 
these  no-god  and  no-religion  doctrines.  Atheism,  pessimism,  and  agnosticism 
are  the  common  enemies  of  all  the  religions  now  existing  in  Japan.  If 
Christianity  has  to  face  these  enemies,  Shintoism  and  Buddhism  also  have 
to  face  the  same  enemy.  This  is  the  battleground  of  religion  against  no 
religion  in  Japan. 

What  is  the  prospect  of  this  battle  ?  Can  we,  the  people  of  Japan,  be 
satisfied  with  these  no-god  and  no-religious  doctrines  ?  Surely  not.  Athe¬ 
ism,  pessimism,  and  agnosticism  are  essentially  negative  and  destructive, 
and  as  such  can  never  satisfy  the  deepest  cravings  of  the  human  heart. 
Man  is  naturally  optimistic,  and  feels  the  impulse  of  the  possibility  of 
infinite  development.  He  must  have  something  positive  to  make  him  grow, 
and  he  can  not  be  satisfied  by  anything  short  of  the  infinite.  As  long  as 
man  remains  man,  he  can  not  but  have  the  consciousness  of  self;  and  as 
long  as  nature,  which  surrounds  him,  remains  nature,  he  can  not  but  have 
the  consciousness  of  not-self.  As  long  as  man  has  the  consciousness  of  not- 
self  he  is  capable  of  being  conscious  of  the  third  principle,  which  makes 
possible  the  reconciliation  of  consciousness  of  the  self  with  the  conscious¬ 
ness  of  the  not-self.  Man  knows  that  he  is  finite,  and  this  knowledge 
makes  him  dependent  upon  the  infinite. 

At  times  this  God  consciousness,  or  human  dependence  on  the  infinite, 
is  disturbed  by  doubts  and  disappointments.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  dis¬ 
turbance  is  not  a  normal  state  of  things.  The  human  mind  is  like  a  com¬ 
pass  needle — it  may  often  be  disturbed,  but  when  the  full  force  of  the 
disturbance  is  spent  it  will  swing  back  to  its  normal  and  original  position 
and  point  toward  its  own  Creator,  the  infinite  God. 

Thus,  there  is  not  much  doubt  as  to  the  ultimate  triumph  of  religion 
over  no  religion  in  Japan,  as  well  as  anywhere  else.  It  is  the  law  of  strug¬ 
gle  for  existence  that  the  fittest  shall  survive,  and  the  fittest  in  this  case  is 
religion. 

Suppose  Japan  wants  some  religion.  What  will  be  this  religion?  There 
comes  the  warfare,  the  warfare  between  Christianity  and  old  religions  of 
Japan.  If  Japan  is  a  battlefield  between  religion  and  no  religion,  it  is  also 
a  battlefield  between  Christian  religion  and  non-Christian  systems  of  relig¬ 
ion.  Shintoism,  the  oldest  religion  of  Japan,  represents  three  things  in 
one — totem  worship,  nature  worship,  and  ancestor  worship.  It  is  an  eth¬ 
nological  religion,  and  as  such  has  no  originator,  no  system  of  creeds  and 
no  code  of  morals.  It  teaches  that  men  are  the  descendants  of  the  gods; 
that  is,  the  divinity.  Again,  it  teaches  that,  as  the  universe  came  from  the 
gods,  it  is  full  of  the  divine  essence. 

Confucianism  is  the  next  oldest  system  in  Japan.  It  came  from  China, 


FUTURE  OF  RELIGION  IN  JAPAN. 


795 


In  its  native  country  Confucianism  developed  to  a  great  system.  But  in 
Japan  the  case  is  different.  Here  it  has  never  developed  into  a  religious 
system.  It  was  simply  accepted  as  a  system  of  social  and  family  morals. 
As  we  understand  it,  obedience  to  parents  and  loyalty  to  one’s  lord 
are  the  fundamental  teachings  of  Confucianism.  As  our  society  was  feu- 
dalistic  in  its  organization,  the  teachings  of  Confucius,  who  lived  and 
taught  in  the  warlike  period  of  Chinese  feudalism,  found  congenial  soil  in 
Japan.  Thus,  Confucianism  had,  and  still  has,  a  strong  hold  among  the 
higher  and  well-educated  classes. 

Buddhism  is  the  third  religion  in  Japan.  It  came  from  India  through 
China  and  Corea,  and  now  is  the  most  popular  religion  in  Japan.  At  pres¬ 
ent  there  are  at  least  ten  different  sects  which  all  go  by  the  name  of  Bud¬ 
dhism,  but  which  are  often  quite  different  from  one  another. 

Some  sects  are  atheistic  and  others  are  almost  theistic.  Some  are 
strict  and  others  are  liberal.  Some  are  scholarly  and  others  are  popular. 
Some  are  pessimistic  in  their  principles  and  teach  annihilation  to  be  the  ulti¬ 
mate  end  of  human  existence.  Others  are  optimistic  and  teach  a  happy 
life  in  a  future  existence,  if  not  in  the  present  world.  But  all  unite,  at 
least,  in  the  one  thing,  viz.,  the  law  of  cause  and  effect.  “One  reaps  what 
he  sows,”  is  the  universal  teaching  of  Japanese  Buddhism,  although  the 
application  of  the  law  may  be  different  in  different  sects. 

The  last  and  newest  religion  in  Japan  is  Christianity.  We  have  three 
forms  of  Christianity — Roman  Catholic,  Greek  Catholic,  and  Protestant, 
the  whole  Christian  population  being  about  one  hundred  thousand.  Of 
these  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  the  strongest  in  membership;  then 
comes  the  Protestant,  and  finally  the  Greek  Catholic.  The  Protestant 
Christianity  is  already  represented  by  thirty-one  different  sects  and  denom¬ 
inations.  I  need  not  stop  here  to  tell  you  what  these  different  forms  and 
sects  of  Christianity  teach  in  Japan.  The  point  to  be  considered  is  this: 
In  the  struggle  for  existence  between  these  old  religions  in  Japan  and 
Christianity,  which  will  be  more  likely  to  survive — Christianity,  or  these 
other  religions? 

Before  answering  this  question,  I  must  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  in  Japan  these  three  different  systems  of  religion  and  morality  are 
not  only  living  together  on  friendly  terms  with  one  another,  but,  in  fact, 
they  are  blended  together  in  the  minds  of  the  people  who  draw  necessary 
nourishments  from  all  of  these  sources.  One  and  the  same  Japanese  is 
both  a  Shintoist,  a  Confucianist,  and  a  Buddhist.  He  plays  a  triple  part, 
so  to  speak.  This  must  be  strange  to  you,  but  it  is  a  fact.  Our  religion 
may  be  likened  to  a  triangle,  which  is  made  up  of  three  angles.  One  angle 
is  Shintoism,  another  is  Confucianism,  and  a  third  angle  is  Buddhism,  all 
of  which  make  up  the  religion  of  ordinary  Japanese.  Shintoism  furnishes 
the  object  of  objects,  Confucianism  offers  the  rules  of  life,  while  Buddhism 
sux^plies  the  way  of  salvation;  so  you  see  we  Jaijanese  are  eclectic  in  every¬ 
thing,  even  in  religion. 

Thus  our  old  religions  not  only  live  together  in  peace  but  are  mutually 
helping  one  another.  Now  Christianity  comes  to  the  Japanese  and  claims 
their  exclusive  faith  in  it.  The  God  of  Christianity  is  the  jealous  God. 
Here  begins  the  battle  between  the  newcomer  and  the  old  religions  of 
Japan.  The  former  is  the  common  enemy  of  the  latter,  and  so  it  has  to 
face  their  united  front. 

Which  will  survive  in  this  struggle  for  existence?  Here  comes  the 
necessity  and  the  importance  of  the  thorough  study  and  careful  com¬ 
parison  of  these  religious  systems  of  the  world.  I  do  not  intend  or  pretend 
to  enter  into  this  discussion,  but  I  will  simply  express  my  own  thought 
concerning  the  probable  result  of  this  struggle  for  existence  among  dif¬ 
ferent  religions. 

There  are  two  ways  of  comparing  the  value  of  different  religions, 


796 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Damely,  practical  and  theoretical.  In  either  of  these  ways  one  can  pick  up 
the  defects  and  shortcomings  of  different  religions  and  make  them  the 
standard  of  their  comparison.  But  this  seems  to  be  a  very  poor  and 
imijroper  method.  The  better  and  more  jjroper  way  of  com])aring  them  is 
by  placing  side  by  side  the  best  and  most  worthy  teachings  of  different 
systems,  and  then  decide  which  is  better  or  which  is  the  best. 

In  my  mind  there  is  no  doubt  that  Christianity  will  survive  in  this 
struggle  for  existence,  and  become  the  future  religion  of  the  land  of  the 
rising  sun.  My  reasons  for  this  are  numerous,  but  I  must  be  brief.  In  the 
first  xhace,  Christianity  claims  to  be  and  is  the  universal  religion.  It 
teaches  one  God,  who  is  the  Father  of  all  mankind,  but  is  so  pliable  that  it 
can  adapt  itself  to  any  environment,  and  then  it  can  transform  and  assimi¬ 
late  the  environment  to  itself.  This  is  ainj^ly  proved  by  its  history. 

In  the  second  jjlace,  Christianity  is  inclusive.  It  is  a  living  organism,  a 
seed  or  germ  which  is  capable  of  growth  and  development,  and  which  will 
leaven  all  the  nations  of  the  world.  In  growing  it  draws,  and  can  draw  its 
nutritious  elements  from  any  source.  It  survives  the  struggle  for  exist¬ 
ence  and  feeds  and  grows  on  the  flesh  of  the  fallen. 

In  the  third  place,  Christianity  teaches  that  man  was  created  in  the 
image  of  God.  The  human  is  divine  and  the  divine  is  human.  Here  lies 
the  merit  of  Christianity,  in  uplifting  man,  all  human  beings — young  and 
old,  men  and  women,  the  governing  and  the  governed — to  their  projjer 
position. 

In  the  fourth  place,  Christianity  teaches  love  to  God  and  love  to  men  as 
its  fundamental  teaching.  The  golden  rule  is  the  glory-  of  Christianity, 
not  because  it  was  originated  by  Christ — this  rule  was  also  taught  by 
Buddha  and  Laotse  many  centuries  before — but  because  He  properly 
empihasized  it  by  His  words  and  by  His  life. 

In  the  fifth  place,  Christianity  requires  every  man  to  be  perfect,  as  the 
Father  in  heaven  is  perfect.  Here  lies  the  basis  for  the  hope  of  man’s 
infinite  development  in  science,  in  art,  and  in  character — in  one  word,  in 
perfection. 

In  brief,  these  are  some  of  the  reasons  which  make  me  think  that  sooner 
or  later  Christianity  will,  as  it  ought  to,  become  the  future  religion  of 
Japan. 

If  Christianity  will  triumph  and  become  the  religion  of  Japan,  which 
form  of  Christianity,  or  Christianity  of  which  denomination,  will  become 
the  religion  of  Japan?  Catholic  Christianity  or  Protestant  Christianity? 
We  do  not  want  Catholic  Christianity,  nor  do  we  want  Protestant  Chris¬ 
tianity.  We  want  the  Christianity  of  the  Bible,  nay,  the  Christianity  of 
Christianity.  We  do  not  want  the  Christianity  of  England  nor  the  Chris¬ 
tianity  of  America;  we  want  the  Christianity  of  Jajjan.  On  the  whole,  it 
is  better  to  have  different  sects  and  denominations  than  to  have  lifeless 
monotony.  The  Christian  church  should  observe  the  famous  saying  of  St. 
Vincent:  “In  essentials,  unity;  in  non-essentials,  liberty;  in  all  things, 
charity.” 

We  Japanese  want  the  Christianity  of  the  Christ.  We  want  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  nay,  we  want  the  truth  ijure  and  siinjile.  We  want  the 
spirit  of  the  Bible  and  not  its  letter.  We  hope  for  the  union  of  all  Chris¬ 
tians,  at  least  in  spirit  if  not  possible  form.  But  we  Japanese  Christians 
are  hoping  more;  we  are  ambitious  to  present  to  the  world  one  new  and 
unique  interpretation  of  Christianity  as  it  is  x)i’esented  in  our  Bible,  which 
knows  no  sectarian  controversy  and  which  knows  no  heresy  hunting. 
Indeed,  the  time  is  coming,  and  ought  to  come,  when  God  shall  be  wor¬ 
shiped,  not  by  rites  and  ceremonies,  but  He  shall  be  worshiped  in  sxnrit 
and  in  truth. 


ARBITRATION  INSTEAD  OF  WAR. 


797 


ARBITRATION  INSTEAD  OF  WAR. 

SHAKU  SOYEN  OF  JAPAN. 

What  a  glorious  evening  this  is  for  Buddhists  to  see!  The  whole  plat¬ 
form  is  occupied  by  us  Buddhists  only  from  the  Orient.  What  a  happy 
time  this  is  that  we  see  such  a  big  gathering  of  well-educated  ladies  and 
gentlemen  who  are  assembled  here  with  the  praiseworthy  object  of  listening 
to  the  voice  of  truth!  I  have  always  regarded  it  a  high  honor  in  my  life 
that  I  had  the  honor  of  seeing  you  from  this  pulpit  the  last  time  as  one  of 
the  foreign  delegates  to  this  successful  Parliament  of  Religious  Congresses. 
But  the  happiness  and  honor  I  have  this  evening  in  having  another  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  addressing  you  are  much  greater. 

My  subject  is  “Arbitration  Instead  of  War.”  lam  a  Buddhist,  but 
please  do  not  be  so  narrow-minded  as  to  refuse  my  opinion  on  account  of 
its  expression  on  the  tongue  of  one  who  belongs  to  a  different  nation,  differ¬ 
ent  creed,  and  different  civilization.  Why?  Because  the  truth  is  only  one. 
There  must  be  no  distinction,  and  all  must  be  equal  before  the  light  of 
truth. 

First,  let  me  thank  you  for  the  success  which  is  crowning  this  parlia¬ 
ment.  But  allow  me  to  assure  you  that  this  parliament  is  only  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  universal  brotherhood  and  fraternity,  though  if  the  object  be 
dropped  now  it  will  surely  be  fruitless,  meritless,  and  come  to  naught.  Let 
us  hope  that  you  and  I — nay,  all  the  people  on  the  earth — will  combine  in 
harmony  in  promoting  the  grand  project  patiently  and  steadily.  And  what 
do  you  think  I  really  mean  by  the  grand  project?  It  is  the  formation  of  a 
common  family  in  universal  brotherhood.  I  assure  you  that  this  project  is 
not  like  a  castle  in  the  air  at  all,  but  quite  hopeful. 

Our  Buddha,  who  taught  that  all  people  entering  into  Buddhism  are 
entirely  equal  in  the  same  way,  as  all  rivers  flowing  into  the  sea  become 
alike,  preached  this  plan  in  the  wide  kingdom  of  India  just  3,000  years  ago. 
Not  only  Buddha  alone,  but  Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  Confucius,  taught 
about  universal  love  and  fraternity.  We  also  acknowledge  the  glory  of 
universal  brotherhood.  Then  let  us,  the  true  followers  of  Buddha,  the  true 
followers  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  true  followers  of  Confucius,  and  the  followers 
of  truth,  unite  ourselves  for  the  sake  of  helping  the  helpless,  and  living 
glorious  lives  of  brotherhood,  under  the  control  of  truth.  Let  us  hope  that 
we  shall  succeed  in  discountenancing  those  obstinate  people  who  dared  to 
compare  this  parliament  with  Niagara  Falls,  saying,  “Broad,  but  fruit¬ 
less.”  We,  the  lovers  of  truth  and  martyrs  of  love,  must  not  rest  till  suc¬ 
cess  smiles  upon  the  home  of  truth. 

Now  let  me  speak  a  few  words  about  international  law,  which  is  the 
outburst  of  universal  brotherhood  in  itself.  Why  does  war  take  place?  Is 
there  no  alternative  but  to  appeal  to  swords?  What  excuse  can  there  be? 
Why  should  men  fight  and  kill  each  other  over  things  that  do  not  concern 
them?  The  nature  of  war  is  not  acceptable  at  all.  And  why?  Because  it 
is  only  the  ambition  of  a  few  men  disturbing  the  social  peace,  the  social 
order,  against  the  course  of  truth.  How  great  a  story  of  dreadful  wars  and 
battles  that  have  been  fought  in  the  world  does  history  tell  us?  The 
l^erusal  of  those  barbarous  records  is  enough  to  make  the  blood  of  those 
who  love  truth,  peace,  and  fraternity  tingle  and  shut  the  book  with  a  cry¬ 
ing  sigh!  ^  I 

And  now  we  have  international  law  which  has  been  very  successful  in 
protecting  the  nations  from  each  other  and  has  done  a  great  deal  toward 
arbitration  instead  of  war.  But  can  we  hope  that  this  system  shall  be 
carried  out  on  a  more  and  more  enlarged  scale,  so  that  the  world  will  be 
blessed  with  the  everlasting,  glorious,  bright  sunshine  of  peace  and  love 
instead  of  the  gloomy,  cloudy  weather  of  bloodshed,  battles,  and  wars? 


798 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS’. 


And  what  is  gained  by  war?  Nothing;  it  only  means  the  oppression  of 
the  weak  by  the  strong;  it  simply  means  the  fighting  among  brothers  and 
the  shedding  of  human  blood.  The  stronger  gains  nothing  while  the 
weaker  loses  everything.  We  very  often  say  that  we  are  brothers,  but  what 
a  troublesome  brotherhood  it  is  where  one  has  to  be  armed  well  against  the 
other.  Look  at  the  present  state  of  European  powers?  What  is  the 
purpose  of  the  triple  alliance?  Is  it  for  the  promotion  of  peace  and  love? 
I  hope  it  is,  because  when  each  nation  is  busily  engaged  in  defending  itself 
against  the  other,  at  the  highest  expense  in  its  power,  there  will  be  no  time 
to  think  for  the  promotion  of  true  peace  and  love. 

We  are  not  born  to  fight  one  against  another.  We  are  born  to  enlighten 
our  wisdom  and  cultivate  our  virtues  according  to  the  guidance  of  truth. 
And,  happily,  we  see  the  movement  toward  the  abolition  of  war  and  the 
establishment  of  a  peace-making  society.  But  how  will  our  hope  be  real¬ 
ized?  Simply  by  the  help  of  the  religion  of  truth.  The  religion  of  truth 
is  the  fountain  of  benevolence  and  mercy.  It  is  the  duty  of  religion  and 
of  truth  to  attain  this  beautiful  project  of  brotherhood,  and  is  it  not  our 
duty  to  become  the  nucleus  and  motive  power  of  this  great  plan?  It  is, 
and  we  must  be  that  nucleus  and  power. 

We  must  not  make  any  distinction  between  race  and  race,  between  civ¬ 
ilization  and  civilization,  between  creed  and  creed,  and  between  faith  and 
faith.  You  must  not  say  “go  away”  because  we  are  not  Christians.  You 
must  not  say  “go  away”  because  we  are  yellow  people.  All  beings  on  the 
universe  are  in  the  bosom  of  truth.  We  are  all  sisters  and  brothers;  we 
are  sons  and  daughters  of  truth,  and  let  us  understand  one  another  much 
better  and  be  true  sons  and  daughters  of  truth.  Truth  be  praised! 


SYNTHETIC  RELIGION. 

KINZA  RIUGE  M.  HIRAI  OF  JAPAN. 

The  primitive  age  of  humanity  was  like  the  hypothetical  epoch  of 
nebula.  No  particular  star  of  wisdom  illuminated  the  mental  universe  of 
dim,  cloudy  expansion,  and  no  special  beam  of  love  kept  warm  the  shivering 
heart.  But  right  in  the  heavens  above  those  spots,  where  the  hazy  human 
mind’s  indissoluble  mist  crystallized  into  a  condensed  form,  the  brilliant 
suns  of  religion  appeared  shining  with  resplendent  luster.  One  sparkles 
still  over  the  blue  vault  in  the  Persian  forest,  while  the  two  brightest,  flash¬ 
ing  from  the  sky  of  India  and  throwing  their  glittering  light  over  the 
oriental  wilderness,  tinge  with  crimson  hue  the  white  face  of  the  snow  on 
the  purple  Himalayas.  One  or  more  isolated  luminaries  glance  toward  the 
Western  seas  from  among  the  clouds  hovering  over  the  fan-shaped  Pujino- 
yama  pendent  from  the  emjjyrean  of  sunland.  Several  in  the  eclestial 
expanse  of  the  flowery  kingdom  and  in  the  horizons  of  the  Arabian  desert, 
with  many  others  here  and  there,  vie  with  one  another  in  their  splendor 
in  the  vast  cosmic  sphere.  One  “The  Star  of  the  East” — flashing  first 
with  unwonted  splendor  over  the  Mount  of  Olives,  gradually  traveled 
toward  the  European  firmament  and  on  to  the  skies  of  the  new  world  of 
America. 

In  historical  ages  each  one  of  these  suns,  by  its  rapidity  of  revolution, 
or  by  chaotic  concussion,  crumbled  into  small  fragments  of  sects,  many  of 
which  since  have  discharged  their  heat  and  lost  their  effulgence  on  account 
of  their  diminutive  size,  and  thus  have  produced  many  constellations  of 
religion  with  their  dependent  stars,  satellites,  and  asteroids,  as  we  see  in 
the  present  age.  In  such  times  of  violent  shocks  innumerable  souls  perish 
by  the  sparks  and  flashes  caused  by  the  incandescent  heat  of  impetuous 
exciteinent. 


SYNTHETIC  RELIGION. 


799 


The  age  of  concussion,  however,  has  already  passed,  and  all  faiths  are 
now  desiring  to  face  one  another  in  order  to  blend  their  special  rays,  but 
unfortunately  there  are  some  obstacles  against  this  ideal  hope  of  friend¬ 
ship.  The  Occident  and  the  Orient  are  attired  in  their  own  apparel  and 
are  speaking  in  their  own  tongues  which  differ  entirely  from  each  other, 
and,  in  so  far  as  the  costumes  of  them  are  not  stripped  off  and  their  lan¬ 
guages  are  not  translated,  they  will  ever  remain  as  strangers  There  is 
still  another  impediment  which  is  not  of  an  external  and  physical  nature 
but  is  of  the  most  delicate  quality,  deeply  set  at  the  bottom  of  each  mind 
— the  true  heart  of  different  religions — and  until  this  central  point  comes 
to  be  well  comprehended,  one  will  persistently  repel  the  other  and  not  the 
slightest  halo  can  be  interchanged.  Unless  this  essential  nature  is  dis¬ 
tinctly  revealed  and  each  comes  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  other, 
there  will  never  be  the  time  of  a  grand  union  of  the  world’s  religions. 

Look  over  the  mighty  universe  sprinkled  over  with  luminous  bodies. 
Some  emit  a  dazzling  luster  and  revolve  from  one  point  to  another  with  the 
greatest  momentum,  while  others  shine  so  far  away  and  so  insignificantly 
that  their  quivering  lights  are  scarcely  visible.  But,  if  by  any  means  they 
could  be  approached,  probably  some  fixed  stars  would  be  found  among  them. 
Heretofore  we  have  had  scholars  who  have  investigated  and  compared  the 
different  religions,  yet  very  few  have  discerned  the  true  kernel  or  fixed  star, 
but  most  of  them  have  only  discovered  the  outside  discolored  envelope  of 
these  teachings,  just  like  the  astronomers,  who,  through  a  telescope,  have 
descried  the  black  spots  on  the  face  of  the  sun  and  certain  unusual  phases  of 
the  planets,  but  who  never  could  prove  their  real  substances,  or,  sometimes, 
a  fragmentary  piece  of  scripture  supplies  the  topic  of  criticism  or  discus¬ 
sion,  like  a  small  meteoric  stone  which  is  carefully  analyzed  and  considered 
to  be  the  essential  part  of  the  moon,  the  composition  of  which  can  hardly 
be  determined  by  a  single  meteorite.  Having  the  honor  to  be  here  with 
this  great  Coneress  of  Religions,  I  consider  it  my  duty  to  endeavor  to  dis¬ 
cuss  some  few  important  points  which  are  apparently  contradictory  in  dif¬ 
ferent  beliefs,  so  that  they  can  be  synthesized  and  fraternized. 

The  first  question  is:  How  can  religions  be  synthesized?  There  are  no 
two  things  exactly  alike,  and  as  long  as  we  dwell  upon  dissimilarity  noth¬ 
ing  can  be  generalized.  A  certain  attribute  equally  possessed  by  different 
things  must  be  found  in  order  to  arrange  them  in  one  group 
under  its  head.  The  innumerable  different  living  beings  a're  thus 
classified  into  the  animal  kingdom,  or  the  larger  class  of  organism, 
and  also  all  organic  or  inorganic  bodies  are  brought  under  a  still  wider 
category  of  material  substance.  This  very  “  apprehension  of  the  one  in 
many”  is  the  only  method  by  the  application  of  which  all  beliefs,  of  what¬ 
ever  source  or  phase  they  may  De,  are  to  be  reconciled.  In  other  words, 
as  I  hinted  before,  if  the  central  truth  common  to  all  religions  be  dis¬ 
closed,  we  can  accomplish  our  aim. 

What  common  traits  are  there  contained  in  the  various  religions?  To 
answer  this  question,  let  me  examine  for  a  little  while  the  nature  of  religion 
and  set  down  its  definition  for  your  consideration.  It  is  an  idle  conception 
to  think  that  prayer  and  worship,  with  their  more  or  less  formal  ceremonies, 
are  the  important  characteristics  of  religion,  for  they  are  the  mere  outside 
paraphernalia  and  not  the  true  substance  which  they  envelope.  According 
to  my  notion,  religion  has  two  forms  and  three  stages,  viz.,  in  the  first,  or 
embryonic  stage,  it  is  nonceremonious;  in  the  second,  or  middle  stage,  it  is 
ceremonious,  and  in  the  last  stage  it  is  nonceremonious  again.  That  of 
the  second  stage  is  easily  recognized  as  religion  from  its  being  ceremonious, 
but  at  the  first  and  last  stages  no  visible  mark  of  it  is  observed,  and  hence, 
by  some,  the  existence  of  religion  is  totally  denied  in  these  two  periods.  But 
I  regard  the  minds  of  the  rudest  barbarians  and  the  lower  animals,  who  are 
generally  said  to  have  no  religion,  as  belonging  to  the  first  stage,  and  those 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


SOO 


of  a  certain  class  of  civilized  people,  who  are  considered  unbelievers  of  relig¬ 
ion,  or  who  call  themselves  non-religionists,  to  the  third  stage.  These  two 
resemble  each  other  on  the  outside,  for  both  have  the  non-ceremonious 
feature,  but  the  first  is  not  yet  clearly  defined,  while  the  last  is  fully 
developed.  The  above  statement  will  be  found  to  be  correct  if  the  follow¬ 
ing  definition  of  religion  be  admitted  as  correct. 

Religion  is  a  priori  belief  in  an  unknown  entity,  and  no  human  being  or 
lower  animal  can  evade  or  resist  this  belief.  Some  one  may  argue  that  he 
does  not  believe  anything  unknown,  but  relies  upon  knowledge  and  intel¬ 
lect.  But  what  is  knowledge  other  than  the  result  known  by  intellect? 
To  know  by  intellect  means  nothing  else  than  to  know  by  reasoning,  which 
is  the  process  of  deriving  conclusions  from  the  two  premises.  But  by  what 
means  are  they  known,  and  why  are  they  relied  upon  as  the  unmistakable 
basis  of  the  argument?  They  must  be  the  results  of  the  previous  deduc¬ 
tions  or  instructions  which  also  were  drawn  from  their  own  premises. 

Thus,  if  we  trace  back  in  the  same  way  and  try  to  reach  the  true  source 
of  these  premises,  in  every  step  of  our  task  we  confront  more  incompre¬ 
hensible  assumptions,  and  the  farther  we  proceed  the  more  we  are 
enshrouded  by  the  mystic  cloud.  Perhaps  rather  turning  from  the  very 
verge  of  the  present  question,  we  will  attempt  to  explain  it  by  plunging 
into  psychological  queries,  and  will  say  that  the  foremost  premises  were 
imparted  to  us  by  the  mental  processes  of  pure  logical  activity.  Still,  we 
are  far  from  the  point  of  understanding,  for  the  ultimate  impulse  w^hich 
caused  the  mental  processes  awaits  in  the  background  to  be  satisfactorily 
defined.  Then  we  will  bound  into  physical,  chemical,  physiological,  and 
next  into  dynamic,  and  finally  into  atomic  theories,  whicti  have  the  most 
distant  relations  with  the  original  question;  but  entering  into  a  deeper  and 
wider  and  more  generalized  region,  we  are  left  entirely  vague,  acquiring 
not  a  single  clew  by  which  to  escape  entanglement.  We  can  grasp  nothing 
during  infinite  duration  in  this  realm  where  any  logical  structure  is  shat¬ 
tered  to  pieces. 

Shall  we  then  reject  these  premises  because  they  are  inexplainable? 
No.  We  can  not  syllogize  with  them.  We  can  not  think,  will,  and  act 
without  them.  We  must  retain  and  rely  upon  them.  We  are  forced  to 
believe  them  as  true  without  reasoning.  If  it  is  not  by  reasoning,  then  what 
compels  us  to  believe  them  as  true?  We  do  not  know  why  and  what,  for  it 
is  entirely  beyond  our  reason.  It  is  not  the  place  where  we  say  “  we  know,” 
but  we  say  only  we  believe  something  which  we  do  not  know.  This  is  what 
I  call  a  priori  belief  in  an  unknown  entity. 

This  abstract  definition  does  not  cover  all  those  faiths  which  are  ordi¬ 
narily  understood  as  religions,  for  each  of  them  has  the  central  object  or 
entity,  be  it  the  reason  or  truth  expounded  in  Buddhism  and  other  so-called 
atheistic  doctrines,  or  be  it  the  one  God  taught  in  Christianity,  or  the 
material  image,  or  even  the  animal  of  idol  and  animal  worship,  none  of 
which  is  conceivable,  at  least  to  its  believers. 

Let  us  examine  the  natuie  of  the  above-mentioned  entities.  First, 
What  is  the  reason  or  truth?  It  is  cause  and  effect.  If  we  go  on  to 
strive  to  reach  the  comprehension  of  them,  we  shall  enter  into  exactly 
the  same  condition  of  desperate  uncertainty  as  when  we  attempted  to 
know  in  vain  the  premises  of  our  Jirgument,  and  we  must  be  satisfied 
to  conclude  that  truth  is  an  entity  utterly  incomprehensible.  Some 
will  argue  that  truth  is  the  creation  of  God,  but,  unfortunately,  this 
l)roposition  is  self-inconsistent  on  its  face,  for  it  is  truth  that  God  must 
iiave  ever  existed  before  He  created  anything.  Who  created  this 
truth  before  the  creation,  and  what  is  the  difference  between  this  first 
truth  and  the  second  truth  created  by  God?  And  again,  to  create  truth  is 
itself  a  truth.  Therefore  if  there  was  no  truth  before  how  could  any  truth 
be  created  without  using  a  truth  which  must  have  been  existent? 


SYNTHETIC  RELIGION. 


80i 


It  may  be'  admitted  that  there  was  no  truth  before  its  creation  by  God. 
Still  there  is  another  contradiction,  for  no  existence  of  truth  or  non-truth 
is  already  a  truth,  and  who  created  this  negative  truth  before  the  creation? 
It  may  be  protested  that  as  God  is  an  absolute,  finite,  unlimited,  uncondi¬ 
tional,  and  omnipotent  i30wer,He  can  create  by  the  method  which  is  entirely 
beyond  our  human  intellect;  but  these  attributes  are  incompatible  with 
one  another  and  nullify  the  very  existence  of  God. 

First.  Creation  implies  relativity  in  comparison  with  non-creation,  and 
if  God  is  creator  He  loses  the  attribute  of  absolute,  which  must  not  be 
relative.  Also,  He  is  relative  with  the  things  created,  or,  in  other  words. 
He  is  the  relative  cause  in  regard  to  the  effect.  Next,  though  the  universe 
is  unlimitedly  wide  and  infinitely  vast,  yet  the  suns,  moons,  and  stars  are 
conditionally  created  with  certain  form,  heat,  light,  etc.;  human  beings  are 
conditioned  into  a  limited  space  of  body,  with  their  finite  power  of  intellect, 
the  limited  length  of  nose,  the  relatively  located  eyes,  ears,  and  limbs;  the 
lower  animals  are  under  still  more  limited  mental  capacity,  with  certain 
conditioned  physical  power  and  construction,  destined  to  live  in  a  con¬ 
ditional  habitat,  and  all  inorganic  substances  are  still  more  finite,  relatively 
limited,  and  conditioned  than  the  organic  beings.  . 

If  we  observe  the  other  phenomena  around  us  we  shall  see  that  the 
moon  transforms  its  ijhase  into  many  conditions  within  limited  times; 
the  sun  gives  its  heat  and  light  to  us  in  different  degrees  according  to  the 
different  conditions;  the  rain  falls  within  finite  locality,  and  the  sea  rolls  in 
great  storms  and  sleeps  in  pacific  calmness  under  certain  conditions;  the 
earthquake  and  volcanic  eruptions  occur  under  certain  conditions  in  a 
limited  place,  by  which  and  many  other  agencies  operated  from  time  immem¬ 
orial,  the  present  condition  of  the  earth  was  conditioned,  as  seen  in  the  strata 
of  the  geological  ages.  If  we  are  convinced  that  the  creative  mind  must 
be  conditioned,  because  if  no  condition  is  considered  nothing  can  be 
designed,  and  also  that  the  created  universe  is  thus  in  the  finite  complexity 
of  limited  condition,  we  can  not  think  otherwise  than  that  God  is  also 
limited,  finite,  and  conditional,  and  can  not  be  infinite,  absolute,  and 
omnipotent. 

Here  is  another  contradiction,  not  on  the  part  of  God,  but  on  our  side. 
If  our  human  mind  is  unlimited  and  omnipotent,  the  question  is  at  once 
settled,  but  so  long  as  no  one  can  deny  that  we  are  limited  in  our  intelli¬ 
gence,  we  can  not  prove  the  divine  infiniteness.  For,  to  ascertain  the 
dimensions  of  a  certain  object,  we  need  a  standard  measure,  and  the 
number  of  times  of  its  adjustment  determines  the  extent.  In  the  same 
way,  to  value  the  unlimited  intellect  of  God  with  our  limited  standard,  we 
must  continue  to  compute  to  the  end  of  the  unlimited;  but  as  there  is  no 
end  to  the  unlimited,  we  could  not  stop  at  any  point,  for  when  we  cease  in 
the  middle  we  have  not  yet  ascertained  the  unlimitedness.  It  is  ridicu¬ 
lous  when  a  person  says  a  piece  of  lumber,  say  100  feet,  is  unlimited, 
stoxjping  his  measurement  in  the  point  of  ten  or  twelve  feet  distance 
from  the  end.  Therefore,  the  unlimitedness  of  God  is  contradictory  con¬ 
clusion,  for  our  limited  intellect  does  not  go  so  far  and  stops  at  a  certain 
place,  and  beyond  that  point  we  are  not  yet  certain  whether  limited  or 
unlimited. 

Finally,  as  God  is  understood  to  have  the  above  attributes,  then  the 
existence  of  such  a  God  is  itself  an  irreconcilable  conception.  Thus,  no 
one  can  prove  logically  the  existence  and  attributes  of  God,  and  every  effort 
toward  satisfactory  evidence  turns  a  stumbling  block.  Here  the  definition 
of  religion,  which  was  set  down  before,  well  adjusts  this  question — a  priori 
belief  of  an  unknown  entity. 

Let  us  go  a  step  farther,  and  decide  whether  the  belief  in  the  gods  of 
pantheism,  or  idol  worship,  will  be  in  another  predicament.  If  God  has  a 
personal  or  animal  form,  or  is  a  material  idol,  this  notion  does  not  prevent 


802 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  faith  in  Him  being  compromised  with  the  two  preceding  beliefs — truth 
and  God — for  He  is  presumed  to  have  a  wonderful  power  unknown  to  the 
believers.  Thus,  the  features  of  the  above  three  faiths  are  very  dissimilar 
on  their  exterior,  yet,  internally,  all  of  their  followers  believe  in  the 
unknown  entity.  And  if  no  one  can  verify  its  substantial  nature  by  any 
testimonial  evidence,  where  is  the  difference  among  them,  each  of  which 
being  invariably  unknown?  Here  will  be  established  a  perfect  union 
between  atheism  and  theism,  for  I  can  not  consider  from  the  previous  argu¬ 
ment  that  truth  was  created  by  God,  or  God  is  a  different  thing  from  truth, 
and  can  see  but  one  entity— truth — the  connecting  link  of  cause  and  effect, 
the  essence  of  phenomena. 

If  this  is  the  same  thing  with  God,  the  terms  atheism  and  theism  mean 
the  same  thing,  or  both  are  misnomers  at  the  same  time,  for  both  believe 
in  one  unknown  entity,  a  fountain  from  which  our  complex  and  mental 
phenomena  and  their  consequent  physical  actions  flow  out,  a  base  upon 
which  the  fabrics  of  science  and  philosophy  are  erected.  This  is  not  only 
the  foundation  of  the  intellect  of  human  beings,  but  also  of  the  lower 
animals,  because,  though  their  mental  faculties  can  not  be  compared  with 
ours,  so  far  as  they  hg.ve  even  rudimentary  mind,  they  must  have  this 
unconscious  belief.  Much  more  the  human  infants  and  wildest  savages  are 
not  to  be  excepted  from  this  natural  conviction.  In  the  last  three  cases 
they  do  not  realize  the  existence  of  an  unknown  entity  and  a  belief  in  it, 
but  they  can  not  live  without  these,  as  a  newly  born  child  does  not  recog¬ 
nize  the  existence  of  its  parents. 

If  the  above  inference  is  correct,  we  can  conclude  that  whether  a  man 
is  a  religionist,  or  a  so-called  non-religionist,  whether  he  is  a  theist  or  atheist, 
whether  a  monotheist  or  pantheist,  whether  a  scientist,  philosopher,  spirit¬ 
ualist,  or  materialist,  a  statesman  or  a  lawyer,  v/hether  infant  or  adult, 
whether  barbarian  or  beast,  all  beings  of  the  human  and  animal  kingdom 
have,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  a  priori  belief  of  an  unknown  one.  That 
is,  they  are  all  believers  of  religion.  And  also  we  can  conclude  that  all  the 
religions  in  the  world  have  one  and  the  same  center  and  are  synthesized  into 
one  synthesized  religion,  or,  if  I  may  use  the  term,  “entitism,”  which  has 
been  the  inherent  spirit  of  Japan,  and  is  called  satori,  or  hotoke,  in  Japan¬ 
ese.  The  apparent  contradictions  among  them  are  only  the  different 
descriptions  of  the  same  thing,  seen  from  different  situations  and  different 
views,  to  be  observed  in  the  way  to  the  termination. 

The  relation  of  Buddhism,  Christianity,  Confucianism,  Shintoism,  and 
all  the  other  religions  of  the  world  and  their  believers  is  like  that  of  many 
lines  of  different  railroads  and  their  passengers.  Each  starts  from  a  differ¬ 
ent  point  and  direction,  passing  through  different  country  scenes,  but  the 
final  destiny  is  the  one  and  the  same  World’s  Fair,  which  will  also  be  differ¬ 
ently  viewed  by  the  mental  situation  of  the  visitors.  Do  not  dispute  about 
the  distinctions  of  the  different  lines  of  railroad.  The  World’s  Fair  is  not  in 
the  trains  and  cars,  but  it  is  in  Chicago,  right  before  you.  You  are  in  the 
fair.  Stop  your  debate  about  the  difference  of  religion.  Kill  Gautama — 
he  is  only  a  conductor  of  the  train;  burn  his  scripture — truth  is  not  in  it, 
but  right  before  you.  You  are  in  truth.  Do  not  mind  Christ— He  is  only 
a  brakeman.  Tear  up  the  Bible — God  is  not  in  it,  but  right  before  you. 
You  are  in  God. 

This  synthesis  of  all  faiths  is  no  more  a  vain  hope.  If  it  were  ever 
so  thought,  it  is  now  known  that  this  apparent  dream  was  not  Utopian  but 
a  mirage  refracted  from  a  remote  reality.  Could  I  but  have  for  a  few 
moments  the  clairvoyant  vision  of  the  seer,  and  peer  into  the  deep  and 
subtle  minds  of  the  great  men  and  women  who  are  here  assembled,  I 
should  discover  one  aim  and  one  object  common  to  them  all — the  desire  in 
love  to  help  and  teach  the  others,  but  I  should  also  find  a  mental  concep¬ 
tion  and  hope  in  regard  to  this  parliament  as  different  in  each  mind  as  the 
faces  of  these  members  vary  from  one  another. 


BUDDHISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


803 


It  is  the  dream  of  the  Christian  representatives  that  in  assembling 
together  these  great  men  from  China,  from  India,  from  Europe,  from  South 
America,  from  Japan  and  the  islands  of  the  sea,  they  will,  for  the  first  time, 
behold  with  understanding  the  bloody  cross  of  Christ  and  will  enroll, 
under  the  banner  of  the  humble  Nazarene,  and  the  Christian  represent¬ 
ative  is  right;  but  there  is  something  more. 

It  was  the  dream  of  the  Buddhist  that  the  clear  and  pure  enlighten¬ 
ment  of  Gautama  might  be  explained  arid  comprehended  by  the  student 
of  the  West,  and  the  Buddhist  representative  is  right;  but  there  is  some¬ 
thing  more. 

It  was  the  dream  of  the  representative  from  the  land  of  the  star  and 
crescent  and  all  those  Moslems  who  pray  to  Allah  with  their  faces  toward 
Mecca,  that  some  recognition  should  be  held  out  to  them  as  a  powerful 
and  aggressive  faith  which  has  earned  its  right  of  place  among  the  accepted 
religions  of  the  world,  and  the  representative  of  Mohammed  is  right;  but 
there  is  something  more. 

The  clean  Parsee,  purified  by  fire,  standing  almost  alone  to-day  under 
the  untarnished  flag  of  Zoroaster,  still  hopes  and  dreams  of  a  revival  of 
his  faith  by  the  influence  of  this  Parliament  of  Religions,  and  he  is  right, 
but  there  is  something  more. 

Members  of  this  great  auxiliary  assembly,  there  is  a  surprise  awaiting 
you.  The  lamb  and  the  lion  shall  lie  down  together.  Looking  more 
intently,  some  of  us  behold  a  strange  thing — the  paradox,  the  anomaly — the 
Christian  a  Buddhist,  and  the  Buddhist  a  Christian;  the  Moslem  a  Parsee, 
and  the  Parsee  a  Moslem.  The  grand,  far-reaching  result  to  grow  out 
of  this  parliament  is  not  what  you  conceive,  but,  as  I  said  before,  a 
surprise  awaits  you.  Out  of  it  shall  come  a  pure  being — unfettered, 
naked,  white,  with  eyes  like  Christ  and  dignity  like  Buddha ,  bearing  the 
rewards  of  Zoroaster  and  the  flaming  sword  of  Moslem.  To  her  the  Jew 
bows  his  head,  the  Christian  kneels,  the  Brahman  prays;  before  her  the 
habiliments  of  sects  and  creeds  fall  off,  for  she  is  pure  and  naked — she  is  the 
one  truth  resurrected  from  the  mingled  heart  and  interchanged  mind  of 
the  world’s  great  Parliament  of  Religions. 


BUDDHISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 

H.  DHARMAPALA. 

Max  Muller  says:  “  When  a  religion  has  ceased  to  produce  champions, 
prophets,  and  martyrs,  it  had  ceased  to  live  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word, 
and  the  decisive  battle  for  the  dominion  of  the  world  would  have  to  be 
fought  out  among  the  three  missionary  religions  which  are  alive — Bud¬ 
dhism,  Mohammedanism,  and  Christianity.”  Sir  William  W.  Hunter,  in  his 
“  Indian  Empire  ”  (1893),  says:  “  The  secret  of  Buddha’s  success  was  that 
he  brought  spiritual  deliverance  to  the  people.  He  preached  that  salvation 
was  equally  open  to  all  men,  and  that  it  must  be  earned,  not  by  propitiat¬ 
ing  imaginary  deities,  but  by  our  own  conduct.  His  doctrines  thus  cut 
away  the  religious  basis  of  caste  and  had  the  efficiency  of  the  sacrificial 
ritual,  and  assailed  the  supremacy  of  the  Brahmans  (priests)  as  the  medi¬ 
ators  between  God  and  man.”  Buddha  taught  that  sin,  sorrow,  and 
deliverance,  the  state  of  man  in  this  life,  in  all  previous,  and  in  all  future 
lives,  are  the  inevitable  results  of  his  own  acts  (Karma).  He  thus  applied 
the  inexorable  law  of  cause  and  effect  to  the  soul.  What  a  man  sows  he 
must  reap. 

As  no  evil  remains  without  punishment,  and  no  good  deed  without 
reward,  it  follows  that  neither  priest  nor  God  can  prevent  each  act  bearing 


804 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


its  own  consequences.  Misery  or  happiness  in  this  life  is  the  unavoidable 
result  of  our  conduct  in  a  past  life',  and  our  actions  here  will  determine 
our  happiness  or  misery  in  the  life  to  come.  When  any  creature  dies  he  is 
born  again,  in  some  higher  or  lower  state  of  existence,  according  to  his 
merit  or  demerit.  His  merit  or  demerit,  that  is,  his  character,  consists  of 
the  sum  total  of  his  actions  in  all  previous  lives. 

By  this  great  law  of  Karma,  Buddha  explained  the  inequalities  and 
apparent  injustice  of  men’s  estate  in  this  world  as  the  consequence  of  acts 
in  the  past,  while  Christianity  compensates  those  inequalities  by  rewards 
in  the  future.  A  system  in  which  our  whole  well-being,  past,  present,  and 
to  come,  depends  on  ourselves,  theoretically,  leaves  little  room  for  the  inter¬ 
ference,  or  even  existence,  of  a  personal  God.  But  the  atheism  of  Buddha 
was  a  philosophical  tenet,  which,  so  far  from  weakening  the  functions  of 
right  and  wrong,  gave  them  new  strength  from  the  doctrine  of  Karma,  or 
the  metempsychosis  of  character.  To  free  ourselves  from  the  thraldom  of 
desire  and  from  the  fetters  of  selfishness  was  to  attain  to  the  state  of  the 
perfect  disciple,  Arabat,  in  this  life,  and  to  the  everlasting  rest  after  death. 

The  great  practical  aim  of  Buddha’s  teachingwas  to  subdue  the  lusts  of 
the  flesh  and  the  cravings  of  self,  and  this  could  only  be  attained  by  the 
practice  of  virtue.  In  place  of  rites  and  sacrifices  Buddha  prescribed  a 
code  of  practical  morality  as  the  means  of  salvation.  The  four  essential 
features  of  that  code  were:  Reverence  to  spiritual  teachers  and  parents, 
control  over  self,  kindness  to  other  men,  and  reverence  for  the  life  of  all 
creatures.  He  urged  on  his  disciples  that  they  must  not  only  follow  the 
true  path  themselves,  but  that  they  should  teach  it  to  all  mankind. 

The  life  and  teachings  of  Buddha  are  also  beginning  to  exercise  a  new 
influence  on  religious  thought  in  Europe  and  America.  Buddhism  will 
stand  forth  as  the  embodiment  of  the  eternal  verity,  that  as  a  man  sows  he 
will  reap,  associated  with  the  duties  of  mastery  over  self,  and  kindness  to 
all  men,  and  quickened  into  a  popular  religion  by  the  example  of  a  noble 
and  beautiful  life. 

Here  are  some  Buddhist  teachings  as  given  in  the  words  of  Jesus  and 
claimed  by  Christianity: 

Whosoever  cometh  to  Me  and  heareth  My  sayings  and  doeth  them,  he  is 
like  a  man  which  built  a  house  and  laid  the  foundation  on  a  rock. 

Why  call  ye  Me  Lord  and  do  not  the  things  which  I  say? 

Judge  not,  condemn  not,  forgive. 

Love  your  enemies  and  do  good,  hoping  for  nothing  again,  and  your  reward 
shall  be  great. 

Blessed  are  they  that  hear  the  word  of  God  and  keep  it. 

Be  ready,  for  the  Son  of  Man  cometh  at  an  hour  when  ye  think  not. 

Sell  all  that  ye  have  and  give  it  to  the  poor. 

Soul,  thou  hast  much  goods  laid  up  for  many  years;  take  thine  ease,  eat, 
drink,  and  be  merry.  But  God  said  unto  him:  Thou  fool,  this  night  thy  soul 
shall  be  required  of  thee;  then  whose  shall  these  things  be  which  thou  hast  pro¬ 
vided? 

The  life  is  more  than  meat  and  the  body  more  than  raiment.  Whosoever  he 
be  of  you  that  forsaketh  not  all  that  he  hath  he  can  not  be  My  disciple. 

He  that  is  faithful  in  that  which  is  least  is  faithful  in  much. 

Whosoever  shall  save  his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  whosoever  shall  lose  his  life 
shall  preserve  it. 

For,  behold,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you. 

There  is  no  man  that  hath  left  house,  or  parents,  or  brethren,  or  wife,  or 
ohildreu  for  the  kingdom  of  God’s  sake  who  shall  not  receive  manifold  more 
in  this  present  time. 

Take  heed  to  yourselves  lest  at  any  time  your  hearts  be  overcharged  with 
surfeiting  and  drunkenness  and  cares  of  this  life.  Watch  ye,  therefore,  and 
pray  always. 

Here  are  some  Buddhist  teachings  for  comparison : 

Hatred  does  not  cease  by  hatred  at  any  time.  Hatred  ceases  by  love.  This  is 
an  ancient  law.  Let  us  live  happily,  not  hating  those  who  hate  us.  Among  men 
who  hate  us,  let  us  live  free  from  hatred.  Let  one  overcome  anger  by  love.  Let 
him  overcome  evil  by  good.  Let  him  overcome  the  greedy  by  liberality;  let  the 
liar  be  overcome  by  truth. 

As  the  bee,  injuring  not  the  flower,  its  color,  or  scent,  flies  away,  taking  the 
nectar,  so  let  the  wise  man  dwell  upon  the  earth. 


HERANT  M,  KIRETCHJIAN, 
Armediata  Orator,  Constantinople. 


m 


,«!  *  «««'* 


BUDDHISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


805 


Like  a  beautiful  flower,  full  of  color  and  full  of  scent,  the  flne  words  of  him 
who  acts  accordingly  are  full  of  fruit. 

Let  him  speak  the  truth,  let  him  not  yield  to  anger,  let  him  give  when  asked, 
even  from  the  little  he  has.  By  these  things  he  will  enter  heaven. 

The  man  who  has  transgressed  one  law,  and  speaks  lies,  and  denies  a  future 
world,  there  is  no  sin  he  could  not  do. 

The  real  treasure  is  that  laid  up  through  charity  and  piety,  temperance,  and 
self-control;  the  treasure  thus  hid  is  secured,  and  passes  not  away. 

He  who  controls  his  tongue  speaks  wisely  and  is  not  puffed  up,  he  who  holds 
up  the  torch  to  enlighten  the  world,  his  word  is  sweet. 

Let  his  livelihood  be  kindness,  his  conduct  righteousness.  Then  in  the  fullness 
of  gladness  he  will  make  an  end  of  grief. 

He  who  is  tranquil  and  has  completed  his  course,  who  sees  truth  as  it  really 
is,  but  is  not  partial  when  there  are  persons  of  different  faith  to  be  dealt  with, 
who  with  firm  mind  overcomes  ill  will  and  covetousness,  he  is  a  true  disciple. 

As  a  mother,  even  at  the  risk  of  her  own  life,  protects  her  son,  her  only  son, 
so  let  each  one  cultivate  good  will  without  measure  among  all  beings. 

Nirvana  is  a  state  to  be  realized  here  on  this  earth.  He  who  has  reached 
the  fourth  stage  of  holiness  consciously  enjoys  the  bliss  of  Nirvana.  But 
it  is  beyond  the  reach  of  him  who  is  selfish,  skeptical,  realistic,  sensual,  full 
of  hatred,  full  of  desire,  proud,  self-righteous,  and  ignorant.  When  by 
supreme  and  unceasing  effort  he  destroys  all  selfishness  and  realizes  the 
oneness  of  all  beings,  is  free  from  all  prejudices  and  dualism,  when  he, 
by  patient  investigation,  discovers  truth,  the  stage  of  holiness  is  reached. 

Among  Buddhist  ideals  are  self-sacrifice  for  the  sake  of  others,  com¬ 
passion  based  on  wisdom,  joy  in  the  hope  that  there  is  final  bliss  for  the 
pure-minded,  altruistic  individual.  The  student  of  Buddha’s  religion  takes 
the  burden  of  life  with  sweet  contentment;  uprightness  is  his  delight;  he 
encompasses  himself  with  holiness  in  word  and  deed;  he  sustains  his  life 
by  means  that  are  quite  pure ;  good  is  his  conduct,  guarded  the  door  of  his 
senses,  mindful  and  self-possessed,  he  is  altogether  happy. 

H.  T.  Buckle,  the  author  of  the  “History  of  Civilization,”  says:  “A 
knowledge  of  Buddhism  is  necessary  to  the  right  understanding  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  Buddhism  is,  besides,  a  most  philosophical  creed.  Theologians 
should  study  it.” 

In  his  inaugural  address  delivered  at  the  Congress  of  Orientals  last 
year.  Max  Muller  remarked :  “  As  to  the  religion  of  Buddha  being  infiuenced 
by  foreign  thought,  no  true  scholar  now  dreams  of  that.  The  religion  of 
Buddha  is  the  daughter  of  the  old  Brahman  religion,  and  a  daughter  in 
many  respects  more  beautiful  than  the  mother.  On  the  contrary,  it  was 
through.  Buddhism  that  India,  for  the  first  time,  stepped  forth  from  its 
isolated  position  and  became  an  actor  in  the  historical  drama  of  the 
world.” 

Dr.  Hoey,  in  his  preface  to  Dr.  Oldberg’s  excellent  work  on  Buddha, 
says:  “To  thoughtful  men  who  evince  an  interest  in  the  comparative 
study  of  religious  beliefs.  Buddhism,  as  the  highest  effort  of  pure  intellect 
to  solve  the  problem  of  being,  is  attractive.  It  is  not  less  so  to  the  meta¬ 
physician  and  the  sociologist  who  study  the  philosophy  of  the  modern 
German  pessimistic  school  and  observe  its  social  tendencies.” 

Dr.  Rhys  David  says  that  Buddhism  is  a  field  of  inquiry  in  which  the 
only  fruit  to  be  gathered  is  knowledge. 

R.  C.  Dutt  says:  “  The  moral  teachings  and  precepts  of  Buddhism  have 
so  much  in  common  with  those  of  Christianity  that  some  connection 
between  the  two  systems  of  religion  has  long  been  suspected.  Candid 
inquirers  who  have  paid  attention  to  the  history  of  India  and  of  the  Greek 
world  during  the  centuries  immediately  preceding  the  Christian  era  and 
noted  the  intrinsic  relationship  which  existed  between  these  countries  in 
scientific,  religious,  and  literary  ideas,  found  no  difficulty  in  believing  that 
Buddhist  ideas  and  precepts  penetrated  into  the  Greek  world  before  the 
birth,  of  Christ.  The  discovery  of  the  Asoka  inscription  of  Hirnar,  which 
tells  us  that  that  enlightened  emperor  of  India  made  peace  with  five  Greek 
kings  and  sent  Buddhist  missionaries  to  preach  his  religion  in  Syria, 


806 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


explains  to  us  the  process  by  which  the  ideas  were  communicated. 
Researches  into  doctrines  of  the  Therapeuts  in  Egypt  and  of  the  Essenes  in 
Palestine  leave  no  doubt,  even  in  the  minds  of  such  devout  Christian 
thinkers  as  Dean  Mansel,  that  the  movement  which  those  sects  embodied 
was  due  to  Buddhist  missionaries  who  visited  Egypt  and  Palestine 
within  two  generations  of  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great.  A  few  writers 
like  Benson,  Seydal,  and  Lillie  maintain  that  the  Christian  religion  has 
sprung  directly  from  Buddhism.” 


A  VOICE  FROM  THE  YOUNG  MEN  OF  THE  ORIENT. 

HERANT  M.  KIKETCHJIAN  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

Brethren  from  the  Sun- Rising  of  All  Lands:  I  stand  here  to  repre¬ 
sent  the  young  men  of  the  Orient,  in  particular,  from  the  land  of  the  pyra¬ 
mids,  to  the  icefields  of  Siberia,  and  in  general,  from  the  shores  of  the 
^Egean  to  the  waters  of  Japan.  But  on  this  wonderful  xdatform  of  the 
Parliament  of  Religions,  where  I  find  myself  with  the  sons  of  the  Orient 
facing  the  American  public,  my  first  thought  is  to  tell  you  that  you  have 
unwittingly  called  together  a  council  of  your  creditors.  We  have  not 
come  to  wind  up  your  affairs,  but  to  unwind  your  hearts.  Turn  to  your 
books  and  see  if  our  claim  is  not  right.  We  have  given  you  science, 
philosophy,  theology,  music,  and  poetry,  and  have  made  history  for  you  at 
tremendous  expense.  And,  moreover,  out  of  the  light  that  shone  upon  our 
lands  from  heaven  there  have  gone  forth  those  who  shall  forever  be  your 
cloud  of  witnesses  and  your  inspiration  —  saints,  apostles,  prophets,  mar¬ 
tyrs.  And  with  that  rich  capital  you  have  amassed  a  stupendous  fortune, 
so  that  your  assets  hide  away  from  your  eyes  your  liabilities.  We  do  not 
want  to  share  your  wealth,  but  it  is  right  that  we  should  have  our  dividend, 
and  as  usual,  it  is  a  young  man  jjresents  the  vouchers. 

You  can  not  pay  this  dividend  with  money.  Your  gold  you  want  your¬ 
self.  Your  silver  has  fallen  from  grace.  We  want  you  to  give  us  a  rich 
tlividend  in  the  full  synij)athy  of  your  hearts.  And,  like  the  artisan,  who, 
judging  by  their  weight,  throws  into  his  crucible  nuggets  of  different 
shajje  and  color,  and,  after  fire  and  flux  have  done  their  work,  pours  it 
out,  and,  behold,  it  flows  pure  gold,  so,  having  called  together  the  children 
of  men  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  *and  having  them  here  before  you  in 
the  crucible  of  earnest  thought  and  honest  search  after  truth,  you  find 
when  this  parliameut  is  over  that  out  of  prejudice  of  race  and  dogma,  and 
out  of  the  variety  of  custom  and  worship,  there  flows  out  before  your  eyes 
nothing  but  the  jjure  gold  of  humanity,  and  henceforth  you  think  of  us, 
not  as  strangers  in  foreign  lands,  but  as  your  brothers  in  China,  and  Japan, 
and  India,  your  sisters  in  the  isles  of  Greece,  and  the  hills  and  valleys  of 
Armenia;  you  shall  have  jmid  us  such  a  dividend  out  of  your  hearts  and 
received  yourself  withal  such  a  blessing  that  this  will  be  a  Beulah  Land  of 
[prophecy  for  future  times,  and  send  forth  the  echo  of  that  sweet  song  that 
once  was  heard  in  our  land  of  “  Peace  on  Earth  and  Good  Will  to  Man.” 

There  has  been  so  much  spoken  to  you  here,  by  men  of  wisdom  and 
experience,  of  the  religious  life  of  the  great  East,  that  you  would  not  expect 
me  to  add  anything  thereto.  Nor  would  I  have  stood  here  presuming  to 
give  you  any  more  information  about  the  religions  of  the  world.  But  there 
is  a  new  race  of  men  that  have  risen  up  out  of  all  the  great  past,  whose 
influence  will  undoubtedly  be  a  most  important  factor  in  the  work  of 
humanity  in  the  coming  century.  They  are  the  result  of  all  the  past,  com¬ 
ing  in  contact  with  the  new  life  of  the  present — I  mean  the  young  men  of 
the  Orient;  they  who  are  i)repariug  to  take  possession  of  the  earth  with 


VOICE  FROM  THE  YOUNG  MEN  OF  THE  ORIENT. 


807 


their  brothers  of  the  great  West.  Constantinople  stands  to-day  as  the  typ¬ 
ical  city  of  the  East,  as  influenced  by  the  civilization  of  the  West.  In  view  of 
this  fact  it  seems  to  me  that  no  voice  coming  to  this  Parliament  of  Pelig- 
ions  with  its  plea  for  an  imj)artial  hearing  could  be  any  more  worthy  of  your 
most  indulgent  hearing  and  impartial  consideration  than  that  of  the  voice 
of  the  young  men  of  the  Orient  coming  through  the  city  of  Constantinojile, 
the  most  religious  city  of  the  world.  Saturated  with  the  religions  of  the 
ages,  overwhelmed  by  the  philosophy  of  modern  days,  the  mind  and  heart 
of  the  young  men  of  the  Orient  has  had  a  development  that  is  not  only 
characteristic  of  the  Orient,  but  is  having  its  sequel  in  all  the  West. 

I  bring  you  a  philosophy  from  the  shores  of  the  Bosphorus  and  a  religion 
from  the  city  of  Constantine.  All  my  Arm  convictions  and  deductions  that 
have  grown  up  within  me  for  years  past  have,  under  the  influences  of  this 
parliament,  been  shaken  to  their  roots.  But  I  And  to-day  those  roots  yet 
deeper  in  my  heart  and  the  branches  reaching  higher  into  the  skies.  I 
can  not  presume  to  bring  you  anything  new,  but  if  all  the  deductions  appear 
to  you  to  be  logical  from  premises  which  human  intelligence  can  accept, 
then  I  feel  confldent  that  you  will  give  us  credit  of  honest  purpose  and 
allow  us  the  right  as  intelligent  beings  to  hold  fast  to  that  which  I  present 
before  you. 

When  the  young  men  of  to-day  were  young  children  they  heard  and  saw 
every  day  of  their  lives  nothing  but  enmity  and  absolute  separation  between 
men  of  different  religions  and  nationalities.  I  need  not  stop  to  tell  you  of 
the  influence  of  such  a  life  upon  the  lives  of  young  men  who  found  them¬ 
selves  separated  and  in  camps  pitched  for  battle  against  their  brother-men 
with  whom  they  had  to  come  in  contact  in  the  daily  avocations  of  life. 
And,  as  the  light  of  education  and  ideas  of  liberty  began  to  spread  over  the 
whole  Orient  with  the  latter  part  of  this  century,  this  yoke  became  more 
galling  upon  the  necks  of  the  young  men  of  the  Orient,  and  the  burden  too 
heavy  to  bear.  It  would  be  too  long  to  lead  you  through  the  various  stages 
of  development  of  that  which  I  may  call  the  new  religion  of  the  young  men 
of  Constantinople  and  of  the  whole  Orient. 

Young  men  of  all  the  nationalities  I  have  mentioned,  who,  for  the  past 
thirty  years,  have  received  their  education  in  the  universities  of  Paris, 
Heidelberg,  Berlin,  and  other  cities  of  Europe,  as  well  as  the  Imperial 
Lyceum  of  Constantinople,  have  been,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  pas¬ 
sively  or  aggressively,  weaving  the  fabric  of  their  religion,  so  that  to  the 
thousand  young  men,  for  whom  their  voice  is  an  oracle,  it  has  come  like  a 
boon  and  enlisted  their  heart  and  mind. 

They  find  their  brothers  in  large  numbers  in  all  the  cities  of  the  Orient 
where  European  civilization  has  found  the  least  entrance,  and  there  is 
scarcely  any  city  that  will  not  have  felt  their  influence  before  the  end  of 
the  century.  Their  religion  is  the  newest  of  all  religions,  and  I  should  not 
have  brought  it  upon  this  platform  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  it  is  one  of 
the  most  pc  tent  influences  acting  in  the  Orient  and  with  which  we  religious 
young  men  of  the  East  have  to  cope  efficiently  if  we  are  to  have  the  least 
influence  with  the  peoples  of  our  respective  lands. 

For,  remember,  these  are  men  of  intelligence,  men  of  excellent  parts, 
men,  who,  with  all  the  young  men  of  the  Orient,  have  proved  that  in  all  arts 
and  science,  in  the  marts  of  the  civilized  world,  in  the  armies  of  the  nations, 
and  at  the  right  hand  of  kings  they  are  the  equal  of  any  race  of  men,  from 
the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  setting  thereof.  They  are  men,  moreover,  for 
the  most  part,  of  the  best  intentions  and  the  most  sincere  convictions,  and, 
when  you  hear  their  opinion  of  religion  and  think  of  the  position  they 
hold,  you  can  not,  I  am  sure,  as  members  of  the  Religious  Parliament,  feel 
anything  but  the  greatest  concern  for  them  and  the  lands  in  which  they 
dwell. 

I  represent,  personally,  the  religious  young  men  of  the  Orient,  but  let 


808 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


me,  by  proxy,  for  the  young  men  of  the  newest  religion,  speak  before  you 
to  the  apostle  of  any  religion:  “  You  come  to  us  in  the  name  of  religion  to 
bring  to  us  what  we  already  have.  We  believe  that  man  is  sufficient  unto 
himself,  if,  as  you  say,  a  perfect  God  has  created  him.  If  you  will  let  him 
alone  he  will  be  all  that  he  should  be.  Educate  him,  train  him,  don’t  bind 
him  hand  and  foot,  and  he  will  be  a  perfect  man,  worthy  to  be  the  brother 
of  any  other  man.  Nature  has  sufficiently  endowed  man,  and  you  should 
use  all  that  is  given  you  in  your  intelligence  before  you  trouble  God  to 
give  you  more.  Moreover,  no  one  has  found  God.  We  have  all  the  inspi¬ 
ration  we  want  in  sweet  poetry  and  enchanting  music,  in  the  companion¬ 
ship  of  refined  and  cultured  men  and  women.  If  we  are  to  listen  to  it,  we 
would  like  Handel  to  tell  us  of  the  Messiah,  and  if  the  heavens  resound  it 
is  enough  to  have  Beethoven’s  interpretation. 

“We  have  nothing  against  you,  but  really,  as  to  all  religions,  we  must 
say  that  you  have  done  the  greatest  possible  harm  to  humanity  by  raising 
men  against  men,  and  nation  against  nation.  And  now  to  make  a  bad 
thing  worse  in  this  day  of  superlative  common  sense,  you  come  to  fill  the 
minds  of  men  with  impossible  things,  and  burden  their  brains  with  endless 
discussions  of  a  thousand  sects.  For  there  are  many  I  heard  before  you, 
and  I  know  how  many  could  follow.  We  consider  you  the  one,  of  all  men 
to  be  avoided,  for  your  philosophy  and  your  doctrines  are  breeding  pessi¬ 
mism  over  the  land.” 

Then,  with  a  religious  instinct  and  innate  respect  that  all  Orientals'have, 

I  have  to  say  suddenly:  “  But,  see  here,  we  are  not  infidels  or  atheists  or 
skeptics.  We  simply  have  no  time  for  such  things.  We  are  full  of  the 
inspiration  for  the  highest  life,  and  desire  freedom  for  all  young  men  of 
the  world.  We  have  a  religion  that  unites  all  men  of  all  lands,  and  fills  the 
earth  with  gladness.  It  supplies  every  human  need,  and,  therefore,  we 
know  that  it  is  the  true  religion,  especially  because  it  produces  peace  and 
the  greatest  harmony.  So,  we  do  not  want  any  of  your  ‘isms,’  nor  any 
other  system  or  doctrine.  We  are  not  materialists,  socialists,  rationalists, 
or  pessimists,  and  we  are  not  idealists.  Our  religion  is  the  first  that  was, 
and  it  is  also  the  newest  of  the  new — we  are  gentlemen.  In  the  name  of 
peace  and  humanity,  can  you  not  let  us  alone?  If  you  invite  us  again  in 
the  name  of  religion,  we  shall  have  a  previous  engagement,  and  if  you  call 
again  to  preach,  we  are  not  at  home.” 

This  is  the  Oriental  young-man,  like  the  green  bay  tree.  And  where 
one  passes  away,  so  that  you  do  not  find  him  in  his  ijlace,  there  are 
twenty  to  fill  the  gap.  Believe  me,  I  have  not  exaggerated,  for,  word  for 
word,  and  ten  times  more  than  this,  I  have  heard  from  intelligent  men  of 
the  army  and  navy,  men  in  commerce  and  men  of  the  bars  of  justice,  in 
earnest  conversation  and  deep  argument,  in  the  streets  of  Constantinople, 
in  the  boats  of  the  Golden  Horn  and  the  Bosphorus,  in  Roumania  and 
Bulgaria,  as  well  as  in  Paris  and  New  York,  and  the  Auditorium  of  Chi¬ 
cago,  from  Turk  and  Armenian,  from  Greek  and  Hebrew,  as  well  as  Bul¬ 
garian  and  Servian,  and  I  can  tell  you  that  this  newest  substitute  of 
religion,  keeping  the  gates  of  commerce  and  literaturp,  science  and  law, 
through  Europe  and  the  Orient,  is  a  most  potent  force  in  shaping  the  des¬ 
tinies  of  the  nations  of  the  East,  and  has  to  be  accounted  for  intelligently 
in  thinking  of  the  future  of  religion,  and  has  to  be  met  with  an  armament 
as  powerful  in  the  eyes  of  the  young  men  of  the  Orient  as  that  which 
science  and  literature  "have  put  in  the  hands  of  these  men  of  the  great  army 
of  the  new  gentlemen  class. 

There  is  another  class  of  young  men  in  the  Orient  who  call  themselves 
the  religious  young  men  and  who  hold  to  the  ancient  faith  of  their  fathers. 

Allow  me  to  claim  for  these  young  men,  also,  honesty  of  purpose,  intel¬ 
ligence  of  mind,  as  well  as  a  firm  persuasion.  For  them,  also,  I  come  to  speak 
to  you,  and  in  speaking  for  them,  I  speak  also  for  myself.  You  will  naturally 


VOICE  FROM  THE  YOUNG  MEN  OF  THE  ORIENT.  809 


see  that  we  have  to  be  from  earliest  days  in  contact  with  the  new  religion; 
so  let  me  call  it  for  convenience.  We  have  to  be  in  colleges  and  universi¬ 
ties  with  those  same  young  men.  We  have  to  go  hand  in  hand  with  them 
in  all  science  and  history,  literature,  music,  and  poetry,  and  naturally  with 
them  we  share  in  the  firm  belief  in  all  scientific  deduction  and  hold  fast  to 
every  principle  of  human  liberty. 

First,  all  the  young  men  of  the  Orient,  who  have  the  deepest  religious 
convictions,  stand  for  the  dignity  of  man.  I  regret  that  I  should  have  to 
commence  here;  but,  out  of  the  combined  voices  and  arguments  of  philos¬ 
ophies  and  theologies,  there  comes  before  us  such  an  unavoidable  inference 
of  an  imperfect  humanity  that  we  have  to  come  out  before  we  can  speak 
on  any  religion  for  ourselves  and  say:  “We  believe  that  we  are  men.” 
For  us  it  is  a  libel  on  humanity,  and  an  impeachment  of  the  God  who 
created  man,  to  say  that  man  is  not  sufficient  within  himself,  and  that  he 
needs  religion  to  come  and  make  him  perfect.  It  is  libeling  humanity  to 
look  upon  this  or  that  family  of  man  and  to  say  that  they  show  conceptions 
of  goodness  and  truth  and  high  ideas,  and  a  life  above  simple  animal  desires, 
because  they  have  had  religious  teaching  by  this  or  that  man,  or  a  revela¬ 
tion  from  heaven.  We  believe  that  if  man  is  man  he  has  it  all  in  himself, 
just  as  he  has  all  his  bodily  capacities.  Will  you  tell  me  that  a  cauliflower 
that  I  plant  in  the  fields  grows  up  in  perfection  and  beauty  of  its  convolu¬ 
tions,  and  that  my  brain,  which  the  same  God  has  created  a  hundred 
thousand  times  more  delicate  and  perfect,  can  not  develop  its  convolutions, 
and  do  the  work  that  God  intended  I  should  do  and  have  the  highest  con¬ 
ceptions  that  He  intended  I  should  have;  that  a* helpless  pollywog  will 
develop  and  become  a  frog  with  perfect,  elastic  limbs,  and  a  heaving  chest, 
and  that  frogs  will  keep  together  in  contentment  and  croak  in  unity,  and 
that  men  need  religion  and  help  from  outside  in  order  that  I  may  develop 
into  the  perfection  of  a  man  in  body  and  soul,  and  recognize  the  brother¬ 
hood  of  man  and  live  upon  God’s  earth  in  peace?  I  say  it  is  an  impeach¬ 
ment  of  God,  who  created  man,  to  promulgate  and  acquiesce  in  any  such 
doctrine. 

Nor  do  we  accejjt  the  unwarranted  conclusions  of  science.  We  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  monkeys.  If  they  want  to  speak  to  us  they  will 
have  to  come  up  to  us.  There  is  a  Western  spirit  of  creating  difficulties 
which  we  can  not  understand.  One  of  my  first  experiences  in  the  United 
States  was  taking  part  in  a  meeting  of  young  ladies  and  gentlemen  in  the 
city  of  Philadelphia,  for  a  quiet  evening,  of  which  there  are  quite  a  num¬ 
ber  there.  The  subject  of  the  evening  was  whether  animals  had  souls,  and 
the  cat  came  out  prominently.  Very  serious  and  erudite  papers  were  read. 
But  the  conclusion  was  that,  not  knowing  just  what  a  cat  is  and  what  a 
soul  is,  they  could  not  decide  the  matter,  but  still  it  was  a  serious  matter 
bearing  upon  religion.  Now,  suppose  an  Armenian  girl  should  ask  her 
mother  if  cats  had  souls.  She  would  settle  the  question  in  parentheses, 
and  say,  for  example:  “My  sweet  one,  you  must  go  down  and  see  if  the 
water  is  boiling  (What  put  the  question  into  your  head?  Of  course, 
cats  have  souls.  Cats  have  cats’  souls  and  men  have  men’s  souls). 
Now  go  down.”  And  the  child  would  go  down,  rejoicing  in  her  humanity. 
And  if  my  Armenian  lady  should  one  day  be  confronted  with  the  missing 
link  of  which  we  hear  so  much,  still  her  equanimity  would  remain  unper¬ 
turbed,  and  she  would  still  glory  In  her  humanity  by  informif'g  you  that 
the  missing  link  had  the  soul  of  a  missing  link  and  man  had  the  soul  of  a 
man. 

So  far  we  come  with  the  young  men  of  the  gentlemen  class,  hand  to 
hand,  upon  the  common  of  humanity,  But  here  is  a  corner  where  we  part 
and  take  widely  diverging  paths.  We  cry,  “Let  us  alone  and  we  will 
expand  and  rise  "up  to  the  height  of  our  destiny;  ”  and  behold,  we  find  an 
invisible  power  that  will  not  let  us  alone.  We  find  that  we  can  do  almost 


810 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


everythin;?  in  the  ways  of  science  and  art.  But  when  it  comes  to  following 
our  conception  of  that  which  is  high  and  noble,  that  which  is  right  and 
necessary  for  our  development,  then  we  are  wanting  in  strength  and  power 
to  advance  toward  it.  I  put  this  in  the  simplest  form,  for  I  can  not  enlarge 
upon  it  here.  But  the  fact  for  us  is  as  real  as  that  of  the  dignity  of  man. 
That  there  is  a  power  which  diverts  men  and  women  from  the  path  of 
rectitude  and  honor,  in  which  they  know  they  must  walk.  You  can  not 
say  it  is  inherent  in  man,  for  we  feel  that  it  does  not  belong  to  us.  And  if 
it  did  belong  to  us,  and  it  was  the  right  conception  of  man  to  go  down  into 
degradation  and  misery,  rapacity,  and  the  desire  of  crushing  down  his 
fellowman,  we  would  say,  “  Let  him  alone,  and  let  him  do  that  which  God 
meant  that  he  should  do.” 

So,  briefly,  I  say  to  anyone  here  who  is  preparing  to  boil  down  his  creed, 
put  this  in  it  before  you  reach  the  boiling  point:  “And  I  believe  in  the 
devil,  the  arch-enemy  of  God,  the  accuser  of  God  to  man.”  One  devil  for 
the  whole  universe?  We  care  not.  A  legion  of  demons  besieging  each 
soul?  It  matters  not  to  us.  We  know  this— that  there  is  a  power  outside 
of  man  which  draws  him  aside  mightily.  And  there  is  no  power  on  earth 
that  can  resist  it. 

And  so,  here  comes  our  religion.  If  you  have  a  religion  to  bring  to  the 
young  men  of  the  Orient,  it  must  come  with  a  power  that  will  balance,  yea, 
counterbalance  the  power  of  evil  in  the  world.  Then  will  man  be  free  to 
grow  up  and  be  that  which  God  intended  he  should  be.  We  want  God. 
We  want  the  spirit  of  God.  And  the  religion  that  comes  to  us  in  any  name 
or  form  must  bring  that,  or  else,  for  us,  it  is  no  religion.  And  we  believe  in 
God— not  the  God  of  protoplasms,  that  hides  between  molecules  of  matter, 
but  God  whose  children  we  are. 

So  we  place  as  the  third  item  of  our  philosophy  and  protest,  the  dignity 
of  God.  Is  chivalry  dead  ?  Has  all  conception  of  a  high  and  noble  life,  of 
sterling  integrity,  departed  from  the  hearts  of  men,  that  we  can  not  aspire 
to  knighthood  and  princeship  in  the  courts  of  our  God  ?  We  know  we  are 
His  children,  for  we  are  doing  His  works  and  thinking  His  thoughts.  What 
we  want  to  do  is  to  be  like  Him.  Oh,  is  it  true  that  I  can  cross  land  and 
sea  and  reach  the  heart  of  my  mother,  and  feel  her  arms  clasping  me,  but 
that  I,  a  child  of  God,  standing  helpless  in  the  universe,  against  a  power 
that  I  can  not  overcome,  can  not  lift  up  my  hands  to  Him,  and  cry  to 
Him,  that  I  may  have  His  spirit  in  my  soul  and  feel  His  everlasting  arms 
supporting  me  in  my  weakness. 

And  here  comes  the  preacher  from  ancient  days,  and  the  modern 
church,  and  tells  us  of  One  who  did  overcome  the  world.  And  that  He  came 
down  from  above.  We  need  not  to  be  told  that  He  came  from  above,  for 
no  man  born  of  woman  did  any  such  thing.  But  we  are  persuaded  that 
by  the  means  of  grace  and  the  path  which  He  shows  us  to  walk  in,  the 
Spirit  of  God  does  come  into  the  hearts  of  men,  and  that  I  can  feel  it  in 
my  heart  fighting  with  me  against  sin,  and  strengthening  my  heart  to  hold 
resolutely  to  that  which  I  know  to  be  right  by  the  divine  in  me.  We  do 
not  know  whether  the  Spirit  of  God  proceedeth  from  the  Father  or  from 
the  Son,  but  we  know  that  it  proceedeth  into  the  heart  of  man  and  that 
sufficeth  unto  us.  * 

And  so,  with  a  trembling  hand  but  firm  conviction,  with  much  sadness, 
with  humanity,  but  joy  of  eternal  triumph,  I  come  with  you  all  to  the 
golden  gates  of  the  ‘20th  century,  where  the  elders  of  the  coming  com¬ 
monwealth  of  humanity  are  sitting  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  religion 
that  shall  enter  those  gates  to  the  support  of  the  human  heart  I  place 
there  by  the  side  of  ancient  Oriental  Confucianism  and  modern  theosophy, 
ancient  Oriental  Buddhism  and  modern  spiritualism,  and  every  faith  of 
ancient  days  and  modern  materialism,  rationalism,  and  idealism — there  I 
l)lace  ancient  Oriental  Christianity  with  its  Christ,  the  power  of  God  and 
the  wisdom  of  God,  and  its  cross,  still  radiant  in  the  love  of  God, 

Towerinj?  o’er  the  wrecks  of  time. 


CHAPTEB  XVII. 


SEVENTEENTH  DAY,  SEPTEMBER  21th. 


There  was  an  excellent  programme  on  September  27th,  the 
closing  day  of  the  parliament.  Not  a  seat  was  vacant  in  the 
large  hall.  After  the  universal  prayer  had  been  said  by  Dr. 

McGilvary,  missionary  in  Siam,  Dr.  Barrows  said: 

The  morning  of  the  seventeenth  day  of  this  historic  assembly  has  come, 
and  I  wish  to  express  the  feeling  of  thankfulness  which  I  have  in  my  heart 
to  Almighty  God  for  His  goodness  that  has  been  shown  to  us  so  continu¬ 
ously.  And  I  wish  to  express  my  appreciation  of  the  fidelity  of  the 
friends  who  have  co-operated  in  making  this  parliament  what  it  has  been. 

I  learned  this  morning  from  Prof.  Menaz  Tcheras,  that  grand  Armenian 
Christian,  that,  although  he  had  been  in  our  city  over  twenty  days, 
he  has  been  so  constantly  ■  in  attendance  on  this  parliament  that  he  has 
seen  the  White  City  only  once  in  the  daytime  and  once  in  the  evening. 
I  have  noticed  the  same  faces  here,  day  after  day,  of  thoughtful  ministers, 
laymen,  and  women,  who  have  been  here  drinking  in  the  truth  that  has  been 
given  to  us,  and  enjoying  what  has  made  this  series  of  meetings  so  remark¬ 
able  and  ennobling. 

And  now,  that  the  last  day  has  dawned,  I  wish  in  these  few  words,  to 
express  my  gratitude  to  the  friends,  who  have  worked  with  me,  for  their 
patience;  and  to  the  newspaper  press,  who  have  done  so  much  to  spread 
abroad  the  proceedings  of  this  parliament.  This  evidence  of  enterprise  on 
the  part  of  the  press,  this  evidence  of  their  appreciation  of  the  significance 
of  this  parliament,  is  so  noteworthy  that  it  has  been  frequently  spoken  of 
by  many  of  those  who  have  come  to  us  from  other  lands. 


THE  WORLD’S  PARLIAMENT. 

MRS.  L.  ORMISTON  CHANT. 

The  following  poem,  written  by  Mrs.  L.  Ormiston  Chant, 
was  read  by  Dr.  Barrows: 

•  THE  WORLD’S  PARLIAMENT. 

"  He  hath  made  of  one  all  nations  of  the  earth.” 

The  New  World’s  call  hath  summoned  men  to  prayer. 

And  swift  across  the  o^^ean’s  path  of  foam, 

Along  the  mountain  tracks,  or  desert’s  glare. 

Or  down  the  Old  World  valleys  they  have  come, 

O  golden,  olden  East; 

Right  welcome  to  the  feast. 

The  New  World  welcomes  you 
In  the  most  holy  name  of  God. 

The  New  World  welcomes  you. 

811 


812 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  New  WorUl’s  call  hath  summoned  men  to  prayer; 
All  Christendom  hath  felt  her  great  heai  t  beat, 

And  Europe’s  messengers  from  everywhere 
Still  waife  the  ectioes  with  their  coming  feet. 

O  Mussulman  and  Greek! 

The  glad  New  World  doth  seek, 

With  Christian  and  with  Jew, 

In  the  most  holy  name  of  God. 

To  love  and  welcome  you. 

The  New  World’s  call  hath  summoned  men  to  prayer. 
And  Africa  hath  heard  the  call  and  cry 

To  her  most  noble  sons  to  haste  and  share 
The  brotherhood  of  worship  side  by  side. 

O  heirs  of  liberty, 

Dear  negro  brothers  ye. 

At  last  at  one  with  you. 

In  the  most  holy  name  of  God, 

The  New  World  welcomes  you. 

For  all  the  creeds  of  men  have  come  to  praise. 

And  kneel  and  worship  at  the  great  white  throne 

Of  God,  the  Father  of  us  all,  and  raise 
The  all- world’s  prayer  to  Him,  the  great  alone. 

O  creeds  whate’er  ye  be. 

The  truth  shall  make  you  free. 

And,  be  ye  old  or  new. 

In  the  most  holy  name  of  God, 

The  New  World  welcomes  you. 

Let  Moses  still  be  reverenced,  and  the  name 
Of  Buddha  fill  his  worshipers  with  awe; 

Still  let  Mohammed  from  Ifls  people  claim 
A  sober  life  and  conduct  as  before. 

Yet  nought  of  outlook  shall  be  sacrificed 
By  which  man  doth  his  soul’s  horizon  scan. 

For  over  all  the  creeds  the  fHce  of  Christ 
Glows  with  white  glory  on  the  face  of  man. 

And  all  the  symbols  human  tears  have  stained. 

And  every  path  of  prayer  man’s  feet  have  trod. 

Have  nearer  knowledge  of  the  Father  gained. 

For  back  of  soul  and  symbol  standeth  God. 

In  fullness  of  the  time, 

From  every  creed  and  clime, 

The  New  World  and  the  Old 
Pray  in  the  age  of  gold. 

In  one  vast  host  on  bended  knee. 

The  old  and  new  in  unity 
Of  truth’s  eternal  good. 

To  East  and  West  forever  given, 

Proclaim  in  sight  of  heaven. 

In  the  most  holy  name  of  God, 

Immortal  brotherhood. 


THE  GOOD  IN  ALL  FAITHS. 

DR.  F.  W.  M.  HUGENHOLTZ  OF  MICHIGAN. 

I  am  thankful  that  the  opportunity  has  been  given  to  me  of  bringing  to 
this  congress  the  hearty  greetings  of  those  whose  representative  I  am — 
the  members  of  the  Confederation  of  Netherland  Protestants,  who  are  in 
the  most  perfect  sympathy  with  this  enterprise.  It Js  gratifying  indeed 
to  remember  thac,  while  we  are  gathered  together  here  in  Chicago,  every¬ 
where  in  the  world  hosts  of  sympathetic  men  and  women  are  joining  us  in 
spirit  and  praying  for  our  success.  Looking  for  the  results  of  our  parlia¬ 
ment,  we  must  not  forget  that  it  is  already  a  result  in  itself,  a  glorious 
result  of  the  advanced  conception  of  religion  as  a  common  good  of  man¬ 
kind.  Truth  and  untruth  do  not  come  together  for  a  peaceful  meeting. 


RELIGION  AND  MUSIC, 


813 


Divine  revelation  and  diabolical  inflation  do  not  seek  each  other  for  mutual 
ediflcation.  That,  therefore,  the  different  religions  of  the  world  actually 
did  come  together  is  itself  a  truth  of  the  advanced  religious  thought  of 
our  age. 

Now  admit  those  who  have  prepared  the  way  for  this  parliament.  I 
may  point  with  pride  at  this  Holland  Confederation  of  Protestants,  whose 
single  aim,  according  to  its  constitution,  is,  and  already  has  been  for  more 
than  twenty  years,  to  promote  the  free  development  “  of  the  religious  life 
within  the  churches  and  beyond,”  without  any  other  dogmatic  or  denomi¬ 
national  addition.  This,  our  Protestant  bond,  therefore,  must  hail  with 
enthusiasm  this  fullness  of  the  times.  Their  delegate  must  feel  at  home 
amid  these  thousands,  all  of  the  members  of  the  same  confederation, 
though  not  Dutchmen  all  of  them,  nearly  all  of  them  promoters  of  the  free 
development  of  the  religious  life. 

And  now,  how  shall  this  aim  be  reached?  What  will,  what  must  be  the 
result  of  the  parliament?  I  trust  it  will  put  a  stop  to  the  mutual  rivalry 
of  the  various  religions,  in  order  to  show  that  one  religion,  if  not  the  only 
good  and  true  one,  still  must  be  considered  as  the  best  of  all.  Religion  is 
in  such  a  way  influenced  by  climate,  race,  and  tradition  that  what  is  the 
best  for  one  can  not  at  the  same  degree  satisfy  the  wants  of  another. 

No,  there  is  a  better  rivalry,  promising  greater  and  surer  success.  Let 
all  of  us  move  to  see  which  of  us  can  best  and  soonest  live  up  to  the  high¬ 
est  demands  of  his  religion,  which  of  us  first  can  overcome  the  sad  differ¬ 
ences  between  creed  and  deed,  between  his  professed  and  his  applied 
religion. 

And  whenever  we  discover,  as  in  these  days  we  could  many  times,  when¬ 
ever  we  discover  in  each  other’s  religion  something  that  is  lacking  or  less 
developed  in  ours,  let  us  try  to  also  aim  that  such  precious  good  shall 
enrich  our  own  religion  with  the  spiritual  pleasures  found  elsewhere. 

This,  indeed,  will  be  to  promote  the  free,  the  unprejudiced  development 
of  the  religious  life  by  which,  if  all  of  us  are  thus  advancing  along  our 
different  lines,  at  the  end  we  will  meet  each  other  on  the  heights,  when  the 
consciousness  of  being  near  to  God  will  All  all  His  children  with  everlasting 
joy. 


RELIGION  AND  MUSIC. 

W.  L.  TOMLINS  OF  CHICAGO. 

I  accepted  Dr.  Barrows’  generous  invitation  with  much  misgiving,  for  I 
am  not  a  public  speaker.  However,  I  shall  try  to  put  these  misgivings 
from  me,  for  I  know  I  am  with  friends.  The  fear  remains,  however,  that  I 
may  not  improve  this  opportunity  to  show  the  relation  of  musical  art  in  its 
sincerity  on  a  plane  which  parallels  the  thought  which  brings  you  here — 
the  religious  thought  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of 
man. 

In  my  professional  experience  I  have  had  to  examine  thousands  of 
adult  voices,  and  I  have  been  struck  with  the  large  proportion  that  were 
spoiled,  in  some  cases  ruined,  by  habits  which  could  have  been  corrected  in 
childhood.  So  I  started  children’s  classes  in  order  that  I,  at  least,  might 
help  the  coming  generation,  and  for  twelve  or  fourteen  years  I  have  had 
from  two  to  ten  classes  every  year  in  the  city,  of  200  or  more  boys  and  girls 
in  a  class.  I  started  out  simply  to  harmonize  the  action  of  the  mouth  and 
the  throat  and  the  lungs,  to  get  a  harmonious  physical  action  of  the  vocal 
machinery,  but  I  was  soon  carried  past  first  intentions. 

I  found  that  directly  the  machinery  was  well  ordered,  the  highest  emo¬ 
tions,  on©  by  one,  would  come  down  and  govern  that  machinery,  and  I  was 


814 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


led  by  the  force  of  my  own  teaching  up  into  the  realms  of  emotional  sing¬ 
ing.  I  found  as  I  harmonized  the  various  emotions  and  made  them  into  a 
brotherhood,  as  previously  I  had  harmonized  the  vocal  machinery  with  the 
brotherhood  of  emotions,  there  came  the  development  of  the  spiritual 
nature,  which  before  had  refused  to  govern  or  control  either  the  emotions 
or  the  machinery  when  they  were  out  of  order.  Now,  I  can  not  give  you 
the  details  of  my  work;  you  could  not  see  the  connection  between  the 
means  which  I  employed  and  the  results  which  I  wished  to  attain.  I  may, 
however,  give  one  or  two  familiar  illustrations  which  will  only  take  a  few 
moments  of  your  time. 

Here  in  my  hand  I  hold  a  little  piece  of  paper,  four  or  five  inches  long. 
It  would  represent  the  scale  of  miles  on  a  geographical  map.  It  would 
stand,  perhaps,  for  two  or  three  hundred  or  two  or  three  thousand  miles, 
but  whether  miles  or  inches,  it  is  finite,  it  is  a  measurable  quantity.  I 
may  treble  it  in  shape,  still  it  is  only  so  long.  I  may  make  it  still  more  round, 
and  bring  it  so  that  it  represents  nine-tenths  of  the  circle,  still  it  is  finite. 
If  you  go  along  it  and  reach  the  ends  you  will  have  to  come  back,  but  once 
connect  the  ends,  and  it  is  a  circle  infinite  in  its  suggestion.  It  represents 
the  infinite.  Not  only  does  it  represent  that,  but  it  may  also  stand  for  indi¬ 
viduality,  and  in  that  sense  I  wish  to  use  the  illustration. 

Again,  you  will  imagine  I  have  a  bell;  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that.  If  I 
strike  that  bell,  the  vibrations  pass  entirely  round,  and  it  gives  out  its  tone. 
It  says  to  you  in  sound:  “lam  a  bell.”  I  take  up  another  round  thing, 
and  on  striking  that  it  says:  “I  am  a  gong.”  It  speaks  out  for  itself.  If, 
however,  I  shorten  the  vibrations,  holding  the  bell  with  my  hand,  so  that 
the  vibration  is  not  a  complete  circle,  it  does  not  say,  “  I  am  a  bell  ”  nor 
“  I  am  a  gong,”  but  it  gives  a  little  dull  chink  like  a  piece  of  dead  scrap- 
iron.  It  is  a  dead  tone. 

It  is  just  so  with  a  child.  When  the  child  has  made  a  complete  circle 
of  the  machinery  of  the  voice,  and  the  attributes  of  the  child  nature,  the 
individuality  comes  out.  Not  only  does  it  say,  “  I  am  a  child,”  but  “  I  am 
a  child  of  God,  and  there  is  none  other  made  like  me  in  the  universe.”  It 
is  when  you  develop  that  in  the  child,  when  the  voice  is  in  complete  har¬ 
mony  with  this,  you  have  real  singing.  Music  is  not  to  know  about  scales 
and  fiats  and  sharps  and  clefs.  Singing  is  not  the  fireworks  agility  of  the 
voice,  to  be  able  to  run  up  and  down,  to  sing  long  and  short,  and  slow  and 
soft,  and  loud  and  quick.  Singing  is  the  utterance  of  the  soul  through 
the  machinery  of  the  voice. 

So  far  as  the  bell  is  concerned,  it  always  is  the  same.  It  may  be  a  sad- 
toned  bell  or  a  bright-toned  bell;  it  may  give  out  a  different  sound  as  I 
strike  it  harder  or  softer,  but  it  always  says  the  same.  The  boy,  however, 
has  a  capacity  to  change,  and  in  that  capacity  is  the  power  of  his  develop¬ 
ment  and  growth.  The  boy  can  change  so  that  he  may  be  sorrowful,  or 
sad,  or  commanding,  entreating,  or  rejoicing.  There  are  lots  of  things  the 
boy  can  change  to;  when  the  boy  is  completed  into  the  circle,  that  is  the 
completion  of  his  manhood.  Previous  to  that  he  has  thought,  x^erhaps, 
simply  of  mending  himself. 

Let  me  go  back  for  a  moment.  Suppose  that  bell  is  broken;  the 
broken  bell  is  self-conscious  in  its  disposition  to  mend  itself.  The  boy  who 
is  incomplete  in  his  circle  is  simply  concerned  about  himself.  It  is  so  when 
he  is  sick;  he  has  pain,  that  is  all  he  thinks  of;  but  let  him  come  to  health 
and  completeness,  and  then  there  is  an  absence  of  self-consciousness,  and 
after  that,  which  is  health,  which  is  harmony,  which  is  virtue,  there  comes 
the  sense  of  manhood  and  completeness,  and  after  that  manhood  in  its  higher 
development  comes  this  marvelous  thing  which  I  can  not  talk  to  you  about 
except  I  tell  it  to  you — brotherhood. 

The  boy,  when  he  is  complete  with  his  voice,  wants  to  go  out  and  sing 
and  tell  you  all  about  it,  and  when  he  is  comx)lete  in  that  way  there  comes  a 


RELIGION  AND  MUSIC. 


815 


governing  center,  and  that  center  is  an  emotional  one,  and  with  that  emo¬ 
tion  coming  to  the  center  he  feels  vitalized;  he  takes  a  breath  to  complete 
that  vitalization,  and  the  voice  goes  right  up  from  the  boy  to  his  brethren. 
The  boy  joys  in  his  heart.  Then  the  machinery  expresses  that,  and  joy 
goes  forth;  the  boy  sorrows,  commands,  entreats,  all  these  things  in 
turn.  Then  there  is  a  change.  At  first  he  joys  selfishly.  The  little 
fellows  in  my  class  think  everything  is  sunshine,  and  they  sing  like  the 
lark  in  sunshine,  they  sing  simply  from  companionship,  not  for  love  of 
their  brothers.  But  soon  another  change  comes.  Instead  of  commanding 
for  the  love  of  commanding,  the  boy  commands  me  out  of  love  for  me,  for 
my  good.  Instead  of  entreating  because  he  is  helpless,  he  entreats  me 
with  a  kingly  courtesy;  instead  of  joying  in  his  own  success  selfishly,  with 
that  joy  is  a  sympathy  with  those  who  have  not  had  the  same  advantages 
as  himself;  and  instead  of  sorrowing  with  an  utter  sorrow,  he  has  a  hope¬ 
fulness  that  will  come  in  the  morrow. 

So  that  you  see  there  are  in  these  emotional  centers  several  things  that 
may  combine,  joy  and  sorrow,  command  and  entreaty,  and  these  are  on 
a  spiritual  plane,  because,  directly  you  put  the  brotherhood  into  an  orderly 
development,  from  the  highest  plane  come  down  spiritual  influences  to  * 
govern  it. 

Some  two  years  ago  I  took  a  thousand  children  from  the  public  schools. 

I  selected  the  voices  that  seemed  most  musical,  but  I  always  chose  those 
from  poor  families,  other  things  being  equal.  Those  children  have  been 
working  with  me  for  about  two  years,  preparing  to  sing,  as  they  have  been 
re  3ently  singing,  in  the  World’s  Fair.  These  children  came  not  from  the 
avenues,  but  from  the  alleys.  They  were  disorderly;  they  were  a  little 
roagh;  they  did  not  know  ^hat  was  wanted  of  them.  They  came  to  get 
something  for  nothing, and  determined  to  have  more  than  their  companions, 
if  possible.  They  went  through  the  music  as  I  have  attempted  to  describe 
it  to  you,  and  soon,  through  the  influence  of  this,  better  results  came. 
There  was  no  longer  an  abuse  of  the  imagination,  but  its  use  in  the  line  of 
practical  things.  Soon  there  came  little  atoms,  if  I  may  say,  no  larger  than 
a  mustard  seed,  of  action  toward  each  other,  of  better  sentiments  toward 
brothers  and  sisters  or  teachers  and  parents. 

Now,  the  trouble  is  with  us  musicians  that,  in  the  excess  of  our  senti¬ 
ment  when  we  go  into  action,  we  are  looking  for  some  big  mountain  to 
move,  and  probably  the  only  action  that  will  be  thrust  in  our  path  will  be 
something  not  larger  than  a  mustard  seed.  Those  little  children  sang  and 
almost  filled  the  city  with  songs  of  gladness  as  individuals.  We  were  told 
to  watch  them  and  notice  the  development  of  their  characters.  The  little 
boy  had  some  little  thing  to  do,  perhaps  to  find  something  for  his  sister, 
open  the  door  or  something  of  that  kind,  and  so  on  to  bigger  things.  Some 
of  those  children  afterward  went  to  the  hospitals  and  sang.  Some  started 
little  classes  for  their  companions.  One  boy  has  started  an  “Old  Clothes 
Club,”  to  which  boys  and  girls  bring  old  shoes  and  garments  that  are  after¬ 
ward  distributed  to  old  people.  Another  started  a  little  philanthropic 
newspaper.  Those  things  are  being  done  without  suggestions  from  the 
teachers,  and  show  that  the  boys  are  carrying  their  singing  into  action. 
To-day  most  of  them  are  occupied  in  some  such  manner. 

I  want,  in  conclusion,  to  give  you  one  little  thought.  If  I  had  gone  to 
those  children  and  asked  them  to  help  themselves;  if  I  had  said,  “  Boy, 
take  care  of  No.  1,”  my  work  as  an  educational  teacher,  aside  from 
music,  would  have  been  a  failure;  but  I  was  led  to  work  in  this  direction: 

“  Boy,  in  your  helpless  condition,  coming  from  the  alleys,  and  having  asso¬ 
ciations  in  which  there  seem  to  be  no  advantages  in  the  world,  my  boy, 
help  some  one  else.” 

And  in  that  spirit  of  helping  another  came  the  blessing  to  those  chil¬ 
dren.  We  say  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive.  The  society  which 


81G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


will  Bing  for  you  to-night — the  Apollo  Club — four  years  ago  started  some 
workingmen’s  concerts.  The  club  has  a  large,  fashionable  subscription  in 
this  city,  and  an  income  and  surplus.  We  went  into  the  factories  and  work¬ 
shops,  and  said:  “You  are  our  brothers;  pay  us  10  cents  to  save  your  own 
self-respect  and  hear  us  sing.”  We  spent  thousands  of  dollars  last  year  on 
the  concerts  we  gave.  At  hrst  the  poor  people  looked  on  them  as  charity, 
and  were  inclined  to  repudiate 'them.  Very  soon,  however,  they  saw  the 
projects  were  based  on  love  and  brotherhood,  and  there  were  22,000  applica¬ 
tions  for  seats  at  the  first  concert  this  year,  and  in  four  years  we  have  sung 
to  70,000  of  those  people.  But  still  we  had  the  best  of  it — they  received, 
we  gave,  and  the  blessing  was  ours. 

Now,  I  shall  take  the  blessing  to  thorn.  I  will  tell  you  what  I  am  going 
to  do,  and  please  absolve  me  from  anything  like  boastfulness  in  this  matter. 
I  have  gone  to  a  lot  of  those  men  and  women  and  said:  “God  has  given  you 
voices  and  taught  you  to  develop  them;  why  not  sing  and  help  your  com¬ 
panions  and  neighbors?”  So  they  are  going  to  give  to  others,  and  then 
they  will  have  the  best  of  it,  and  thus  in  that  line  of  work  of  helping  others 
to  still  further  help  themselves.  That  is  a  religious  thought  as  well  as  a 
musical  one.  It  is  my  desire  to  show  you  that  in  art,  as  in  religion,  the 
lines  all  lead  upward. 


ELEMENTS  OF  UNIVERSAL  RELIGION. 

DR.  EMIL  G.  HIRSCH  OF  CHICAGO. 

“The  leading  thought  of  to-day/’  remarked  Dr.  Barrows, 
“  is  ultimate  and  universal  religion,  and,  surely,  if  anyone  has 
a  right  to  speak  of  that,  it  is  a  representative  of  the  Hebrew 
race,  Dr.  Emil  G.  Hirsch  of  Chicago,  who  calls  himself,  and  he 
is,  a  thorough  American.  He  represents  a  people  whose  con¬ 
tributions  to  the  religion  of  the  world  are  certainly  greater  than 
those  of  any  other  nation,  and  I  have  great  pleasure  in  intro¬ 
ducing  Dr.  Hirsch  to  this  parliament.”  Dr.  Hirsch  spoke  as 
follows : 

The  domain  of  religion  is  co-extensive  with  the  confines  of  humanity. 
For  man  is  by  nature  not  only,  as  Aristotle  puts  the  case,  the  political — he 
is  as  clearly  the  religious  creature.  Religion  is  one  of  the  natural  func¬ 
tions  of  the  human  soul;  it  is  one  of  the  natural  conditions  of  human,  as 
distinct  from  mere  animal,  life.  To  this  proposition  ethnology  and  sociol¬ 
ogy  bear  abundant  testimony.  Man  alone  in  the  wide  sweep  of  creation 
builds  altars.  And  wherever  man  may  tent  there  also  will  curve  upward 
the  burning  incense  of  his  sacrifice,  or  the  sweeter  savor  of  his  aspirations 
after  the  better,  the  diviner,  light.  However  rude  the  form  of  society  in 
which  he  moves,  or  however  refined  and  complex  the  social  organism,  relig¬ 
ion  never  fails  to  be  among  the  determining  forces  one  of  the  most  potent. 
It,  under  all  types  of  social  architecture,  will  be  active  as  one  of  the  decis¬ 
ive  influences  rounding  out  individual  life,  and  lifting  it  into  significance 
for  and  under  the  swifter  and  stronger  current  of  the  social  relations.  Cli¬ 
matic  and  historical  accidents  may  modify,  and  do,  the  action  of  this  all- 
pervading  energy.  But  under  every  sky  it  is  vital  and  under  all  temporary 
conjunctures  it  is  quick. 


ELEMENTS  OF  UNIVERSAL  RELIGION. 


817 


A  man  without  religion  is  not  normal.  There  may  be  those  in  whom 
this  function  approaches  atrophy.  But  they  are  undeveloped  or  crippled 
specimens  of  the  completer  type.  Their  condition  recalls  that  of  the  color¬ 
blind  or  the  deaf.  Can  they  contend  that  their  defect  is  proof  of  supe¬ 
riority?  As  well  might  those  bereft  of  the  sense  of  hearing  insist  that, 
because  to  them  the  reception  of  sound  is  denied,  the  universe  around  them 
is  a  vast  ocean  of  unbroken  silence.  A  society  without  religion  has 
nowhere  yet  been  discovered.  Religion  may  then,  in  ver>  truth,  be  said  to 
be  the  universal  distinction  of  man. 

Still  the  universal  religion  has  as  yet  not  been  evolved  in  the  procession 
of  the  suns.  It  is  one  of  the  blessings  yet  to  come.  There  are  now  even 
known  to  men  and  revered  by  them  great  religious  systems  which  pretend 
to  universality.  And  who  w^ould  deny  that  Buddhism,  Christianity,  and 
the  faith  of  Islam  present  many  of  the  characteristic  elements  of  the  uni¬ 
versal  faith?  In  its  ideas  and  ideals  the  religion  of  the  prophets,  notably 
as  enlarged  by  those  of  the  Babylonian  exile,  also  deserves  to  be  num¬ 
bered  among  the  proclamations  of  a  wider  outlook  and  a  higher  uplook. 
These  systems  are  no  longer  ethnic.  They  thus,  the  three  in  full  practice 
and  the  last  mentioned  in  spirited  intention,  have  passed  beyond  some  of 
the  most  notable  limitations  which  are  fundamental  in  other  forms  created 
by  the  religious  needs  of  man.  They  have  advanced  far  on  the  road  lead¬ 
ing  to  the  ideal  goal;  and  modern  man,  in  his  quest  for  the  elements  of  the 
still  broader  universal  faith,  will  never  again  retrace  his  steps  to  go  back  to 
the  mile-posts  these  have  leH  behind  on  their  climb  up  the  heights.  The 
three  great  religions  have  emancipated  themselves  from  the  bondage  of 
racial  tests  and  national  divisions.  Race  and  nationality  can  not  circum¬ 
scribe  the  fellowship  of  the  larger  communion  of  the  faithful,  a  com¬ 
munion  destined  to  embrace  in  one  covenant  all  the  children  of  man. 

Race  is  accidental,  not  essential,  in  manhood.  Color  is  indeed  only  skin 
deep  No  caste  or  tribe,  even  were  we  to  concede  the  absolute  purity  of 
the  blood  flowing  in  the  arteries,  an  assumption  which  could  in  no  case  be 
verified  by  the  actual  facts  of  the  case,  can  lay  claim  to  superior  sanctity. 
None  is  nearer  the  heart  of  God  than  another.  He  certainly  who  takes  his 
survey  of  humanity  from  the  outlook  of  religion,  and  from  this  point  of  view 
remembers  the  serious  possibilities  and  the  sacred  obligations  of  human 
life,  can  not  adopt  the  theory  that  spirit  is  the  exponent  of  animal  nature. 
Yet  such  would  be  the  conclusion  if  the  doctrine  of  chosen  races  and  tribes 
is  at  all  to  be  u^ed.  The  racial  element  is  merely  the  animal  substratum 
of  our  being.  Brain  and  blood  may  be  crutches  which  the  mind  must 
use.  But  mind  is  always  more  than  the  brain  with  which  it  works,  and 
the  soul’s  equation  can  not  be  solved  in  terms  of  the  blood  corpuscles,  or 
the  pigment  of  the  skin,  or  the  shape  of  the  nose,  or  the  curl  of  the  hair. 

Ezra,  with  his  insistence  that  citizenship  in  God’s  people  is  dependent 
on  Abrahamitic  pedigree,  and,  therefore,  on  the  superior  sanctity  which  by 
very  birth  the  seed  of  the  patriarch  enjoys  as  Zea  Kodesh,  does  not  voice 
the  broader  and  truer  views  of  those  that  would  prophesy  of  the  universal 
faith.  Indeed,  the  apostles  of  Christianity  after  Paul,  the  Pundits  of 
Buddhism,  the  Imams  of  Islam,  and  last,  though  not  least,  the  rabbis  of 
modern  Judaism,  have  abandoned  the  narrow  prejudice  of  the  Scribe.  God 
is  no  respecter  of  j)ersons.  In  His  sight  it  is  the  black  heart  and  not  the 
black  skin,  the  crooked  deed  and  not  the  curved  nose,  which  excludes. 
National  affinities  and  memories,  however  potent  for  good,  and  though  more 
spiritual  than  racial  bonds,  are  still  too  narrow  to  serve  as  foundation 
stones  for  the  temple  of  all  humanity. 

The  day  of  national  religions  is  past.  The  God  of  the  universe  speaks 
to  all  mankind.  He  is  not  the  God  of  Israel  alone,  not  that  of  Moab,  of 
Egypt,  Greece,  or  America.  He  is  not  domiciled  in  Palestine.  The  Jordan 
and  the  Ganges,  the  Tiber  and  the  Euphrates  hold  water  wherewith  the 


Siz  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

devout  may  be  baptized  unto  His  service  and  redemption.  “  Whither  shall 
I  ^o  from  Thy  spirit?  Whither  flee  from  Thy  presence?  ”  exclaims  the  old 
Hebrew  bard.  And  before  his  wandering  gaze  unrolled  itself  the  awful 
certainty  that  the  heavenly  divisions  of  morning  and  night  were  obliterated 
in  the  all-embracing  sweep  of  divine  law  and  love.  If  the  wide  expanses  of 
the  skies  and  the  abysses  of  the  deep  can  not  shut  out  from  the  divine  ])res- 
ence,  can  the  pigmy  barriers  erected  by  man  and  preserved  by  political 
intrigues  and  national  pride  dam  in  the  mighty  stream  of  divine  love?  The 
Prophet  of  Islam  repeats  the  old  Hebrew  singer’s  joy  when  he  says:  “The 
East  is  God’s  and  the  West  is  His,”  as  indeed  the  apostle  true  to  the  spirit 
of  the  prophetic  message  of  Messianic  Judaism  refused  to  tolerate  the  line 
of  cleavage  marked  by  language  or  national  affinity.  Greek  and  Jew  are 
invited  by  Him  to  the  citizenship  of  kingdom  come. 

The  church  universal  must  have  the  pentecostal  gif  t  of  the  many  flaming 
tongues  in  it,  as  the  rabbis  say  was  the  case  at  Sinai.  God’s  revelation 
must  be  sounded  in  every  language  to  every  land.  But,  and  this  is  essen¬ 
tial  as  marking  a  new  advance,  the  universal  religion  for  all  the  children  of 
Adam  will  not  palisade  its  courts  by  the  pointed  and  forbidding  stakes  of 
a  creed.  Creeds  in  time  to  come  will  be  recognized  to  be  indeed  cruel  barbed- 
wire  fences,  wounding  those  who  would  stray  to  broader  pastures,  and 
hurting  others  who  would  come  in.  Will  it  for  this  be  a  Godless  church? 
Ah,  no;  it  will  have  much  more  of  God  than  the  churches  and  synagogues 
with  their  dogmatic  definitions  now  possess.  Coming  man  will  not  be 
ready  to  resign  the  crown  of  his  glory,  which  is  his  by  virtue  of  his  feeling 
h  imself  to  be  the  son  of  God.  He  will  not  change  the  church’s  creed  for 
that  still  more  presumptuous  and  deadening  one  of  materialism,  which  would 
ask  his  acceptance  of  the  hopeless  perversion  that  the  world  which  sweeps 
by  us  in  such  sublime  harmony  and  order  is  not  cosmos  but  chaos — is  the 
fortuitous  outcome  of  the  chance-play  of  atoms,  producing  consciousness 
by  the  interaction  of  their  own  unconsciousness.  Man  will  not  extinguish 
the  light  of  his  own  higher  life  by  shutting  his  eyes  to  the  telling  indications 
of  purpose  in  history,  a  purpose  which,  when  revealed  to  him  in  the  out¬ 
come  of  his  own  career,  he  may  well  find  reflected  also  in  the  inter-related 
life  nature.  But,  for  all  this,  man  will  learn  a  new  modesty  now  woefully 
lacking  to  so  many  who  honestly  deem  themselves  religious.  His  God  will 
not  be  a  figment,  cold  and  distant,  of  metaphysics,  nor  a  distorted  caricature 
of  embittered  theology.  “Can  man  by  searching  find  out  God?”  asks  the 
old  Hebrew  poet.  And  the  ages  so  flooded  with  religious  strife  are  vocal 
with  the  stinging  rebuke  to  all  creed-builders  that  man  can  not.  Man  bows 
unto  the  knowledge  of  God,  but  not  to  him  is  vouchsafed  that  fullness  of 
knowledge  which  would  warrant  his  arrogance  to  hold  that  his  blurred 
vision  is  the  full  light,  and  that  there  can  be  none  other  might  which 
reports  truth  as  does  his. 

Says  Maimonides,  greatest  thinker  of  the  many  Jewish  philosophers  of 
the  middle  ages:  “  Of  God  we  may  merely  assert  that  He  is;  what  He  is 
in  Himself  we  can  not  know.  ‘  My  thoughts  are  not  your  thoughts  and  My 
ways  are  not  your  ways.’  ”  This  prophetic  caution  will  resound  in  clear 
notes  in  the  ears  of  all  who  will  worship  in  the  days  to  come  at  the  uni¬ 
versal  shrine.  They  will  cease  their  futile  efforts  to  give  a  definition  of 
Him  who  can  not  be  defined  in  human  symbols.  They  will  certainly  be 
astonished  at  our  persistence — in  their  eyes  very  blasphemy — to  describe 
by  article  of  faith  God,  as  though  He  were  a  fugitive  from  justice,  and  a 
Pinkerton  detective  should  be  enabled  to  capture  Him  by  the  identification 
laid  down  in  the  catalogue  of  His  attributes.  The  religion  universal  will 
not  presume  to  regulate  God’s  government  of  this  world  by  circumscribing 
the  sphere  of  His  possible  salvation,  and  declaring  as  though  He  had  taken 
us  into  His  counsel  whom  He  must  save  and  whom  He  may  not  save.  The 
universal  religion  will  once  more  make  the  God  idea  a  vital  principle  of 


ELEMENTS  OF  UNIVERSAL  RELIGION. 


819 


human  life.  It  will  teach  men  to  find  Him  in  their  own  heart  and  to  have 
Him  with  them  in  whatever  they  may  do.  No  mortal  has  seen  God’s  face, 
but  he  who  opens  his  heart  to  the  message  will,  like  Moses  on  the  lonely 
rock,  behold  Him  pass  and  hear  the  solemn  proclamation. 

It  is  not  in  the  storm  of  fanaticism  nor  in  the  fire  of  prejudice,  but  in 
the  still  small  voice  of  conscience  that  God  speaks  and  is  to  be  found.  He 
believes  in  God  who  lives  a  Godlike,  i.  e.,  a  goodly  life.  Not  he  that 
mumbles  his  credo,  but  he  who  lives  it,  is  accepted.  Were  those  marked 
for  glory  by  the  great  Teacher  of  Nazareth  who  wore  the  largest  phylac¬ 
teries?  Is  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  a  creed?  Was  the  Decalogue  a  creed? 
Character  and  conduct,  not  creed,  will  be  the  keynote  of  the  gospel  in  the 
Church  of  Humanity  Universal. 

But  what  then  about  sin?  Sin,  as  a  theological  imputation,  will,  per¬ 
haps,  drop  out  of  the  vocabulary  of  this  larger  communion  of  the  righteous. 
But  as  a  weakness  to  be  overcome,  an  imperfection  to  be  laid  aside,  man 
will  be  as  potently  reminded  of  his  natural  shortcomings  as  he  is  now  oHhat 
of  his  first  progenitor,  over  whose  conduct  he  certainly  had  no  control  and  for 
whose  misdeed  he  should  not  be  held  accountable.  Religion  will  then,  as 
now,  lift  man  above  his  weaknesses  by  reminding  him  of  his  responsibili¬ 
ties.  The  goal  before  is  Paradise.  Eden  is  to  rise.  It  has  not  yet  been. 
And  the  life  of  the  great  and  good  and  saintly  who  went  about  doing  good 
in  their  generations,  and  who  died  that  others  might  live,  will  for  very 
truth  be  pointed  out  as  the  spring  from  which  have  fiown  the  waters  of 
salvation,  by  whose  magic  efficacy  all  men  may  be  washed  clean,  if  bap¬ 
tized  in  the  spirit  which  was  living  within  these  God-appointed  redeemers 
of  their  infirmities. 

This  religion  will  indeed  be  for  man  to  lead  him  to  God.  Its  sacra¬ 
mental  word  will  be  duty.  Labor  is  not  the  curse  but  the  blessing  of 
human  life.  For  as  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  the  Creator,  it  is  his  to 
create.  Earth  was  given  him  for  his  habitation.  He  changed  it  from 
Tohu  into  his  home.  A  theology  and  a  monotheism,  which  will  not  leave 
room  in  this  world  for  man’s  free  activity  and  dooms  him  to  passive  inac¬ 
tivity,  will  not  harmonize  with  the  truer  recognition  that  man  and  God 
are  the  co-relates  of  a  working  plan  of  life.  Sympathy  and  resignation 
are  indeed  beautiful  fiowers  grown  in  the  garden  of  many  a  tender  and 
noble  human  heart.  But  it  is  active  love  and  energy  which  alone  can 
push  on  the  chariot  of  human  progress,  and  progress  is  the  gradual  reali¬ 
zation  of  the  divine  spirit  which  is  incarnate  in  every  human  being.  This 
principle  will  assign  to  religion  once  more  the  place  of  honor  among  the 
redeeming  agencies  of  society  from  the  bondage  of  selfishness.  On  this 
basis  every  man  is  every  other  man’s  brother,  not  merely  in  misery  but  in 
active  work.  “As  you  have  done  to  the  least  of  these  you  have  done  unto  Me,” 
will  be  the  guiding  principle  of  human  conduct  in  all  the  relations  into 
which  human  life  enters.  No  more  than  Cain’s  enormous  excuse,  a  scath¬ 
ing  accusation  of  himself,  “Am  I  my  brother's  keeper?  ”  no  longer  will  be 
tolerated  or  condoned  the  double  standard  of  morality,  one  for  Sunday  and 
the  church  and  another  diametrically  opposed  for  week-days  and  the  count¬ 
ing-room.  Not  as  now  will  be  heard  the  cynic  insistence  that  “  business  is 
business,  ”  and  has  as  business  no  connection  with  the  Decalogue  or  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Religion  wall,  as  it  did  in  Jesus,  penetrate  into  all 
the  relations  of  human  society.  Not  then  will  men  be  rated  as  so  many 
hands  to  be  bought  at  the  lowest  possible  price,  in  accordance  with  a  deified 
law  of  supply  and  demand,  which  can  not  stop  to  consider  such  sentimen¬ 
talities  as  the  fact  that  these  hands  stand  for  souls  and  hearts. 

An  invidious  distinction  obtains  now  between  secular  and  sacred. 

It  will  be  wiped  aw^ay.  Every  thought  and  every  deed  of  man  must  be 
holy,  or  it  is  unworthy  of  men.  Did  Jesus  merely  regard  the  temxjl©  as 
holy?  Did  Buddha  merely  have  religion  on  one  or  two  hours  of  the  Sab- 


820 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


bath?  Did  not  an  earlier  prophet  deride  and  condemn  all  ritual  religion? 
“  Wash  ye,  make  ye  clean.”  Was  this  not  the  burden  of  Isaiah’s  religion? 
The  religion  universal  will  be  true  to  these,  its  forerunners. 

But  what  about  death  and  hereafter?  This  religion  will  not  dim  the 
hope  which  has  been  man's  since  the  first  day  of  his  stay  on  earth.  But  it 
will  be  most  emphatic  in  winning  men  to  the  conviction  that  a  life  worthily 
spent  here  on  earth  is  the  best,  is  the  only  preparation  for  heaven.  Said 
the  old  rabbis:  “  One  hour  spent  here  in  truly  good  works  and  in  the  true 
intimacy  with  God  is  more  precious  than  all  life  to  be.”  The  egotism  which 
now  mars  so  often  the  aspirations  of  our  souls,  the  scramble  for  glory  which 
comes  while  we  forget  duty,  will  be  replaced  by  a  serene  trust  in  the  eternal 
justice  of  Him,  “  in  whom  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being.”  To 
have  done  religiously,  will  be  a  reward  sweeter  than  which  none  can  be 
offered.  Yea,  the  religion  of  the  future  will  be  impatient  of  men  who  claim 
that  they  have  the  right  to  be  saved,  while  they  are  perfectly  content  that 
others  shall  not  be  saved,  and  while  not  stirring  a  foot,  or  lifting  a  hand,  to 
redeem  brother  men  from  hunger  and  wretchedness,  in  the  cool  assurance 
that  this  life  is  destined  or  doomed  to  be  a  free  race  of  haggling,  snarling 
competitors,  in  which,  by  some  mysterious  will  of  Providence,  the  devil 
takes  the  hindmost. 

Will  there  be  prayer  in  the  universal  religion?  Man  will  worship,  but 
in  the  beauty  of  holiness  his  prayer  will  be  the  prelude  to  his  prayerful 
action.  Silence  is  more  reverential  and  worshipful  than  a  wild  torrent  of 
words  breathing  forth,  not  adoration  but  greedy  requests  for  favors  to  self. 
Can  an  unforgiving  heart  pray  “forgive  as  we  forgive?”  -Can  one  ask  for 
daily  bread  when  he  refuses  to  break  his  bread  with  the  hungry?  Did  not 
the  prayer  of  the  great  M  ister  of  Nazareth  thus  teach  all  men  and  all  ages 
that  prayer  must  be  the  stirring  to  love? 

Had  not  that  little  waif  caught  the  inspiration  of  our  universal  prayer, 
who,  when  first  taught  its  sublime  phrases,  persisted  in  changing  the  open¬ 
ing  words  to  “  Your  Father  which  is  in  heaven?  ”  Rebuked  time  and  again 
by  the  teacher,  he  finally  broke  out:  “  Well,  if  it  is  Our  Father,  why,  I  am 
your  brother.”  Yea,  the  gates  of  prayer  in  the  church  to  rise  will  lead  to 
the  recognition  of  the  universal  brotherhood  of  men. 

Will  this  new  faith  have  its  Bible?  It  will.  It  retains  the  old  bibles  of 
mankind,  but  gives  them  a  new  luster  by  remembering  that  “the  letter 
killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life.”  Religion  is  not  a  question  of  literature 
but  of  life.  God’s  revelation  is  continuous,  not  contained  in  tablets  of 
stone  or  sacred  parchment.  He  speaks  to-day  yet  to  those  that  would 
hear  Him.  A  book  is  inspired  when  it  inspires.  Religion  made  the  Bible, 
not  the  book  religion. 

And  what  will  be  the  name  of  this  church?  It  will  be  known  not  by  its 
founders  but  by  its  fruits.  God  replies  to  him  who  insists  upon  knowing 
His  name,  “  I  am  He  who  I  am.”  The  church  will  be.  If  any  name  it  will 
have,  it  will  be  “  the  Church  of  God,”  because  it  will  be  the  church  of  man. 

When  Jacob,  so  runs  an  old  rabbinical  legend,  weary  and  footsore,  the 
first  night  of  his  sojourn  away  from  home,  would  lay  him  down  to  sleep 
under  the  canopy  of  the  star-set  skies,  all  the  stones  of  the  field 
exclaimed:  “Take  me  for  thy  pillow.”  And  because  all  were  ready  to  serve 
him  all  were  miraculously  turned  into  one  stone.  This  became  Beth  El, 
the  gate  of  heaven.  So  will  all  religions,  because  eager  to  become  the 
pillow  of  man,  dreaming  of  God  and  beholding  the  ladder  joining  earth  to 
heaven,  be  transformed  into  one  great  rock  which  the  ages  can  not  move,  a 
foundation  stone  for  the  all-embracing  temple  of  humanity,  united  to  do 
God’s  will  with  one  accord. 


SWEDENBORG  AND  THE  HARMONY  OF  RELIGIONS.  821 


SWEDENBORG  AND  THE  HARMONY  OF  RELIGIONS. 

BEV.  L.  P.  MERCER  OE  CHICAGO. 

Before  the  closing  of  this  grand  historic  assembly,  with  its  witness  to 
the  worth  of  every  form  of  faith  by  which  men  worship  God  and  seek  com¬ 
munion  with  Him,  one  word  more  needs  to  be  spoken,  one  more  testimony 
defined,  one  more  hope  recorded. 

Every  voice  has  witnessed  to  the  recognition  of  a  new  age.  An  age  of 
inquiry,  expectation,  and  experiment  has  dawned.  New  inventions  are 
stirring  men’s  hearts,  new  ideals  inspire  their  arts,  new  physical  achieve¬ 
ments  beckon  them  on  to  one  marvelous  mastery  after  another  of  the  uni¬ 
verse.  And  now  we  see  that  the  new  freedom  of  “willing  and  thinking” 
has  entered  the  realm  of  religion,  and  the  faiths  of  the  world  are  summoned 
to  declare  and  compare  not  only  the  formulas  of  the  past  but  the  move¬ 
ments  of  the  present  and  the  forecasts  of  the  future. 

One  religious  teacher,  who  explicitly  heralded  the  new  age,  before  yet 
men  had  dreamed  of  its  possibility,  and  referred  its  causes  to  great  move¬ 
ments  in  the  centers  of  infiux  in  the  spiritual  world,  and  described  it  as 
incidental  to  great  purposes  in  the  providence  of  God,  needs  to  be  named 
from  this  platform— one  who  ranks  with  prophets  and  seers  rather  than 
with  inquirers  and  speculators;  a  revelator  rather  than  a  preacher  and 
interpreter;  one  whose  exalted  personal  character  and  transcendent  learn¬ 
ing  are  eclipsed  in  the  fruits  of  his  mission  as  a  herald  of  a  new  dispensa¬ 
tion  in  religion,  as  the  revealer  of  heavenly  arcana,  and  “restorer  of  the 
foundations  of  many  generations”;  who,  ignored  by  his  own  generation 
and  assaulted  by  its  successor,  is  honored  and  respected  in  the  present,  and 
awaits  the  thoughtful  study  which  the  expansion  and  culmination  of  the 
truth  and  the  organic  course  of  events  will  bring  with  to-morrow;  “the 
permeating  and  formative  influence”  of  whose  teachings  in  the  religious 
belief  and  life  of  to-day,  in  Christendom,  is  commonly  admitted;  who  sub¬ 
scribed  with  his  name  on  the  last  of  his  Latin  quartos — Emanuel  Sweden¬ 
borg,  “  servant  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.” 

That  Swedenborg  was  the  son  ot  a  Swedish  bishop,  a  scholar,  a  practical 
engineer,  a  man  of  science,  a  philosopher,  and  a  seer,  who  lived  between 
1683  and  1772,  is  generally  known.  That  the  first  fifty  years  of  his  remark¬ 
able  life,  devoted  to  the  pursuit  of  natural  learning  and  independent  inves¬ 
tigations  in  science  and  philosophy-,  illustrate  the  type  of  man  in  which 
one  age  believes  is  generally  conceded.  Learned,  standing  far  ahead  of  his 
generation;  exact,  trained  in  mathematical  accuracy  and  schooled  to  obser¬ 
vation;  practical,  seeing  at  once  some  useful  application  of  every  new  dis¬ 
covery;  a  man  of  affairs,  able  to  take  care  of  his  own,  and  bear  his  part  in 
the  nation’s  councils;  aspiring,  ignoring  no  useful  application,  but  content 
with  no  achievement  short  of  a  fin  d  philosophy  of  causes;  inductive,  taking 
nothing  for  granted  but  facts  of  experiment,  and  seeking  to  ascend  there¬ 
from  to  a  generalization  which  shall  explain  them — this  is  the  sort  of  man 
which  in  our  own  day  we  consider  sound  and  useful.  Such  was  the  man 
who,  at  the  age  of  fifty-six,  in  the  full  maturity  of  his  powers,  declares  that 
he  “  was  called  to  a  holy  office  by  the  Lord,  who  most  graciously  mani¬ 
fested  Himself  to  me  in  person  and  opened  my  sight  to  a  view  of  the  spirit¬ 
ual  world  and  granted  me  the  privilege  of  conversing  with  the  spirits  and 
angels.  From  that  day  forth,”  he  says,  “I  gave  up  all  worldly  learning 
and  labored  only  in  spiritual  things  according  to  what  the  Lord  commanded 
me  to  write.” 

He  tells  us  that,  while  in  the  body,  yet  in  a  state  of  seership,  and  thus 
able  to  note  the  course  of  events  in  both  worlds  and  locate'the  stupendous 
transactions  in  the  spiritual  world  in  earthly  time,  he  witnessed  a  last 
judgment  in  the  world  of  spirits  in  1757,  fulfilling  in  every  respect  the 


822 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


predictions  in  the  gospel  and  in  the  apocalypse;  that  he  beheld  the  Lord 
open  in  all  the  scriptures  the  things  concerning  Himself,  revealing  in  their 
eternal  sense  the  divine  meaning,  the  whole  course  and  purpose  of  His 
providence,  organizing  a  new  heaven  of  angels  out  of  every  nation,  and 
kindred,  and  tongue,  and  co-ordinating  it  with  the  ancient  and  most  ancient 
heavens  for  the  inauguration  of  a  new  dispensation  of  religion,  and  of  the 
church  universal;  and  that  this  new  dispensation  began  in  the  spiritual 
world,  is  carried  down  and  inaugurated  among  men  by  the  revelation  of  the 
spiritual  sense  and  divine  meaning  of  the  sacred  scriptures,  in  and  by 
means  of  which  He  makes  His  X)romised  second  advent,  which  is  spiritual 
and  universal,  to  gather  up  and  comiDlete  all  past  and  partial  revelations,  to 
consummate  and  crown  the  dispensations  and  churches  which  have  been 
upon  the  earth. 

The  Christian  world  is  incredulous  of  such  an  event,  and,  for  the  most 
part,  heedless  of  its  announcement.  But  that  does  not  much  signify, 
except  as  it  makes  one  with  the  whole  course  of  history  as  to  the 
reception  of  divine  announcements.  What  prophet  was  ever  wel¬ 
comed  until  the  event  had  i3roved  his  message?  The  question 
is  not  whether  it  meets  the  expectation  of  men,  not  whether  it  is  what 
human  prudence  would  forecast,  but  whether  it  reveals  and  meets  the 
needs  and  necessities  of  the  nations  of  the  earth.  “My  thoughts  are  not 
your  thoughts,”  saith  the  Lord,  “neither  are  your  ways  My  ways.”  The 
great  movements  of  divine  Providence  are  never  what  men  anticipate,  but 
they  always  provide  what  men  need.  And  the  appeal  to  the  Parliament  of 
Religions  in  behalf  of  the  revelation  announced  from  heaven  is  in  its 
ability  to  prove  its  divinity  by  ou trenching  abundantly  all  human  fore¬ 
cast  whatsoever.  Does  it  throw  its  light  over  the  past,  and  into  the  jwes- 
ent,  and  project  its  promise  into  the  future?  Does  it  illuminate  and  unify 
history,  elucidate  the  conflicting  movements  of  to-day,  and  explain  the 
hopes  and  yearnings  of  the  heart  in  every  age  and  clime? 

*  There  is  not  time  at  this  hour  for  exposition  and  illustration,  only  to 
indicate  the  catholicity  of  Swedenborg’s  teachings  in  its  spirit,  scope,  and 
purpose.  There  is  one  God  and  one  church.  As  God  is  one,  the  human 
race,  in  the  complex  movements  of  its  growth  and  history,  is  before  Him 
as  one  greatest  man.  It  has  had  its  ages  in  their  order  corresponding  to 
infancy,  childhood,  youth,  and  manhood  in  the  individual.  As  the  one  God 
is  the  Father  of  all  He  has  witnessed  Himself  in  every  age  according  to  its 
state  and  necessities.  The  divine  case  has  not  been  confined  to  one  line  of 
human  descent,  nor  the  revelation  of  God’s  will  to  one  set  of  miraculously 
given  scriptures. 

The  great  religions  of  the  world  have  their  origin  in  that  same 
word  or  mind  of  God  which  wrote  itself  through  Hebrew  lawgiver  and 
prophet  and  became  incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ.  He,  as  “  the  Word  which 
was  in  the  beginning  of  God  and  was  God,”  was  the  light  of  every  age  in 
the  spiritual  development  of  mankind,  preserving  and  carrying  over  the 
life  of  each  into  the  several  streams  of  tradition  in  the  religions  of  men 
concerning  and  embodying  all  in  the  Hebrew  scriptuves;  fulfilling  that  in 
His  own  person,  and  now  opening  His  divine  mind  in  all  that  scripture,  the 
religions  of  the  world  are  to  be  restored  to  unity,  purified,  and  perfected  in 
Him. 

Nor  in  this  world  Sweden  borgian,  the  liberal  sentiment  of  good  will  and 
the  enthusiasm  of  hope,  but  the  discovery  of  divine  fact  and  the  rational 
insight  of  s^jiritnal  understanding.  He  has  shown  that  the  sacred  scriptures 
are  written  according  to  the  correspondence  of  national  with  spiritual  things, 
and  that  they  contain  an  internal  spiritual  sense, treating  of  the  providence 
of  God  in  the  dispensations  of  the  church  and  of  the  regeneration  and 
sjjiritual  life  of  the  soul.  Before  Abraham  there  was  the  church  of  Noah, 
and  before  the  word  of  Moses  there  was  an  ancient  word,  written  in  allegory 


SWEDENBORG  AND  THE  HARMONY  OF  RELIGIONS.  823 


and  correspondences,  which  the  ancients  understood  and  loved,  but  in 
process  of  time  turned  into  magic  and  idolatry.  The  ancient  church  scat¬ 
tered  into  Egypt  and  Asia,  carried  fragments  of  that  ancient  word  and 
preserved  something  of  its  representatives  aud  allegories,  in  scriptures  and 
mythologies,  from  which  have  come  the  truths  and  fables  of  the  Oriental 
religions,  modified  according  to  nations  and  peoples,  and  revived  from  time 
to  time  in  the  teachings  of  leaders  and  prophets. 

From  the  same  ancient  word  Moses  derived,  under  divine  direction,  the 
early  chapters  of  Genesio,  and  to  this,  in  the  order  of  Providence,  was  added 
the  law  and  the  prophets.  The  history  of  the  incarnation  and  the  prophecy 
of  final  judgment  of  God,  all  so  written  as  to  contain  an  integral  spiritual 
sense,  corres^jonding  with  the  latter,  but  distinct  from  it,  as  the  soul  corre¬ 
sponds  with  the  body,  and  is  distinct  and  transcends  it.  It  is  the  opening 
of  this  internal  sense  in  all  the  holy  scriptures,  and  not  any  addition  to  their 
final  letter,  which  constitutes  the  new  and  needed  revelation  of  our  day. 
The  sciences  of  correspondences  is  the  key  which  unlocks  the  scriptures 
and  discloses  their  internal  contents.  The  same  key  opens  the  scriptures 
of  the  Orient  and  traces  them  back  to  their  source  in  primitive  revelation. 

If  it  shows  that  their  myths  and  representatives  have  been  misunder¬ 
stood,  misrepresented,  and  misapplied,  it  shows,  also,  that  the  Hebrew  and 
Christian  scriptures  have  been  likewise  perverted  and  falsified.  It  is  that 
very  fact,  which  necessitates  the  revelation  of  their  internal  meaning,  in 
which  resides  their  divine  inspiration  and  the  life  of  rational  understanding 
for  the  separation  of  truth  from  error.  The  same  rational  life  and  science  of 
interpretation  separates  the  great  primitive  truths  from  the  corrupting 
speculations  and  traditions  in  all  the  ancient  religions,  and  furnishes  the 
key  to  unlock  the  myths  and  symbols  in  ancient  scriptures  and  worship. 

If  Swedenborg  reveals  errors  and  superstitions  in  the  religions  out  of 
Christendom,  so  does  he  also  show  that  the  current  Christian  faith  and 
worship  is  largely  the  invention  of  men  and  falsifying  of  the  Christian’s 
Bible.  If  he  promises,  and  shows  true  faith  and  life  to  the  Christian  from 
the  scriptures,  so  does  he  also  to  the  Gentiles  in  leading  them  back  to  primi¬ 
tive  revelation,  and  showing  them  the  meaning  of  their  own  aspirations  for 
the  light  of  life.  If  he  sets  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  word  above  all  other 
sacred  scripture,  it  is  because  it  brings,  as  now  opened  in  its  scriptural 
depths,  the  divine  sanction  to  all  the  est,  and  gathers  their  strains  into  its 
sublime  symphony  of  revelation. 

So  much  as  the  indication  what  Swedenborg  does  for  catholic  enlight¬ 
enment  in  spiritual  wisdom.  As  for  salvation,  he  teaches  that  God  has 
provided  with  every  nation  a  witness  of  Himself  and  means  of  eternal  life. 
He  is  present  by  His  spirit  with  all.  He  gives  the  good  of  His  love,  which 
is  life,  internally  and  impartially  to  all.  All  know  that  there  is  a  God,  and 
that  He  is  to  be  loved  and  obeyed;  that  there  is  a  life  after  death,  and 
that  there  are  evils  which  are  to  be  shunned  as  sins  against  God.  So  far 
as  anyone  so  believes  and  so  lives  from  i  principle  of  religion,  he  receives 
eternal  life  in  his  soul,  and  after  death  instruction  and  perfection  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  sincerity  of  his  life. 

No  teaching  could  be  more  catholic  than  this,  showing  that  “  whomso¬ 
ever  in  any  nation  feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  of 
Him.”  If  he  sets  forth  Jesus  Christ  as  the  only  wise  God,  in  whom,  in 
the  fullness  of  the  God-head,  it  is  Christ  glorified  and  realizing  to  the  mind, 
the  infinite  and  eternal  lover,  and  thinker,  and  doer,  a  real  and  personal 
God,  our  Father  and  Savior.  If  He  summons  all  prophets  and  teachers  to 
bring  their  honor  and  glory  unto  Him,  it  is  not  as  to  a  conquering  rival  but 
as  to  their  inspiring  life,  whose  word  they  have  spoken  and  whose  work 
they  have  wrought  out.  If  He  brings  all  good  s^jirits  in  the  other  life  to  the 
acknowledgement  of  the  glorified  Christ  as  the  only  God,  it  is  because  they 
have  in  heart  an  essential  faith,  believe  in  Him,  and  live  for  Him,  in  living 


824 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


according  to  precepts  of  their  religion.  He  calls  himself  a  Christian  who 
lives  as  a  Christian;  and  he  lives  as  a  Christian  who  looks  to  the  one  God 
and  does  what  he  teaches,  as  he  is  able  to  know  it.  If  he  denies  reincarna¬ 
tion,  so  also  does  he  deny  sleep  in  the  grave  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
material  body. 

If  he  teaches  the  necessity  of  regeneration  and  union  with  God,  so  also 
does  he  show  that  the  subjugation  and  quiescence  of  self  is  the  true  “  Nir¬ 
vana,”  opening  consciousness  to  the  divine  life,  and  conferring  the  peace  of 
harmony  with  God. 

If  he  teaches  that  man  needs  the  Spirit  of  God  for  the  subjugation  of 
self,  he  teaches  that  the  Spirit  is  freely  imparted  to  whosoever  will  look  to 
the  law  and  shun  selfishness  as  sin.  If  he  teaches,  thus,  that  faith  is  nec¬ 
essary  to  salvation,  he  teaches  that  faith  alone  is  not  sufficient,  but  faith 
which  worketh  by  love. 

If  he  believes  that  salvation  is  of  favor,  or  immediate  mercy,  and 
affirms  that  it  is  vital  and  the  effect  of  righteousness,  he  also  teaches  that 
the  divine  righteousness  is  imparted  vitally  to  him  that  seeks  it  first  and 
above  all;  and  if  he  denies  that  several  probations  on  earth  are  necessary 
to  the  working  out  of  the  issues  of  righteousness,  it  is  because  man  enters 
a  spiritual  world,  after  death,  in  a  spiritual  body  and  personality,  and  in  an 
environment  in  which  his  ruling  love  is  developed,  his  ignorance  enlight¬ 
ened,  his  imperfections  removed,  his  good  beginnings  perfected,  until  he  is 
ready  to  be  incorporated  in  the  grand  man  of  heaven,  to  receive  and 
functionate  his  measure  of  the  divine  life,  and  participate  in  the  divine 
joy.  And  so  I  might  go  on. 

My  purpose  is  accomplished  if  I  have  won  your  respect  and  interest  in 
the  teachings  of  this  great  apostle,  who,  claiming  to  be  called  of  the  Lord 
to  open  the  scriptures,  presents  a  harmony  of  truths  that  would  gather 
into  its  embrace  all  that  is  of  value  in  every  religion,  and  open  out  into  a 
career  of  illimitable  spiritual  progress. 

The  most  unimpassioned  of  men,  perhaps  because  he  so  well  understood 
that  his  mission  was  not  his  own  but  the  concern  of  Him  who  builds 
through  the  ages,  Swedenborg  wrote  and  published.  The  result  is  a 
liberty  that  calmly  awaits  the  truth-seekers.  If  the  religions  of  the  world 
become  disciples  there,  it  will  not  be  proselytism  that  will  take  them 
there,  but  the  organic  course  of  events  in  that  providence  which  W’orks  on, 
silent  but  mighty,  like  the  forces  that  poise  planets  and  gravitate  among 
the  stars. 

Present  history  show^s  the  effect  of  unsuspected  causes.  This  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  Religions  is  itself  a  testimony  to  unseen  spiritual  causes,  and 
should  at  least  incline  to  belief  in  Swedenborg’s  testimony,  that  a  way  is 
open  both  in  the  spiritual  world  and  on  earth,  for  a  universal  church  in  the 
faith  of  one  visible  God  in  whom  is  the  invisible,  imparting  eternal  life 
and  enlightenment  to  all  from  every  nation  who  believe  in  Him  and  work 
righteousness. 


THE  WORLD’S  SALVATION. 

KEV.  JOHN  DUKE  M’fADDEN  OF  NEBRASKA. 

The  world’s  salvation  is  the  object  of  the  Brethren  Church.  John, 
whom  Jesus  loved,  said  the  world,  through  Him,  might  be  saved.  The 
world  was  lost  to  purity,  happiness,  and  heaven.  But  through  Christ  it  is 
being  brought  back  to  salvation.  In  working  for  the  world’s  salvation  we 
are  to  work  for  the  conversion  of  the  English-speaking  race.  Her  ships 
enter  every  port,  her  cars  enter  every  depot,  her  men  of  finance  enter  every 
business  center.  She  stands  and  watches  the  gate  of  every  nation,  and  her 
influence  is  felt  for  good  or  bad.  How  often  is  it  for  bad? 


THE  WORTHS  SALVATION, 


825 


England,  through  the  opium  traffic,  is  destroying  the  Chinese  nation, 
and  America,  through  the  Geary  law,  is  telling  the  world  they  are  not 
worth  saving.  We  condemn  snake  worship  in  India,  and  yet  we  feed  a 
snake  and  placate  a  serpent  that  is  more  dangerous  than  the  snake  of 
India— the  rum  constrictor— and,  strange  to  say,  the  responsibility  is  at  the 
very  door  of  American  churches.  The  thousands  of  preachers  and  mill¬ 
ions  of  church  members  could  slay  this  venomous  rum  snake  if  they  would 
rise  in  their  might  and  make  the  effort.  Let  England  and  America  be  con¬ 
verted  and  united,  and  the  world  will  be  elevated  and  nearer  complete  sal¬ 
vation. 

In  working  for  the  world’s  salvation  we  are  to  work  for  the  overthrow 
of  “  creedism.”  The  religious  world  is  divided  because  of  creeds  and  not 
because  of  God.  Theories  and  opinions  are  made  substitutes  for  truth. 
The  substitutes  are  relied  on  and  the  truth  is  left  in  the  background.  The 
prophet’s  staff  could  not  put  new  life  in  the  dead  boy;  the  man  of  God 
must  touch  and  breathe  in  him.  And  human  creeds  can  not  give  life  to 
the  dying  race  of  men;  God  Himself  must  touch  and  heal  and  save.  Christ 
was  the  greatest  of  men,  the  only  man  God  ever  publicly  acknowledged  as 
His  son.  As  He  came  from  the  baptismal  waters  the  Divine  Being  said: 
“  This  is  my  beloved  son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.”  This  man  who  came 
to  save  the  lost  did  not  preach  creedism  but  the  word.  This  was  why  the 
common  people  heard  Him  gladly.  The  word  of  truth  satisfied  their  spirit 
and  enabled  them  to  taste  and  see. 

God  is  good.  The  church  I  represent  takes  the  Word  of  God  for  its  guide 
in  religious  faith  and  practice.  Where  it  is  silent  we  can  not  command; 
where  it  speaks  we  must  echo.  By  that  word  we  are  to  be  judged,  and 
by  it  we  are  to  shape  our  action  until  we  reach  the  judgment.  In  working 
for  the  world’s  salvation  we  are  to  work  for  the  union  of  all  God’s  forces. 
Ezekiel  says:  “Make  a  chain,  for  the  land  is  filled  with  bloody  crimes  and 
the  city  is  filled  with  violence.”  The  pulpits  and  churches  and  organiza¬ 
tions  must  be  linked  together  for  the  work  of  saving  from  crime  and  vio¬ 
lence.  The  same  writer,  in  his  vision,  saw  united  a  figure  having  the  face 
of  a  man,  of  a  lion,  of  an  eagle,  and  of  an  ox — united  for  God’s  work.  He 
teaches  the  union  of  different  forces  for  a  great  object.  I  believe  that  God 
wants  the  union  of  America,  and  Europe,  and  Asia,  and  Africa.  Union  for 
salvation,  for  the  lifting  up  of  humanity.  For  this  purpose  God  made  all 
nations  of  one  blood,  and  for  this  purpose  the  Master  prayed,  and  that 
prayer  God  will  answer  through  all  who  do  His  will. 

In  working  for  this  wonderful  object,  let  us  keep  in  view  the  fact  that 
there  will  be  held  another  Parliament  of  Religions  in  that  great  city,  the  new 
Jerusalem,  with  its  jasper  walls  and  gates  of  pearl,  its  streets  of  gold  and 
rainbow-gilded  throne,  its  tree  of  life  and  river  clear  as  crystal,  its  sea  of 
glass  mingled  with  fire  and  wonders  untold.  The  angelic  and  redeemed 
hosts  of  heaven,  with  those  who  come  from  the  North  and  the  South,  and 
the  East  and  the  West,  shall  form  a  parliament  where  the  union  shall  be 
eternal,  for  there  is  the  fullness  of  joy  and  pleasures  for  evermore.  Between 
that  parliament  and  this  there  is  a  gateway.  On  the  arch  are  the  letters 
D — E — A — T — H.  Through  that  gateway  we  must  pass,  and  if  we  develop 
character  until  we  reach  the  arch  we  may  interpret  the  letters.  D  stands 
for  disciple,  E  enter,  A  and,  T  travel,  H  heavenward.  Death  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  means  disciple  enter  and  travel  heavenward. 


826 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


THE  ONLY  POSSIBLE  METHOD  OF  RELIGIOUS 

UNIFICATION. 

REV.  DR.  WILLIAM  R.  ALGER  OF  NEW  YORK. 

In  considering-  the  subject  that  now  asks  your  attention,  “  The  Only 
Possible  Method  of  Religious  Unification,”  we  must  work  our  way  to  the 
solution  of  the  problem  by  defining  our  terms  and  distinguishing  the  steps. 
What  is  unity?  The  most  authoritative  speculative  thinker  that  ever 
lived  has  given  the  only  possible  detinition  of  unity  that  ever  has  or  ever 
can  be  given:  “Unity  is  the  measure  of  genus  and  the  head  or  iminciple.” 
Unity,  therefore,  is  not  oneness  within  itself,  a  series  of  self-distinction  in  a 
free  whole.  No  unity  can  be  divided,  but  every  unity  can  be  indefinitely 
multiplied.  There  is  no  real  unity,  except  a  person,  a  free  spirit;  and  the 
genus  of  that  order  of  individuals  is  God.  God  is  the  measure  of  all  per¬ 
sonalities.  God  is  Himself  an  absolute,  self-determined,  and  free  self-con¬ 
sciousness — that  is,  the  measure  of  genus  and  the  head  of  the  innumerable 
number  of  its  representatives.  Unification  is  the  taking  up  of  many  into 
an  already  existing  unity,  and  the  pervasion  of  the  many  by  the  one.  All 
unities  are  derived  from  God,  the  absolute  unity. 

Fourteen  hundred  million  human  beings  represent  a  generic  unity  of 
mankind.  How  can  they  be  unified  ?  Never  by  any  mere  struggles  of 
their  own,  but  just  in  proportion  as  they  face  their  egoistic  wills  and 
replace  them  with  the  divine  will  they  become  unified.  The  ideal  unity 
of  the  human  race  already  exists  in  the  mind  and  purpose  of  God  and 
in  the  developing  destiny  of  the  human  race,  but  alas!  it  is  not  con¬ 
sciously  recognized  by  the  component  individuals  who  represent  it,  and  is 
not  manifested  by  them  in  their  own  voluntary  activity.  Why?  The  rea¬ 
son  why  is,  this  cosmic  spirit,  of  which  Professor  Huxley  has  so  recently 
spoken,  the  insurrectionary  spirit  of  the  parts,  is  the  rebellion  of  the  parts 
against  the  whole.  This  insurrectionary  spirit  is  a  personification,  a  col¬ 
lectivity  in  a  person,  an  act  of  sin-guilt.  It  is  evil,  but  not  guilt.  Guilt 
comes  in  with  the  voluntary  rebellion  of  the  individual  free  spirit.  Lib¬ 
erals  have  rebelled,  but  they  simply  blink  at  the  whole  problem  of  evil,  and 
assert  “  there  is  no  evil,  man  is  divine.”  Man  is  not  divine  in  actuality;  he 
is  in  potentiality.  Man  is  a  rational  animal.  He  is  a  divine  animal.  The 
animality  is  actual,  until  he  develops  the  potentiality  by  voluntary  co-oper¬ 
ation  with  divine  grace. 

The  first  form  of  partial  unification  of  the  human  race  is  the  aesthetic 
unification.  The  second  step  is  the  scientific  unification,  the  third  is  the 
essential,  the  fourth  is  the  political  unification  by  the  establishment  of  an 
international  code  for  the  settlement  of  all  disputes  by  reason.  The  fifth 
will  be  the  commercial  and  social,  the  free  circulation  of  all  the  component 
items  of  humanity  through  the  whole  of  humanity.  Our  commerce,  steam¬ 
ships,  telegraphs  and  telephone,  and  so  forth,  the  ever-increasing  travel  is 
rapidly  bringing  that  about,  but  the  commercial  spirit,  as  such,  is  cosmic, 
is  selfish.  They  seek  to  make  money  out  of  others  by  the  principle  of  profit, 
getting  more  than  they  should.  The  next  partial  form  of  unification  is  the 
economic.  The  economic  unification  of  the  human  race  will  be  what?  The 
transfer  of  civilization  from  its  pecuniary  basis  to  the  basis  of  labor.  The 
whole  effort  of  the  human  race  must  not  be  to  purchase  goods  and  sell 
them  in  order  to  make  money.  It  must  be  to  produce  goods  and  distribute 
them  on  the  principles  of  justice  for  the  supply  of  human  wants,  without 
any  profit.  The  pursuit  of  money  is  cosmic  and  hostile.  The  money  I  get 
nobody  else  can  have;  but  the  spirit  of  co-operation  is  unifying  and  universal, 
because  in  the  spiritual  order  there  is  no  division,  there  is  nothing  but 
wholes.  The  knowledge  I  have  all  may  have,  without  division.  And  when 
we  work  in  co-operation,  instead  of  antagonism,  in  producing  and  distrib¬ 
uting  the  goods  of  this  life,  the  interests  of  all  men  will  be  one — namely,  to 


RELIGIOUS  UNIFICATION. 


827 


reduce  cost  to  the  minimum  and  increase  product  to  the  maximum.  That 
will  abolish  waste  and  make  the  whole  earth  one  in  interest,  while  now 
they  are  bristling  with  hostility. 

There  are  three  in  unity,  if  I  may  so  speak,  unification  of  the  whole  race, 
foa:  which  seven  is  whole,  the  whole  made  up  of  six  preceding  distinctions. 
Now  the  seventh  is  a  trinity.  Let  us  see  what  are  the  three.  We  have  the 
philosophical  unification  and  the  theological  unification,  and  the  unity  of 
•  those  is  the  religious  unification.  Let  me  define.  Philosophy  is  the  science 
of  ultimate  ground.  Theology  is  the  science  of  the  first  principle.  The 
unity  of  those  two  transfused  through  the  whole  personality  and  applied  as 
the  dominant  spirit  of  life  in  the  regulation  of  conduct  through  all  its 
demands  is  religion.  That  is  the  pure,  absolute,  universal  religion,  in  which 
all  can  agree. 

The  first  great  obstacle  to  overcome  is  our  environment— our  social 
environment.  Our  social  environment,  instead  of  being  redeemed,  instead 
of  representing  the  archetype  mind  of  God,  the  redemptive,  is  cosmic,  and 
it  is  utterly  vain  for  us  to  go  and  preach  Christianity  when,  just  as  fast  as 
we  utter  these  precepts,  they  are  neutralized  by  the  atmospheric  environ¬ 
ments  in  which  they  pass.  The  great  anti-Christ  of  the  world  is  the 
un-Christian  character  and  conduct  of  Christendom.  All  through  Chris¬ 
tendom  we  preach  and  profess  one  set  of  precepts  and  practice  the  oijposite. 
We  say:  “Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  righteousness,  and  all 
else  shall  be  added  unto  us.”  We  put  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  its 
righteousness  in  the  background,  and  work  like  so  many  incarnate  devils 
for  every  form  of  self -gratification. 

The  great  obstacle  to  the  religious  unification  of  the  human  race  is  the 
irreligious,  always  associated  and  often  identified  with  the  religious.  There 
are  three  great  specifications  of  that.  First,  hatred  is  a  made  religion. 
Did  not  the  Brahmans  and  the  Mohammedans  slaughter  each  other  in  the 
streets  of  Bombay  a  few  days  ago,  hating  each  other  more  than  they  loved 
the  generic  humanity  of  God?  Did  not  the  Catholics  and  Protestants  strug¬ 
gle  furiously  and  come  near  committing  murder  in  Montreal  and  Toronto  a 
few  days  ago?  All  over  the  world  the  hatred  of  the  professors  of  religion 
for  one  another  is  irreligion  injected  into  the  very  core  of  religion.  That 
is  fatal. 

Rites  and  ceremonies  are  not  religion.  A  man  may  repeat  the  soundest 
creed  verbally  a  hundred  times  a  day  for  twenty  years.  He  may  cross  him¬ 
self  three  times  and  bend  his  knee  and  bow  his  head,  and  still  be  full  of 
pride  and  vanity;  or  he  may  omit  those  ceremonies  and  retreat  to  himself 
into  his  closet  and  shut  the  door,  and  in  struggle  with  God  efface  egoism 
and  receive  the  divine  spirit.  That  is  religion,  and  so  on  through  other 
manifestations.  We  must  arrive  at  pure,  rational,  universal  interpretations 
of  all  the  dogmas  of  theology.  We  must  interpret  every  dogma  in  such  a 
way  that  it  will  agree  with  all  other  dogmas  in  a  free  circulation  of  the 
distinctions  through  the  unity.  Then  the  human  race  can  be  united  on 
that.  They  never  can  on  the  other.  We  must  put  the  preponderating 
emphasis,  without  any  division,  on  the  ethical  aspects  of  religion  instead  of 
on  the  speculative.  Formerly  it  was  just  the  other  way.  We  are  rapidly 
coming  to  that.  The  liberalists  began  their  protests  against  the  catholic 
and  evangelical  theology  by  supporting  the  ethical — emphasizing  charac¬ 
ter  and  conduct.  But  all  the  churches  now  recognize  that  a  man  must 
have  a  good  character,  that  he  must  behave  himself  properly,  morally. 
There  is  not  one  that  doubts  or  questions  it.  These  have  become  common¬ 
places,  and  yet  the  liberals  stay  right  there  and  don’t  move  a  step. 

Liberalism  thus  far  has  been  ethical  and  shallow,  evangelicanism  has 
been  dogmatic,  tyrannical  and  cruel,  to  some  extent  irrational,  but  it  has 
always  been  profound.  It  has  battled  with  the  real  problems  which  the 
liberalists  have  simply  blinked  at,  and  settled  these  problems  in  universal 


828 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


agreement.  For  example,  the  doctrine  of  the  fall  of  Adam.  There  was  a 
real  problem.  The  world  is  full  of  evil;  God  is  perfect;  he  could  not  create 
imperfections.  How  happened  it?  Why,  man  was  created  all  right,  but  he 
fell.  It  was  an  amazingly  original,  subtle,  and  profound  stroke  to  settle  a 
real  problem.  The  liberal  came  up  and,  saying  it  was  not  the  true  solution, 
they  blinked  at  the  problem  and  denied  that  it  existed.  Now  the  real 
solution,  it  seems  to  me,  is  not  that  the  evils  in  the  universe  have  come 
a  fall. 

The  fall  of  an  archdemoniac  spirit  in  heaven  does  not  settle  the  prob¬ 
lem;  it  only  moves  it  back  one  step.  How  did  he  fall?  Why  did  he  fall? 
There  can  be  no  fall  in  the  archetypal  of  God.  Creatures  were  created  in 
freedom  to  choose  between  good  and  evil  in  order  that  through  their  free¬ 
dom  and  the  discipline  of  struggle  with  evil  jthey  might  become  the  per¬ 
fected  and  redeemed  images  of  God.  That  settles  the  problem,  and  we  can 
all  agree  on  that.  Of  course  you  want  an  hour  to  expound  it.  This  hint 
may  seem  absurd,  but  there  is  more  in  it.  Finally,  I  want  to  say  we  must 
change  the  emphasis  from  the  world  of  death  to  this  world.  Redemption 
must  not  be  postponed  to  the  future.  It  must  be  realized  on  the  earth.  I 
don’t  think  it  is  heresy  to  say  that  we  must  not  confine  the  idea  of  Christ 
to  the  mere  historic  individual,  Jesus  of  Nazareth;  but  we  must  consider 
that  Christ  is  not  merely  the  individual.  He  is  the  completed  genus  incar¬ 
nate.  He  is  the  absolute  generic  unity  of  the  human  race  in  manifesta¬ 
tion.  Therefore,  He  is  not  the  follower  of  other  men,  but  their  divine 
exemplar.  We  must  not  limit  our  worship  of  Christ  to  the  mere  historic 
person,  but  must  “See  in  the  individual  person  the  perfected  genus  of  the 
divine  humanity,  which  is  God  Himself,  and  realize  that  that  is  to  be  mul¬ 
tiplied.  It  can  not  be  divided,  but  it  may  be  multiplied  commen^urately 
with  the  dimensions  of  the  whole  human  race. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  EVOLUTION. 

PROF.  HENRY  DRUMMOND  OF  GLASGOW. 

(Read  by  Dr.  Frank  M.  Bristol.) 

No  more  fitting  theme  could  be  chosen  for  discussion  at  this  congress 
than  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  evolution.  By  evolution  I  do  not  mean 
Darwinism,  which  is  not  yet  proved,  nor  Spencerism,  which  is  incomplete, 
nor  Weisemannism,  which  is  in  the  hottest  fires  of  criticism,  but  evolution 
as  a  great  category  of  thought,  as  the  supreme  word  of  the  19th  century. 
More  than  that,  it  is  the  greatest  generalization  the  world  has  ever  known. 
The  mere  presence  of  this  doctrine  in  science  has  reacted  as  by  an  electric 
induction  on  every  surrounding  circle  of  thought.  No  truth  can  remain 
now  unaffected  by  evolution-  We  see  truth  as  a  profound  ocean  still,  but 
with  a  slow  and  ever-rising  tide.  Theology  must  reckon  with  this  tide.  We 
can  stir  this  truth  in  our  vessels  for  the  formulation  of  doctrine,  but  the 
formulation  of  doctrine  must  never  stop,  and  the  vessels  with  their  mouths 
open  must  remain  in  the  ocean.  If  we  take  them  out  the  tide  can  not  rise 
in  them,  and  we  shall  only  have  stagnant  doctrines. 

The  average  mind  looks  at  science  with  awe.  It  is  the  breaking  of  a 
fresh  seal.  It  is  the  one  chapter  of  the  world’s  history  with  which  he  is  in 
doubt.  What  it  contains  for  Christianity  or  against  it  he  knows  not. 
What  it  will  do  or  undo  he  can  not  tell.  The  problems  to  be  solved  are 
more  in  number  and  more  intricate  than  were  ever  known  before  and  he 
waits  almost  in  excitement  for  the  next  development.  And  yet  this  atti¬ 
tude  of  Christianity  is  as  free  from  false  hope  as  it  is  free  from  false  fear. 

The  idea  that  religion  is  to  be  improved  by  reason  of  its  relation  with 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  EVOLUTION. 


829 


science  is  almost  a  new  thing.  Religion  and  science  began  the  centuries 
hand  in  hand.  And  after  a  long  separation  we  now  ask  what  contributions 
has  science  to  bestow?  What  God-given  truths  is  science  bringing  now  to 
lay  at  the  feet  of  our  Christ?  True,  science  is  as  much  the  friend  of  true 
religion  as  any  branch  of  truth,  and  in  all  the  struggles  between  them  in 
the  past  they  have  both  come  out  of  the  struggles  enriched,  purified,  and 
enlarged.  The  first  fact  to  be  restored,  evolution,  has  swept  over  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  creation  and  left  it  untouched  except  for  the  better.  Science  has 
discovered  how  God  made  the  world. 

Fifty  years  ago  Darwin  wrote  in  dismay  to  Hooker  that  the  old  theory 
of  specific  creation,  that  God  made  all  species  apart  and  introduced  them 
into  the  word  one  by  one,  was  melting  away  before  his  eyes.  One  of  the 
last  books  on  Darwinism,  that  of  Alfred  Wallace,  says  in  its  opening  chap¬ 
ter  these  words: 

The  whole  scientific  and  literary  world,  even  the  whole  educated  public, 
accepts  as  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  the  origin  of  species  from  other  like 
species  by  the  ordinary  processes  of  natural  birth. 

Theology,  after  a  period  of  hesitation,  accepts  this  version.  The  hesita¬ 
tion  was  not  due  to  prejudice  but  for  the  arrival  of  the  proof.  The  doc¬ 
trine  of  evolution,  no  one  will  assert,  is  yet  proved.  It  will  be  time  for 
theology  to  be  unanimous  when  science  is  unanimous.  If  science  is  satisfied 
in  a  general  way  with  its  theory  of  evolution  as  a  method  of  creation,  assent 
is  a  cold  word  with  which  those  whose  business  it  is  to  know  and  love  the 
ways  of  God  should  welcome  it.  The  theory  of  evolution  fills  a  gap  at  the 
very  beginning  of  our  religion.  As  to  its  harmony  with  the  question  or  the 
theory  about  the  book  of  Genesis  it  may  be  that  theology- and  science  have 
been  brought  into  perfect  harmony,  but  the  era  of  the  reconcilers  is  to  be 
looked  upon  as  past.  That  was  a  necessary  era. 

Genesis  was  not  a  scientific  but  a  religious  book,  and,  there  being  no 
science  there,  theologians  put  it  there,  and  their  attempt  to  reconcile  it 
would  seem  to  be  a  mistake.  Genesis  is  a  presentation  of  one  or  two  great 
elementary  truths  of  the  childhood  of  the  world.  It  can  only  be  read  in 
the  spirit  in  which  it  was  written,  with  its  original  purpose  in  view,  and  its 
original  audience.  Its  object  was  purely  religious,  the  point  being  not  how 
certain  things  were  made,  which  is  a  question  for  science,  but  that  God 
made  them.  The  book  was  not  dedicated  to  science  but  to  the  soul.  The 
misfortune  is  that  there  is  no  one  to  announce  in  the  name  of  theology  that 
the  controversy  between  science  and  religion  is  at  an  end.  Evolution  has 
swept  over  the  religious  conception  of  origin  and  left  it  untouched  except 
for  the  better.  The  method  of  creation,  the  question  of  origin,  is  another. 
There  is  only  one  theory  of  creation  in  the  field,  and  that  is  evolution. 
Evolution  has  discovered  nothing  new  and  professes  to  know  nothing  new. 
Evolution,  instead  of  being  opposed  to  creation,  assumes  creation.  Law  is 
not  the  cause  of  the  order  of  the  world  but  the  expression  of  it.  Evolution 
only  professes  to  give  an  account  of  the  development  of  the  world;  it  does 
not  offer  to  account  for  it.  This  is  what  Professor  Tyndall  said: 

When  I  stand  in  the  springtime  and  look  upon  the  bright  foliage,  the  lilies  in 
the  field,  and  share  the  general  joy  of  opening  life  I  have  often  asked  myself 
whether  there  is  any  power,  any  being,  or  thing  in  the  universe  whose  knowledge 
of  that  of  which  I  am  so  ignorantis  greater  than  mine.  I  have  said  to  myself.  Can  it 
be  possible  that  man’s  knowledge  is  the  greatest  knowledge,  that  man’s  life  is  the 
highest  life?  My  friends,  the  profession  of  that  atheism  with  which  I  am  some¬ 
times  so  lightly  charged,  would,  in  my  case,  be  an  impossible  answer  to  this  ques¬ 
tion. 

And  more  pathetically  later,  in  connection  with  the  charge  of  atheism, 
he  said: 

Christian  men  are  proved  by  their  writings  to  have  their  hours  of  weakness 
and  of  doubt  as  well  as  their  hours  of  strength  and  conviction;  and  men  like 
myself  share  in  their  own  way  these  variations  of  mood  and  sense.  I  have  noticed 
during  years  of  self-observation  that  it  is  not  in  hours  of  clearness  and  of  vigor 


830 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


that  this  doctrine  commends  itself  to  my  mind— it  is  in  the  hours  of  stronger  and 
healthier  thought  that  it  ever  dissolves  and  disappears  as  offering  no  solution  to 
the  mystery  in  which  we  dwell  and  of  wfiich  we  form  a  part. 

Some  of  the  protests  of  science  against  theism  are  directed,  not  against 
true  theism  but  against  its  superstitious  and  irrational  forms,  which  it  is 
the  business  of  science  to  question.  What  Tyndall  calls  a  tierce  and  dis¬ 
torted  theism  is  as  much  the  enemy  of  Christianity  as  of  science;  and  if 
science  can  help  Christianity  to  destroy  it  it  does  well.  What  we  have 
really  to  fight  against  is  both  unfounded  belief  and  unfounded  unbelief,  and 
there  is  perhaps  just  as  much  of  the  one  as  of  the  other  floating  in  current 
literature.  As  Mr.  Ruskin  says:  “You  have  to  guard  against  the  dark¬ 
ness  of  the  tvyo  ox)posite  prides — the  pride  of  faith,  which  imagines  that 
the  character  of  the  Deity  can  be  proved  by  its  convictions,  and  the  pride 
of  science,  which  imagines  that  the  Deity  can  be  explained  by  its  analysis.” 
I  may  give  in  passing  the  authorized  statement  of  a  well-known  Fellow  of 
the  Royal  Society  of  London,  which,  I  need  not  remind  you,  is  the  rejjre- 
sentative  party  of  British  men  of  science.  Its  presidents  are  invariably 
men  of  the  first  rank.  This  gentleman  said: 

I  have  known  the  British  association  under  forty-one  different  presidents,  all 
leading  men  of  science.  On  looking  over  those  forty-one  names  I  count  twenty 
who,  judged  by  their  private  utterances  or  private  communications,  are  men  of 
Christian  belief  and  character,  while,  judging  by  the  same  test,  I  find  only  four 
who  disbelieve  in  any  divine  revelation.  Of  the  remaining  seventeen  some  have 
possibly  been  religious  men  and  others  may  have  been  opponents,  but  it  is  fair  to 
suppose  that  the  greater  number  have  given  no  very  serious  thought  to  the  sub¬ 
ject.  The  figures  indicate  that  religious  faith  rather  than  unbelief  has  charac¬ 
terized  the  leading  men  of  the  association. 

Instead  of  robbing  the  world  of  God,  science  has  done  more  than  all  the 
philosophies  and  natural  theologies  to  sustain  the  theistic  conception.  It 
has  made  it  impossible  for  the  world  to  worship  any  other  god.  The  sun 
and  the  moon  and  the  stars  have  been  found  out;  science  has  shown  us 
exactly  what  they  are.  No  man  can  worship  them  any  more. 

If  science  has  not  by  searching  found  out  God  it  has  not  found  any 
other  god,  nor  anything  else  like  a  god  that  might  contmue  to  be  a  con¬ 
ceivable  and  rational  object  of  worship  in  a  scientific  age.*  If  by  searching 
it  has  not  found  God,  it  has  found  a  place  for  God.  As  never  before  from 
the  purely  physical  side  of  things,  it  has  shown  there  is  room  in  the  world 
for  God.  It  has  given  us  a  more  Godlike  God.  The  new  energies  in  the 
world  demand  a  will  and  an  ever-present  will.  To  science  God  no  longer 
made  the  world  and  then  withdrew;  he  pervades  the  whole.  Under  the  old 
view,  God  was  a  non-resident  god  and  an  occasional  wonder-worker.  Now  He 
is  always  here. 

It  is  certain  that  every  step  of  science  discloses  the  attributes  of  the 
Almighty  with  a  growing  magnificence.  The  author  of  “  Natural  Religion  ” 
tells  us  that  the  average  scientific  man  worships  at  present  a  more  awful 
and,  as  it  were,  a  greater  deity  than  the  average  Christian.  Certain  it  is,  that 
the  Christian  view  and  the  scientific  view  together  form  a  conception  of 
the  object  of  worship  such  as  the  world  in  its  highest  inspiration  never 
reached  before.  Never  before  have  the  attributes  of  eternity  and  immensity 
arrd  infinity  clothed  themselves  with  language  so  majestic  in  its  sublimity. 
Mr.  Huxley  tells  us  that  he  would  like  to  see  a  Sunday  school  established 
in  every  parish.  If  this  only  were  to  be  taught  we  should  be  rich  indeed 
to  be  qualified  to  be  the  teachers  in  those  Sunday  schools. 

One  can  not  fail  to  prophesy,  in  view  of  the  latest  contributions  of 
science,  that  before  another  half-century  has  passed  there  will  be  a  theolog¬ 
ical  advance  of  moment.  Under  the  new  view  the  whole  question  of  the 
incarnation  is  beginning  to  assume  a  fresh  development.  Instead  of  stand¬ 
ing  alone  an  isolated  phenomenon,  its  profound  relations  to  the  whole 
scheme  of  nature  are  opening  up.  The  question  of  revelation  is  undergo¬ 
ing  a  similar  expansion.  The  whole  order  and  scheme  of  nature  are  seen 
to  be  only  part  of  the  manifold  revelation  of  God. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  EVOLUTION. 


831 


As  to  the  specific  revelations,  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  evolution 
has  already  given  the  world  what  amounts  to  a  new  bible.  Its  peculiarity 
is,  that  in  its  form,  it  is  like  the  world  in  which  it  is  found.  It  is  a  word,  but 
its  root  is  now  known,  and  we  have  other  words  from  the  same  root.  Its 
substance  is  still  the  unchanged  language  of  heaven,  yet  it  is  written  in  a 
familiar  tongue.  This  bible  is  not  a  book  which  has  been  made;  it  has 
grown.  Hence  it  is  no  longer  a  mere  word  book,  nor  a  compendium  of  doc¬ 
trines,  but  a  nursery  of  growing  truths. 

Like  nature,  it  has  successive  strata,  and  valley,  and  hilltop,  and  atmos¬ 
phere,  and  rivers  are  flowing  still,  and  here  and  there  a  place  which  is  a 
desert,  and  fossils,  whose  true  forms  are  the  stepping-stones  to  higher 
things.  It  is  a  record  of  inspired  deed  as  well  as  of  inspired  words,  a  series 
of  inspired  facts  in  the  matrix  of  human  history.  This  is  not  the  product 
of  any  destructive  movement,  nor  is  this  transformed  book  in  any  sense  a 
mutilated  bible.  All  this  change  has  taken  place,  it  may  be  without  the 
elimination  of  a  book  or  the  loss  of  an  important  word.  It  is  simply  a 
transformation  by  method  whose  main  warrant  is  that  the  book  lent  itself 
to  it.  Other  questions  are  moving  the  world  just  now,  but  one  has  only 
time  to  name  them.  The  doctrine  of  immortality,  the  relation  of  the 
person  of  Christ  to  evolution,  and  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
attracting  attention,  and  lines  of  new  thought  have  ever  been  suggested. 

Not  least  in  interest  is  the  possible  contribution  from  science  on  some  of 
the  more  practical  problems  of  theology  and  the  doctrine  of  sin.  On  the 
last  point  the  suggestion  has  been  made  that  sin  is  probably  a  relic  of  the 
animal  caste,  the  undestroyed  residuum  of  the  animal,  and  the  subject 
ranked,  at  least,  as  an  hypothesis,  wdth  proper  safeguards,  may  one  day  yield 
some  glimmering  light  to  theology  on  its  oldest  and  darkest  problem.  If 
this  partial  suggestion,  and  at  present  it  is  nothing  more,  can  be  followed 
out  to  any  purpose,  the  result  would  be  of  much  greater  and  speculative 
interest,  or  if  science  can  help  us  in  any  way  to  know  how  sin  came  into 
the  world,  it  may  help  us  better  to  know  how  to  get  it  out. 

A  better  understanding  of  its  genesis  and  nature  may  modify,  at  least, 
some  of  the  attempts  made  to  get  rid  of  it,  whether  in  a  national  or  indi¬ 
vidual  life.  But  the  time  is  not  ripe  to  speak  with  more  than  the  greatest 
caution  and  humility  of  these  still  tremendous  problems.  There  is  an 
intellectual  covetousness  abroad,  which  is  neither  the  fruit  nor  the  friend 
of  a  scientific  age.  '  The  haste  to  be  wise,  like  the  haste  to  be  rich,  leads 
many  to  speculate  in  indifferent  securities,  and  can  only  end  in  fallen  for¬ 
tunes.  Theology  must  not  be  bound  up  with  such  speculations. 

At  the  same  time  speculation  must  continue  to  be  its  life  and  its  highest 
duty.  We  are  sometimes  warned  that  the  scientific  method  has  dangers, 
and  are  told  not  to  carry  it  too  far.  But  it  is  then,  after  all,  it  becomes 
chiefly  dangerous  when  we  are  warned  not  to  carry  it  too  far.  Apart  from 
all  details,  apart  from  the  influence  of  modern  science  on  points  of  Chris¬ 
tian  theology,  that  to  which  most  of  us  look  with  eagerness  and  gratitude 
is  its  contribution  to  applied  Christianity.  The  true  answer  to  the  question. 
Is  there  any  conflict  between  Christianity  and  theology?  is  that  in  practice, 
at  all  events,  the  two  are  one. 

What  is  the  object  of  Christianity?  It  is  the  evolving  of  men,  the 
making  of  higher  and  better  men  in  a  higher  and  better  world.  That  is 
also  the  object  of  evolution,  what  evolution  has  been  doing  since  time  began. 
Christianity  is  the  further  evolution.  It  is  an  evolution  re-enforced  with 
all  the  moral  and  spiritual  forces  that  have  entered  the  world  and  cleaved 
to  humanity  through  Jesus  Christ.  Beginning  with  atoms  and  crystals, 
passing  to  plants  and  animals,  evolution  finally  reaches  man.  But,  unless 
it  ceases  to  be  scientific  fact,  it  can  not  stop  there.  It  must  go  on  to 
include  the  whole  man,  and  all  the  work,  and  thought,  and  light,  and 
aspiration  of  man.  The  great  moral  facts,  the  moral  forces,  so  far  as  they 


832 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


are  proved  to  exist,  the  Christian  consciousness,  so  far  as  it  is  real,  must 
come  within  its  scope.  Human  history  is  as  much  a  part  of  it  as  natural 
history. 

When  all  this  is  included,  it  will  be  seen  that  evolution,  organic  evolu¬ 
tion,  is  but  the  earlier  chapter  of  Christianity,  and  that  Christianity  is  but 
the  later  evolution.  There  can  be  but  one  verdict,  then,  as  to  the  import 
of  evolution,  as  to  its  bearings  on  the  individual  life  and  future  of  the  race. 
The  supreme  message  of  science  to  this  age  is  that  all  nature  is  on  the  side 
of  the  man  who  tries  to  rise.  Evolution,  development,  and  progress  are  not 
only  on  her  programme;  these  are  her  programme.  For  all  things  are  ris¬ 
ing — all  worlds,  all  planets,  all  stars,  all  suns.  An  ascending  energy  is  the 
universe,  and  the  whole  moves  on  with  one  mighty  ideal  and  anticipation. 
The  aspiration  of  the  human  mind  and  heart  is  but  the  evolutionary  ten¬ 
dency  of  the  universe.  Darwin’s  great  discovery,  or  the  discovery  which  he 
brought  into  prominence,  is  the  same  as  that  of  Galileo,  that  the  world 
moves.  The  Italian  prophet  says  it  moves  from  West  to  East.  The  English 
philosopher  says  it  moves  from  low  to  high. 

As  in  the  days  of  Galileo,  there  are  many  now  who  do  not  see  that  the 
world  moves,  men  to  whom  the  world  is  an  endless  plane,  a  prison  fixed  in 
a  purposeless  universe,  where  untried  prisoners  await  their  unknown  fate. 
It  is  not  the  monotony  of  life  that  destroys;  it  is  the  pointlessness.  They 
can  bear  its  weight;  its  meaninglessness  crushes  them.  The  same  revolu¬ 
tion  that  the  discovery  of  the  axial  rotation  of  the  earth  effected  in  the 
world  of  physics  the  doctrine  of  evolution  will  make  in  the  moral  world. 
Already  a  sudden  and  marvelous  light  has  fallen  upon  the  earth.  Evolu¬ 
tion  is  less  a  doctrine  than  a  light.  It  is  a  light  revealing  in  the  chaos  of 
the  past  a  perfect  and  growing  order,  giving  meaning  even  to  the  confusion 
of  the  present,  discovering  through  all  the  denseness  around  us  the  paths 
to  progress,  and  flashing  its  rays  upon  the  coming  goal. 

Men  began  to  see  an  undivided  ethical  purpose  in  this  material  world,  a 
tide  that  from  eternity  has  never  turned,  making  to  perfectness,  in  that 
vast  progression  of  nature,  that  vision  of  all  things  from  the  first  of  time, 
moving  from  low  to  high,  from  incompleteness  to  completeness,  from  imper¬ 
fection  to  perfection.  The  moral  nature  recognizes,  in  all  its  height  and 
depth,  the  eternal  claim  upon  itself — wholeness  and  perfection,  to  holiness 
and  righteousness.  These  have  always  been  required  of  man,  but  never 
before  on  the  natural  plan  have  they  been  proclaimed  by  voices  so  com¬ 
manding  or  enforced  by  sanctions  so  great  and  rational. 


THE  BAPTISTS  IN  HISTORY. 

REV.  GEORGE  C.  LORIMER  OE  BOSTON. 

Greatness  is  not  to  be  determined  by  bulk  or  by  numbers,  but  rather 
by  aim,  ambition,  and  achievement.  The  Persian  Empire  was  larger  than 
Athens,  and  the  walls  of  Cathay  marked  a  vaster  territorial  domain  than 
the  dykes  of  Holland.  But  judged  by  what  they  have  wrought  and  by 
what  they  have  contributed  of  art,  letters,  and  liberty  to  the  progress  of 
society,  the  smaller  states  excel  in  value  their  mammoth  and  colossal 
neighbors. 

The  ark  of  bulrushes  was  a  tiny  thing,  and  quite  insignificant  by  the 
side  of  the  pyramids,  but  the  living  babe  Moses,  sheltered  by  its  fragile 
walls,  was  a  grander  blessing  to  humanity  than  all  the  dead  Pharaohs  in 
their  massive  and  magnificent  mausoleums.  A  manger  in  the  modest  h)wn 
of  Bethlehem  was  but  an  inconsiderable  dot  in  comparison  with  the  mag¬ 
nitude  of  the  Pantheon  in  imperial  and  haughty  Rome,  and  yet  that  stable 


^HE  BAPTISTS  IN  HISTORY. 


833 


bod  surpasses  in  spiritual  splendor  all  the  intempled  deities  of  high  Olym¬ 
pus.  The  Santa  Maria  and  the  Mayflower,  though  as  midgets  when  asso¬ 
ciated  in  thought  with  the  Great  Eastern,  yet  mean  more  and  stand  for 
more  in  the  history  of  mankind  than  an  entire  fleet  of  modern  vessels,  how¬ 
ever  gorgeous  and  gigantic. 

A  diamond  of  even  meager  dimensions  is  worth  more  than  a  common 
mountain,  for  it  inspheres  and  eradiates  light;  and  an  inch  of  canvas  by 
Meissonier  is  costlier  far  than  an  acre  by  an  inferior  hand;  and  who  is  there 
that  does  not  esteem  a  thinking  soul  of  more  transcendent  import  than  an 
entire  universe  of  unconscious  matter  ? 

It  is  not,  therefore,  likely  that  the  merit  and  meaning,  or  the  place  and 
power  of  a  religious  body  in  the  world  can  be  adequately  determined  by  its 
size  and  girth.  During  these  memorable  gatherings  several  denominations 
have  been  heard  whose  deserved  renown  can  not  be  accounted  for  by  num¬ 
bers.  And  certainly  the  Bajjtists  can  not  advance  a  claim  to  recognition 
in  this  parliament  grounded  in  the  immensity  of  their  fraternity.  Their 
hosts  are  neither  huge  nor  overwhelming. 

At  the  most,  their  regular  enrolled  army,  the  wide  world  over,  is  only 
something  more  than  4,000,000  strong,  with  a  possible  7,000,000  to  10,000,000 
of  sympathetic  followers.  If,  then,  they  have  not  justified  their  existence 
by  things  attempted  and  attained,  and  if  what  they  represent  is  not  intrin¬ 
sically  precious  to  the  race,  they  have  no  sufficient  reason  for  being  here 
to-day,  nor,  indeed,  for  being  anywhere.  They  must,  therefore,  be  judged, 
if  judged  at  all,  by  the  richness  and  fertility  of  their  possessions,  and  not  by 
the  extent  of  their  borders. 

That  the  Baptists  are  among  tlie  oldest  of  the  nonliturgical  and  non- 
prelatical  branches  of  Christ's  church,  and,  more  than  likely,  are  in  reality 
the  oldest,  is  generally  conceded  and  grows  more  certain  with  the  progress 
of  scholarly  investigation.  It  is,  however,  to  be  admitted  that  their  origin 
is  obscure.  Mosheim  says  “  it  is  buried  in  the  depths  of  antiquity;”  and 
unquestionably  it  antedates  the  appearance  of  Huss  and  of  Luther. 

The  beginning  of  some  of  the  past-Reformation  denominations  are  easily 
determined,  and  are  marked  by  national  upheavals  and  crises;  but  this  is 
not  the  case  with  the  Baptists,  and  seems  to  indicate  that  they  belong  to 
the  pre-Reformation  period,  and  are  identical  with  the  anti-ecclesiastical 
thought,  feeling,  and  aspiration  which  steadily  flowed  through  the  middle 
ages,  as  the  gulf  stream  penetrates  and  courses  through  the  Atlantic. 

The  Baiflists,  from  the  beginning  and  through  all  the  centuries,  have 
stood  for  individuality  in  the  religious  life;  for  the  enlargement  and  eman¬ 
cipation  of  the  individual,  for  the  rights  and  responsibilities  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual,  and  for  the  autonomy  and  authority  of  the  individual.  Rev.  Thomas 
Armitago  has  well  said,  in  the  iVor^/i  American  Review,  that  their  “pri-  ^ 
mary  idea  is  not  to  build  up  an  ecclesiastical  system,  but  to  create  high  and 
manly  Christian  character.  In  other  words,  it  is  to  create  in  each  individ¬ 
ual  soul  and  life  a  legitimate  independency  of  all  men  in  matters  of  faith 
and  practice  Godward.”  To  them  there  are  two  great  factors  in  religion, 
the  Creator  and  the  creature;  the  former  comprehending  all  that  is  super¬ 
natural,  the  latter  including  all  that  is  natural;  the  first  being  absolutely 
sovereign  and  supreme  over  the  second,  but  the  second  in  its  individuality 
being  supremo  over  self  as  far  as  every  other  fellow-creature  is  concerned. 

They  Ixdiovo  that  Christianity,  like  the  Sabbath,  was  made  for  man, 
not  man  for  Christianity;  made  not,  of  course,  for  him  to  ignore,  pervert,  or 
destroy,  })ut  for  him  to  respect,  preserve,  and  honor;  and  not  made  to  efface 
his  X)or8onality,  enslave  his  reason,  circumscribe  his  intelligence,  and  sub¬ 
vert  his  conscience,  ljut  for  the  development  of  all  the  faculties  and 
resources  of  his  l)eing,  and  for  the  deliverance  of  his  soul  from  spiritual 
slavery  of  every  kind. 

The  Baptists  believe  tliat  man’s  supremo  allegiance,  so  far  as  earthly 


834 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


powers  are  concerned,  is  not  to  the  church,  but  to  himself,  to  his  own  rea¬ 
son  and  conscience,  to  his  own  dignity  and  destiny.  As  all  societies, 
whether  secular  or  spiritual,  are  but  aggregations  of  beings  like  himself, 
how  can  the  aggregates  taken  together  be  more  important  or  more  sacred 
than  the  units  of  which  they  are  composed? 

The  Baptists  admit  that  there  is  a  place  for  churches  in  the  Christian 
economy;  but  they  insist  that  they  are  not  for  the  suijpression  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual,  but  for  the  unfolding  and  perfection.  Organized  and  visible 
churches  are  means  to  an  end;  they  are  not  themselves  the  end.  They  are 
temporal,  but  man  is  eternal;  hence  they  shall  at  last  decay  and  disappear, 
whether  gorgeous  ecclesiastical  monarchies  or  modest  democracies — but 
man  is  immortal. 

How  delusive,  then,  yea,  how  poor  and  paltry,  the  scheme  to  build  up  a 
majestic  structure  with  its  vast  possessions,  with  its  lordly  ambitions,  with 
its  lust  of  world-wide  power,  when  in  the  fullness  of  time  it  shall  crumble 
and  perish  from  the  earth!  And,  in  comparison,  how  divine  the  movement 
that  makes  the  welfare  of  the  particular  soul  its  direct  end  and  aim,  and 
that  treats  as  trivial  the  homage  of  state  and  the  favor  of  princes,  if  it  can 
only  succeed  in  clothing  the  individual  with  personal  salvation  and  crown¬ 
ing  him  with  all  the  glories  of  regnant  manhood! 

This  is  the  Baptist  idea  and  he  is  persuaded  that  it  is  the  idea  of  the 
New  Testament.  God  was  incarnate,  not  in  humanity  at  large,  but 
exclusively  in  the  man,  Jesus,  to  teach  that  in  coming  to  dwell  in  His  chil¬ 
dren  by  the  Holy  Ghost  He  does  not  abide  in  them  as  a  whole  without 
taking  up  His  abode  in  each  separate  child.  “Ye  are  the  temples  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  ”  was  affirmed  of  every  Christian  as  well  as  of  a  numerous  com¬ 
munion.  And  it  is  written  that  “  Christ  is  the  head  of  every  man  ”  as  well 
as  being  “  the  head  of  His  body,  the  church.”  So,  likewise,  “  every  man 
must  render  an  account  of  himself  to  God,”  and  to  emphasize  more  fully 
the  place  of  individuality  in  religion,  it  is  written  that  Jesus  “tasted  death 
for  every  creature.” 

It  was  belief  in  these  scripture  representations  that  led  the  Anabaptists 
to  teach  in  the  16th  century  that  every  Christian  has  in  himself  a  divine 
guide  whom  he  must  follow  at  any  cost;  even  as  Hans  Denck,  described 
by  Keller  as  their  apostle,  declared:  “This  I  know  in  myself  certainly  to 
be  the  truth;  therefore,  I  will  if  God  will  listen  to  what  it  shall  say  to  me; 
him  that  would  take  it  from  me,  I  will  not  permit.”  This  faith  in  the 
“inner  light”  has  survived  the  swift  flight  of  nearly  four  hundred  years, 
and  is  cherished  to-day,  not  only  among  the  Baptists,  but  among  others  who 
have  no  direct  connection  with  them.  I  do  not  say  that  this  doctrine  has 
not  been  modified,  refined  of  crudities,  and  freed  from  excesses  in  its  trans¬ 
mission  from  the  past,  but  I  do  maintain  that  in  all  of  its  essential  meaning 
it  has  been  transmitted  to  the  present.  And  what  is  more,  this  conception, 
once  the  almost  exclusive  possession  of  lowly,  humble  men,  has  found  some¬ 
thing  like  recognition  in  the  transcendentalism  of  Emerson  and  in  the 
poetry  of  Robert  Browning.  In  Paracelsus  the  poet  writes: 

There  is  an  inmost  center  in  us  all, 

Where  truth  abides  in  fullness;  and  around. 

Wall  upon  wall,  the  gross  flesh  hems  it  in, 

.  This  perfect,  clear  perception,  which  is  truth; 

A  baffling  and  perverting  carnal  mesh 
Blinds  it,  and  makes  all  error;  and  “  to  know” 

Rather  consists  in  opening  out  a  way 
Whence  the  imprisoned  splendor  may  escape 
Than  in  effecting  entry  for  a  light 
Supposed  to  be  without. 

But  a  greater  than  Browning  has  said: 

Howbeitwhen  He,  the  Spiritof  Truth,  is  come.  He  will  guide  you  intoalltruth; 
for  He  will  not  speak  of  Himself,  but  whatsoever  He  shall  hear  that  shall  He  speak; 
and  He  will  show  you  things  to  come. 


THE  BAPTISTS  IN  HISTORY. 


835 


I  would  not  be  understood  as  intimating  that  the  poet’s  thought  runs 
parallel  with  that  of  the  Master,  or  that  philosophy  and  religion  are  at  one 
in  their  interpretation  of  that  indwelling  mystery  which  allies  man  to  God. 
But  they  both,  at  least,  agree  in  this:  that  He  is  the  center  of  the  divinest 
thing  in  the  world,  call  it  truth  or  even  by  a  higher  name.  And  surely  it 
is  beautiful,  touchingly  beautiful,  to  see  these  Anabaptists  of  four  centuries 
gone,  many  of  whom  were  unlettered  and  unrefined,  ascribing  to  human 
nature  a  dignity  which  the  richest  culture  and  profoundest  thought  of 
these  latter  times  have  recognized  and  glorified,  while  others,  socially  higher 
than  themselves,  were  busy  building  cathedral  and  basilica — beautiful  for¬ 
evermore  their  faith  in  the  divine  possibilities  of  manhood. 

Pursued  continually  by  the  thought  of  Christ:  “  Behold  a  greater  than 
the  temple  is  here,”  and  never  having  heard  of  the  weary  East  and  of  the 
despairing  Buddha,  who,  according  to  Arnold,  regarded  “  life  as  woe,’  ’ 
finally  to  be  engulfed  in  the  infinite,  as  “the  dewdrop  sinks  into  the  shin¬ 
ing  sea,”  these  sturdy  men  were  more  than  satisfied  to  sacrifice  and  suffer 
for  the  sake  of  the  “greater” — for  man — that  the  individual,  instead  of 
becoming  unconscious  in  God,  might  become  fully  conscious  of  the  perfec¬ 
tion  of  God  in  the  individual. 

This  is  very  apparent  in  their  loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the 
supreme  authority  in  personal  faith  and  moral  conduct.  They  are  people 
of  one  book,  one  that  is  “  quite  sufficiently  called,”  as  Heine  has  it,  “  The 
Book.”  Nature,  they  concede,  has  manifold  disclosures  of  the  infinite, 
and  they  are  far  from  indifferent  to  its  teachings,  whether  embodied  in 
science  or  in  the  unvarying  and  harmonious  operation  of  its  laws.  They 
recognize  reason  also  as  related  to  belief  and  practice,  not,  however,  as  in 
itself,  an  original  revelation,  but  as  the  subject  and  interpreter  of  all  reve¬ 
lations,  whether  they  proceed  from  without  or  are  due  to  the  illuminating 
ministrations  of  the  comforter  within. 

But  for  all  the  important  purposes  of  religious  thought  and  life,  the 
Bible  is  their  ultimate  guide,  as,  in  addition  to  its  own  messages,  it  fur¬ 
nishes  a  criterion  by  which  the  message  from  other  sources  may  be  judged. 
The  Baptists  have  never  formally  acknowledged  the  binding  obligation  of 
creeds.  Their  confessions,  from  that  of  1527  to  the  one  of  the  most  recent 
date,  that  called  of  New  Hampshire,  including  Smyth’s,  1611,  and  the  Lon¬ 
don  confession,  1616,  were  not  promulgated  to  secure  uniformity  of  belief 
nor  as  standards  to  which  subscription  is  imperative;  but  rather  as  defenses 
and  apologies  forced  from  them  by  the  abuse  and  calumnies  of  enemies,  or 
as  succinct  and  convenient  expositions  of  their  opinions. 

These  symbols  all  have  their  value  as  religious  literature,  but  they  are 
not,  necessarily,  final  statements  of  truth,  nor  are  they  endued  with  any 
coercive  power.  No  documents  of  this  kind  are  permitted  by  the  Baptists 
to  rival  in  authority  the  sacred  writings,  nor  to  fix,  by  arbitrary  rule,  what 
they  are  designed  to  communicate  to  each  soul.  The  Bible  is  divine 
thought  given  to  every  man,  and  every  man  ought  to  give  human  thought 
to  the  Bible,  and  ecclesiastical  bodies  do  their  entire  duty  when  they  bring 
these  two  thoughts  into  immediate  communion  and  commerce  with  each 
other. 

From  this  representation  it  can  easily  be  seen  how  large  a  part  indi¬ 
viduality  plays  in  our  simple  ecclesiastical  system.  Infants  are  not  bap¬ 
tized,  because  that  ordinance  would  mislead  them  as  to  their  standing 
before  God,  would  tend  to  diminish  their  sense  of  personal  responsibility, 
and  would  finally  establish  an  unconverted  church  in  a  corrupt  world.  If 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  really  not  radically  different  from  the  kingdom  of 
Satan,  and  is  only  visibly  separate  and  distinct  by  a  few  ceremonies,  pro¬ 
fessions,  and  the  solemn  invocation  of  holy  names,  of  what  particular  use 
is  it  to  society,  and  how  can  it  ever  hope  to  subdue  its  rival?  To  guard 
against  this  deplorable  confusion,  this  deadly  fellowship  between  light  and 


836 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


darkness,  the  Baptists  have  adhered  to  their  Bible,  that  requires  a  heart 
dilference  between  him  that  serveth  God  and  him  that  serveth  Him  not, 
with  the  appropriate  outward  expression  of  the  change. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  ground,  both  in  scripture  and  reason,  for  the 
baptism  of  believers  only,  and  a  baptism  that  sinners  reverence  for  the 
divine  will  in  form  and  purpose  as  immersion  manifestly  does.  But  con¬ 
scious  individuality  is  necessary  to  all  this,  and  is  emphasized  by  it. 
Before  a  human  being  has  come  to  realize  selfhood  with  all  that  it  imjjlies, 
he  can  not  act  of  his  own  volition  in  these  high  matters,  but  when  he  is 
competent  to  do  so  there  will  be  developed  capabilities  for  further  duties. 
These  will  find  their  sphere  of  action  in  the  church;  for  its  government 
being  such  as  I  have  described,  it  opens  a  field  for  the  exercise  of  every  per¬ 
sonal  talent,  attainment,  and  grace. 

That  the  significance  of  the  Baptists  in  history  lies  mainly  in  the  direc¬ 
tion  I  have  indicated  is  demonstrated  beyond  a  doubt  by  their  persistent 
advocacy  of  soul  freedom,  and  by  hearty  and  practical  sympathy  with 
almost  every  movement  on  behalf  of  civil  liberty.  The  first  amendment  to 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States  was  inspired  by  them,  and  in  no  other 
country  can  such  a  provision  be  found.  It  reads  as  follows:  “Congress 
shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting 
the  free  exercise  thereof.’’ 

This  tender  solicitude  for  the  emancipation  and  enthronement  of  con¬ 
science  is  a  noble  tribute  to  the  moral  grandeur  of  the  individual.  It 
implies  that  the  preservation  of  a  man’s  own  integrity  is  worth  more  than 
the  unbroken  integrity  of  an  ecclesiastical  system.  His  own  inner  har¬ 
mony,  that  which  springs  from  sincerity  in  his  religious  life,  is  of  more 
importance  than  uniformity  of  belief  and  ritual  throughout  Christendom. 
Were  there  as  many  churches  as  there  are  men,  if  they  were  all  honest 
and  faithful,  it  would  be  better  for  the  world  than  for  there  to  be  only  one 
church  if,  to  the  members  thereof,  multitudes  had  to  forswear  their  con¬ 
victions  and  crucify  their  sense  of  duty. 

One  man  centered  in  truth  and  breathing  truth  will  achieve  more  for 
society  than  a  thousand  held  together  by  conventionalism  and  by  a  creed 
which  has  become  incredible  to  intelligence.  I  am  not  pleading  for 
divisions.  Far  from  it.  I  would  do  everything  in  my  power  to  abate 
differences  and  unify  Christianity.  But  this  seeming  to  be,  this  fiction  of 
oneness,  which  gentle  enthusiasts  are  deluded  by,  is  humiliating  in  the 
extreme.  It  assumes  what  is  not  a  fact  or  it  implies  that  professedly 
upright  men  have  deliberately  stultified  themselves  by  pretending  to 
what  is  not  true. 

The  real  issue  is  this:  Is  it  permissible  or  justifiable  to  subordinate  the 
individual,  his  conscious  self-respect,  and  his  sincerity  to  the  interests  of 
an  organization,  even  a  church?  Some  teachers  insinuate,  if  they  do  not 
affirm,  that  it  is.  I  insist  that  it  is  not.  For  this  sacrifice  on  his  part 
means  moral  reins  to  himself,  and  disqualifies  him  to  be  associated  on  any 
terms  with  honorable  people. 

The  Baptists  of  former  times  evidently  perceived  the  disastrous  effect 
of  enforced  formalism.  They  were  not  opposed  to  communities  of  Chris¬ 
tians,  but  they  realized  that  their  efficiency  depended  on  the  voluntary 
nature  of  the  fellowship.  In  proportion  as  they  became  mere  aggregations 
of  human  particles,  having  little  in  common,  and  held  together  by  eternal 
pressure,  they  necessarily  impaired  their  own  power  and  wrecked  the 
society  to  whose  well-being  their  compulsory  membership  was  deemed 
indispensable. 

Independence  is  inseparable  from  the  highest  type  of  individuality, 
and  the  individuality  of  the  highest  type  is  necessary  to  vital  and  vigorous 
organization.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  explanation  of  the  long  struggle  for 
religious  liberty.  Apart  from  the  divine  word,  to  whose  teachings  the  entire 


THE  BAPTISTS  IN  HISTORY. 


837 


movement  is  primarily  due,  it  must  be  ascribed  to  that  recognition  of  each 
man’s  personal  dignity  and  worth  as  a  creative  made  in  the  image  of  God 
which  has  been  so  distinguishing  a  note  of  Baptist  history. 

The  practical  profitableness  of  the  root  principle  out  of  which  the  his¬ 
torical  significance  of  the  Baptists  has  grown  very  frequently  has  been 
challenged,  and  is  even  now  admitted  in  some  circles  only  with  evident 
reluctance.  Unquestionably  it  has  been  abused,  and,  like  other  precious 
things,  may  be  made  a  source  of  incalculable  mischief. 

But  it  is  not,  as  some  of  its  adversaries  assert,  unmitigated  selfishness, 
or  lawless  insubordination,  or  narrow-minded  egotism.  Individuality  does 
not  consist  in  living  for  self,  but  in  living  oneself  freely  from  others;  not 
in  the  avoidance  of  obligation  and  suffering,  but  in  the  performance  of 
duty,  however  painful,  from  the  high  sense  of  responsible  stewardship,  and 
not  from  the  cringing  servility  inspired  by  superstition  or  slavery.  It  is  the 
doing  voluntarily  what  may  be  done  through  compulsion,  only  it  changes 
entirely  the  character  of  the  doing. 

Out  of  the  agony  and  anguish  of  life  it  makes  ennobling  self-sacrifices; 
out  of  the  solidarity  and  interdependence  of  life  it  fashions  holy  and  endear¬ 
ing  brotherhoods,  and  out  of  the  misfortunes  and  temptations  of  life  frames 
heroic  ministries  of  philanthropy  and  piety.  While  it  is  opposed  to 
mechanical  and  coercive  socialism,  as  it  has  been  to  feudal  ecclesiasticism, 
it  is  in  no  wise  inimical  to  fraternity  of  spirit  or  to  any  form  of  mutual 
helpfulness  that  does  not  tend  to  obliterate  manhood  in  attempting  to 
succor  the  man. 

We  may,  I  believe,  without  hesitancy,  appeal  to  our  own  denomination 
for  proofs  of  its  expediency  and  excellency.  These  are  furnished  in  the 
contributions  made  by  its  leaders  and  churches  toward  the  evolution  of 
modern  society,  with  its  liberty  and  progress,  its  inventions  and  discoveries, 
its  reforms  and  charities.  Much  has  already  been  suggested  on  this  point, 
and  yet  something  more  remains  to  be  added. 

The  Baptists  have  been  conspicuous  for  their  devotion  to  education,  and 
to-day  they  have  more  money  invested  in  property  and  endowments  for 
educational  interests  than  any  other  religious  body  in  the  land.  They  have 
consecrated  in  America  to  the  cause  of  human  enlightenment  over  $32,000,- 
000,  and  have  in  the  main  given  it  unhampered  by  sectarian  conditions. 
Manifestly,  in  this  instance,  individualism  in  religion  has  wrought  no  ill  to 
the  community,  but  only  good. 

The  Baptists  have  been  equally  prominent  in  founding  modern  missions 
to  the  heathen,  and  are  everywhere  acknowledged  as  the  heroic  leaders  in 
an  enterprise  which  means  the  salvation  and  unification  of  races  in  Christ, 
and  without  which  this  Parliament  of  Religions  would  never  have  been 
dreamt  of,  much  less  so  wonderfully  realized. 

But  in  addition,  in  the  domain  of  letters,  they  have  given  to  the  world 
a  Bunyan  and  a  Milton,  a  Foster  and  a  William  R.  Williams;  to  the  domain 
of  heroism  a  long  line,  including  Arnold  of  Brescia,  a  Havelock,  a  Carey, 
and  Judson;  to  that  of  theology  a  Gill,  a  Haldane,  and  many  others;  and 
to  that  of  philanthropy  a  John  Harvard,  who  was  a  member  of  Samuel 
Stennett’s  congregation  in  London,  and  an  Abraham  Lincoln,  who,  though 
not  himself  a  Baptist,  w’as  born  of  Baptist  parents,  and  attributed  ail  that 
he  was  to  his  Baptist  mother. 

Nor  should  we  forget  the  influence  they  have  exerted  on  the  devotional 
life  of  the  people  at  large.  They  have  taught  us  to  sing  “  Blest  Be  the  Tie 
That  Binds,”  “Did  Christ  O’er  Sinners  Weep?”  “Majestic  Sweetness  Sits 
Enthroned  Upon  the  Savior’s  Brow,”  “How  Firm  a  Foundation,  Ye  Saints 
of  the  Lord,”  “  ’Mid  Scenes  of  Confusion  and  Creature  Complaints,”  “They 
Are  Gathering  Homeward  from  Every  Land,”  “All  Hail  the  Power  of 
Jesus’  Name,”  “Savior,  Thy  Dying  Love,”  “I  Need  Thee  Every  Hour.” 
“Lo,  the  Day  of  God  Is  Breaking,”  “My  Country,  ’Tis  of  Thee,”  and  they 


838 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


have  given  us  many  other  hymns  by  which  faith  has  been  strengthened, 
sorrow  comforted,  duty  glorified,  patriotism  stimulated,  and  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  rendered  more  precious  and  endeared  to  the  souls  of  men. 

They  who  have  thus  sung;  they  who  have  thus  thought;  yea,  they  who 
have  thus  wrought — for  holy  ideas  are  kindred  to  holy  deeds — are  in  them¬ 
selves  the  best  witnesses  to  the  wholesome  influence  of  a  doctrine  that 
seeks  to  make  out  of  every  human  creature  a  man,  out  of  every  man  a 
saint,  and  out  of  every  saint  a  special  and  individual  confessor  for  Christ. 


THE  ULTIMATE  RELIGION. 

BISHOP  JOHN  J.  KEANE  OF  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

At  the  close  of  our  Parliament  of  Religions  it  is  our  duty  to  look  back 
and  see  what  it  has  taught  us,  to  look  forward  and  see  to  what  it  points. 

These  days  will  always  be  to  us  a  memory  of  sweetness.  Sweet,  indeed, 
it  has  been  for  God’s  long-separated  children  to  meet  at  last,  for  those 
whom  the  hax)S  and  mishaps  of  human  life  have  put  so  far  apart,  and  whom 
the  foolishness  of  the  human  heart  has  so  often  arrayed  in  hostility,  here  to 
clasp  hands  in  friendship  and  in  brotherhood,  in  the  presence  of  the  blessed 
and  loving  Father  of  us  all;  sweet  to  see  and  feel  that  it  is  an  awful  wrong 
for  religion,  which  is  of  the  Lord  of  love,  to  inspire  hatred,  which  is  of  the 
evil  one;  sweet  to  tie  again  the  bonds  of  affection  broken  since  the  days  of 
Babel,  and  to  taste how  good  and  how  sweet  a  thing  it  is  for  brethren  to 
live  in  unity.” 

In  the  first  place,  while  listening  to  utterances  which  we  could  not  but 
approve  and  applaud,  though  coming  from  sources  so  diverse,  we  have  had 
practical  experimental  evidence  of  the  old  saying,  that  there  is  truth  in  all 
religions.  And  the  reason  is  manifest.  It  is  because  the  human  family 
started  from  unity,  from  one  divided  treasury  of  primitive  truth,  and  when 
the  separations  and  wanderings  came  they  carried  with  them  what  they 
could  of  the  treasure.  No  wonder  that  we  all  recognize  the  common  pos¬ 
session  of  the  olden  truth  when  we  come  together  at  last.  And  as  it  is 
with  the  long-divided  children  of  the  family  of  Noah  so  also  it  is  with  the 
too  long  separated  children  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Then  we  have  heard  repeated  and  multifarious,  yet  concordant,  defini¬ 
tions  of  what  religion  really  is.  Viewed  in  all  its  aspects,  we  have  seen  how 
true  is  the  old  definition  that  religion  means  the  union  of  man  with  God. 
This,  we  have  seen,  is  the  great  goal  toward  which  all  aim,  whether  walldng 
in  the  fullness  of  the  light  or  groping  in  the  dimness  of  the  twilight. 

And  therefore  we  have  seen  how  true  it  is  that  religion  is  a  reality  back 
of  all  religions.  Religions  are  orderly  or  disorderly  systems  for  the  attain¬ 
ment  of  that  great  end — the  union  of  man  with  God.  Any  system  not 
haying  that  for  its  aim  may  be  a  philosophy,  but  can  not  be  a  religion. 

And,  therefore,  again  we  have  clearly  recognized  that  religion,  in  itself 
and  in  the  system  for  its  attainment,  necessarily  implies  two  sides,  two  con¬ 
stitutive  elements — the  human  and  the  divine,  man’s  side  to  God’s  side,  in 
the  union  and  in  the  way  or  means  to  it.  The  human  side  of  it,  the  crav¬ 
ing,  the  need,  the  aspiration,  is,  as  here  testified,  universal  among  men. 
And  this  is  a  demonstration  that  the  author  of  our  nature  is  not  wanting 
as  to  His  side;  that  the  essential  religiousness  of  man  is  not  a  meaningless 
trick  of  nature;  that  the  craving  is  not  a  Tantalus  in  man’s  heart  meant 
only  for  his  delusion  and  torture.  This  parliament  has  thus  been  a  weighty 
blow  to  atheism,  to  deism,  to  antagonism,  to  naturalism,  to  mere  human¬ 
ism.  While  the  utterances  of  these  various  philosophies  have  been  listened 
to  with  courage  and  charity,  yet  its  whole  meaning  and  moral  have  been  to 


THE  ULTIMATE  RELIGION. 


839 


the  contrary;  the  whole  drift  of  its  practical  conclusion  has  been  that  man 
and  the  world  never  could,  and  in  the  nature  of  things  never  can,  do  with¬ 
out  God,  and  so  it  is  a  blessing. 

From  this  standpoint,  therefore,  on  which  our  feet  are  so  plainly  and 
firmly  planted  by  this  parliament,  we  look  forward  and  ask,  Has  religion  a 
future,  and  what  is  that  future  to  be  like?  Again,  in  the  facts  which 
we  have  been  studying  during  these  seventeen  days,  we  find  the  data  to 
guide  us  to  the  answer. 

Here  we  have  heard  the  voice  of  all  the  nations,  yea,  and  of  all  the  ages, 
certifying  that  the  human  intellect  must  have  the  great  first  cause  and  last 
end  as  the  alpha  and  omega  of  its  thinking;  that  there  can  be  no  philosophy 
of  things  without  God. 

Here  we  have  heard  the  cry  of  the  human  heart,  all  the  world  over,  that, 
without  God,  life  would  not  be  worth  living. 

Here  we  heard  the  verdict  of  human  society  in  all  its  ranks  and  condi¬ 
tions,  the  verdict  of  those  who  have  most  intelligently  and  most  disinter¬ 
estedly  studied  the  problem  of  the  improvement  of  human  conditions,  that 
only  the  wisdom  and  power  of  religion  can  solve  the  mighty  social  problems 
of  the  future,  and  that,  in  proportion  as  the  world  advances  toward  the 
perfection  of  self-government,  the  need  of  religion,  as  a  balance-power  in 
every  human  life,  and  in  the  relations  of  man  with  man,  and  of  nation  with 
nation,  becomes  more  and  more  imperative. 

Next  we  must  ask,  shall  the  future  tendency  of  religion  be  to  greater 
unity,  or  to  greater  diversity? 

This  parliament  has  brought  out  in  clear  light  the  old  familiar  truth 
that  religion  has  a  two-fold  aim,  the  improvement  of  the  individual,  and, 
through  that,  the  improvement  of  society  and  of  race;  that  it  must,  there¬ 
fore,  have  in  its  system  of  organization  and  its  methods  of  action  a  two¬ 
fold  tendency  and  plan  on  the  one  side  to  what  might  be  called  religious 
individualism.  On  the  other  side  what  may  be  termed  religious  socialism 
or  solidarity;  on  the  one  side,  adequate  provision  for  the  dealings  of  God 
with  the  individual  soul;  on  the  other,  provision  for  the  order,  the  harmony, 
the  unity,  which  is  always  a  characteristic  of  the  works  of  God,  and  which 
is  equally  the  aim  of  wisdom  in  human  things,  for  “  order  is  heaven’s  first 
law.” 

The  parliament  has  also  shown,  that  if  it  may  be  truly  alleged  that 
there  have  been  times  when  solidarity  inessed  too  heavily  on  individualism, 
at  present  the  tendency  is  to  an  extreme  of  individualism  threatening  to 
fill  the  world  more  and  more  with  religious  confusion  and  distract  the 
minds  of  men  with  religious  contradictions. 

But  on  what  basis,  what  method,  is  religious  unity  to  be  attained  or 
approached  ?  Is  it  to  be  by  a  process  of  elimination  or  by  a  process  of  syn¬ 
thesis  ?  Is  it  to  be  by  laying  aside  all  disputed  elements,  no  matter  how 
manifestly  true,  and  beautiful,  and  useful,  so  as  to  reach  at  last  the  simplest 
form  of  religious  assertion,  the  protoplasm  of  the  religious  organism?  Or, 
on  the  contrary,  is  it  to  be  by  the  acceptance  of  all  that  is  manifestly  true„ 
and  good,  and  useful  of  all  that  is  manifestly  from  the  heart  of  God  as  well 
as  from  the  heart  of  humanity,  so  as  to  attain  to  the  developed  and  per¬ 
fected  organism  of  religion  ?  To  answer  this  momentous  question  wisely 
let  us  glance  at  analogies. 

First,  in  regard  to  human  knowledge,  we  are,  and  must  be,  willing  to  go 
down  to  the  level  of  uninformed  or  imperfectly  informed  minds,  not,  how¬ 
ever,  to  make  that  the  intellectual  level  of  all,  but  in  order  that  from  that 
low  level  we  may  lead  up  to  the  higher  and  higher  levels  which  knowledge 
has  reached.  In  like  manner  as  to  civilization,  we  are  willing  to  meet  the 
barbarian  or  the  savage  on  his  own  low  level,  not  in. order  to  assimilate  our 
condition  to  his,  but  in  order  to  lead  him  up  to  better  conditions.  So  also, 
in  scientific  research,  we  go  down  to  the  study  of  the  protoplasm  and  of  the 


840 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


cell,  but  only  in  order  that  we  may  trace  the  process  of  differentiation,  of 
accretion,  of  development,  by  which  higher  and  higher  forms  of  organi¬ 
zation  lead  to  the  highest. 

In  the  light,  therefore,  of  all  the  facts  here  placed  before  us,  let  us  ask 
to  what  result  gradual  development  will  lead  us. 

In  the  first  place,  this  comparison  of  all  the  principal  religions  of  the 
world  has  demonstrated  that  the  only  worthy  and  admissible  idea  of  God 
is  that  of  monotheism.  It  has  shown  that  polytheism  in  all  its  forms  is 
only  a  rude  degeneration.  It  has  proved  that  pantheism  in  all  its  modifica¬ 
tions,  obliterating  as  it  does  the  personality  both  of  God  and  of  man,  is  no 
religion  at  all,  and  therefore  inadmissible  as  such,  that  it  can  not  even  be 
admitted  as  a  philosophy,  since  its  very  first  postulates  are  metaphysical 
contradictions.  Hence  the  basis  of  all  religion  is  the  belief  in  the  one 
living  God. 

Next,  this  parliament  has  shown  that  humanity  repudiates  the  gods  of 
the  Epicureans,  who  were  so  taken  up  with  their  own  enjoyment  that  they 
had  no  thought  for  poor  man,  and  nothing  to  say  to  him  for  his  instruction 
and  no  care  to  bestow  on  him  for  his  welfare.  It  has  shown  that  the  god 
of  agnosticism  is  only  the  god  of  the  Epicureans  dressed  up  in  modern  garb, 
and  that  he  cares  nothing  for  humanity,  but  leaves  it  in  the  dark;  human¬ 
ity  cares  nothing  for  him  and  is  willing  to  leave  him  to  his  unknowable¬ 
ness.  As  the  first  step  in  the  solid  ascent  of  the  true  religion  is  belief  in 
the  one  living  God,  so  the  second  must  be  the  belief  that  the  great  Father 
has  taught  His  children  what  they  need  to  know,  and  what  they  need  to  be 
in  order  to  attain  their  destiny,  that  is,  belief  in  divine  revelation. 

Again,  the  parliament  has  shown  that  all  the  attempts  of  the  tribes  of 
earth  to  recall  and  set  forth  God’s  teaching,  all  their  endeavors  to  tell  of 
the  means  provided  by  the  Almighty  God  for  uniting  man  with  Himself, 
logically  and  historically  lead  up  to  and  culminate  in  Jesus  Christ. 

The  world  longing  for  the  truth  points  to  Him  who  brings  its  fullness. 
The  world’s  sad  wail  over  the  wretchedness  of  sin  points,  not  to  despairing 
escape  from  the  thralls  of  humanity — a  promise  of  escape  which  is  only  an 
impossibility  and  a  delusion — but  to  humanity’s  cleansing  and  uplifting 
and  restoration  in  his  redemption.  The  world’s  craving  for  union  with  the 
divine  finds  its  archetypal  glorious  realization  in  His  incarnation,  and  to  a 
share  in  that  wondrous  union  all  are  called  as  branches  of  the  mystical 
vine,  members  of  the  mystical  body,  which  lifts  humanity  above  its  natural 
state  and  pours  into  it  the  life  of  love. 

Therefore,  does  the  verdict  of  the  ages  proclaim  in  the  words  of  the 
apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  who  knew  Him,  and  knew  all  the  rest:  “Other 
foundation  can  no  man  lay  but  that  which  God  hath  laid,  which  is  Christ 
Jesus.”  As  long  as  God  is  God,  and  man  is  man,  Jesus  Christ  is  the  center 
of  religion  forever. 

But,  still  further,  we  have  seen  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  a  myth,  not  a 
symbol,  but  a  personal  reality.  He  is  not  a  vague,  shadowy  personality, 
leaving  only  a  dim,  vague,  mystical  impression  behind  Him;  He  is  a  clear 
and  definite  personality,  with  a  clear  and  definite  teaching  as  to  truth,  clear 
and  definite  command  as  to  duty,  clear  and  definite  ordaining  as  to  the 
means  by  which  God’s  life  is  imparted  to  man,  and  by  which  man  receives 
it,  corresponds  to  it,  and  advances  toward  perfection. 

The  wondrous  message  He  sent  “to  every  creature”  proclaimed,  as  it 
had  never  been  proclaimed  before,  the  value  and  the  rights  of  each  indi¬ 
vidual  soul — the  sublimest  individualism  the  world  has  overheard  of.  And 
then,  with  the  heavenly  balance  and  equilibrium  which  bring  all  individ¬ 
ualities  into  order,  and  harmony,  and  unity.  He  calls  all  to  be  sheep  and  of 
one  fold,  branches  of  one  vine,  members  of  one  body,  in  which  all,  while 
members  of  one  head,  are  also  “  members  one  of  another,”  in  which  is  the 
fulfillment  of  His  own  sublime  prayer  and  prophecy:  “  That  all  may  be  one, 


Wri'rr 

mutual  benefit  .  .n-c 

„  'NEWARK.  N 

Policy-Holders  since  Hr  ■  ■ 

^SQnization  /)/  is 

«I5«li06,884.«0. 


c  ^  ^ 


t* 


■'/ 

/  " 


G 


j  «•■ 


// 


f 

4^/ 


CHRIST  THE  UNIFIER  OF  MANKIND. 


841 


as  Thou,  Father,  in  Me,  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us,  that 
they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one.” 

Thus  He  makes  His  church  a  perfect  society,  both  human  and  divine; 
on  its  human  side,  the  most  perfect  multiplicity,  in  unity,  and  unity  in 
multiplicity,  the  most  perfect  socialism  and  solidarity  that  the  world  could 
ever  know;  on  its  divine  side,  the  instrumentality  devised  by  the  Savior  of 
the  world  for  imparting,  maintaining,  and  operating  the  action  of  the  divine 
life  in  each  soul;  in  its  entirety,  the  body,  the  vine,  both  divine  and  human, 
a  living  organism,  imparting  the  life  of  God  to  humanity.  This  is  the  way 
in  which  the  Church  of  Christ  is  presented  to  us  by  the  apostles  and  by 
our  Lord  Himself.  It  is  a  concrete  individuality,  as  distinct  and  unmis¬ 
takable  as  Himself.  It  is  no  mere  aggregation,  no  mere  co-operation  or 
confederation  of  distinct  bodies;  it  is  an  organic  unity,  it  is  the  body  of 
Christ,  our  means  of  being  engrafted  in  Him  and  sharing  in  His  life. 

This  is  unmistakably  His  provision  for  the  sanctification  of  the  world. 
Will  anyone  venture  to  devise  a  substitute  for  it?  Will  anyone,  in  the 
face  of  this  clear  and  imperative  teaching  of  our  Lord,  assert  that  any 
separated  branch  may  choose  to  live  apart  by  itself,  or  that  any  aggrega¬ 
tion  of  separated  branches  may  do  instead  of  the  organic  duty  of  the  vine, 
of  the  body? 

Men  of  impetuous  earnestness  have  embodied  good  and  noble  ideas  in 
separate  organizations  of  their  own.  They  were  right  in  the  ideas;  they 
were  wrong  in  the  separation.  On  the  human  side  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
there  will  always  be,  as  there  always  has  been,  room  for  improvement; 
room  for  the  elimination  of  human  evil,  since  our  Lord  has  given  no  prom¬ 
ise  of  human  impeccability;  room  for  the  admission  and  application  of 
every  human  excellence;  room  for  the  employment  and  the  ordering  of 
every  human  energy  in  every  work  that  is  for  God’s  glory  and  man’s  wel¬ 
fare;  room  not  only  for  individual  beings  but  for  strong,  majestic  branches 
and  limbs  innumerable;  but  all  in  the  organic  unity  of  the  one  vine,  the 
one  body.  For,  on  the  divine  side,  there  can  be  “  no  change  nor  shadow  of 
alteration,”  and  the  living  organism  of  the  vine  of  the  body  must  ever 
maintain  its  individual  identity,  just  as  a  living  human  being,  though  ever 
subject  to  life’s  vicissitudes,  is  ever  the  same  identical  self. 

Jesus  Christ  is  the  ultimate  center  of  religion.  He  has  declared  that 
His  one  organic  church  is  equally  ultimate.  Because  I  believe  Him,  here 
must  be  my  stand  forever. 


CHRIST  THE  UNIFIER  OF  MANKIND. 

REV.  DR.  GEORGE  DANA  BOARDMAN  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 

Envoys  Extraordinary  and  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  in  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  Men  andWomen :  The  hour  for  the  closing  of  this  most  extraordinary 
convention  has  come.  Most  extraordinary,  I  say,  for  this  congress  is 
unparalleled  in  its  purpose — not  to  array  sect  against  sect,  or  to  exalt  one 
form  of  religion  at  the  cost  of  all  other  forms,  but  to  unite  all  religion 
against  all  irreligion.  Unparalleled  in  its  composition  save  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  it  is  pentecostal  day  again,  for  here  are  gathered  together 
devout  men  from  every  nation  under  heaven — Persians  and  Medes,  and 
Elimites,  and  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia,  in  Judea  and  Cappadocia,  in  Pontus 
and  Asia,  in  Phrygia  and  Pamphylia,in  Egypt  and  the  parts  of  Lybia  about 
Cyrene,  and  sojourners  from  Rome,  both  Jews  and  proselytes,  Cretans  and 
Arabians,  we  do  hear  them  speaking,  every  man  in  his  own  language,  and 
yet  as  though  in  one  common  vernacular,  the  wonderful  works  of  God. 


842 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


All  honor  to  Chicago,  whose  beautiful  White  City  symbolizes  the 
architectural  unity  of  the  one  city  of  our  one  God.  All  honor  to  those 
noble  officers — this  James  the  Just,  surnamed  Bonney,  and  this  John  the 
Beloved,  whose  name  is  Barrows— for  the  far-reaching  sagacity  with  which 
they  have  conceived,  and  the  consummate  skill  with  which  they  have  man¬ 
aged  this  most  august  of  human  parliaments,  this  crowning  glory  of  the 
earth’s  fairest  fair. 

And  what  is  the  secret  of  this  marvelous  unity?  Let  me  be  as  true  to 
my  own  convictions  as  you,  honored  representatives  of  other  religions,  have 
been  nobly  true  to  your  own.  I  believe  it  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth  who  is  the 
one  great  unifier  of  mankind.  Jesus  Christ  unifies  mankind  by  His  incar¬ 
nation,  for  when  He  was  born  into  the  world  He  was  born  “The  Son  of 
Man.”  Ponder  the  profound  significance  of  this  unique  title.  It  is  not 
“  a  son  of  man,”  it  is  not  “  a  son  of  men,”  it  is  not  “the  son  of  men,”  but  it 
is  “The  Son  of  Man.”  That  is  to  say,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  universal 
homo,  the  essential  Vir,  the  son  of  human  nature,  blending  in  Himself  all 
races,  ages,  sexes,  capacities,  temperaments.  Jesus  is  the  archetypal  man, 
the  ideal  hero,  the  consummate  incarnation,  the  symbol  of  perfected 
human  nature,  the  sum  total  unfolded,  fulfilled  humanity,  the  son  of 
mankind. 

All  other  religions,  comparatively  speaking,  are  more  or  less  topographical. 
For  example,  there  was  the  institute  religion  of  Palestine,  the  priest  religion 
of  Egypt,  the  hero  religion  of  Greece,  the  empire  religion  of  Rome,  the  Gue- 
ber  religion  of  Persia,  the  ancestor  religion  of  China,  the  Vedic  religion  of 
India,  the  Buddha  religion  of  Burmah,  the  Shinto  religion  of  Japan,  the  Val¬ 
halla  religion  of  Scandinavia,  the  Moslem  religion  of  Turkey,  the  spirit 
religion  of  our  American  aborigines.  But  Christianity  is  the  religion  of 
mankind.  Zoroaster  was  a  Persian;  Mohammed  was  an  Arabian.  But 
Jesus  is  the  son  of  man.  And,  therefore.  His  religion  is  equally  at  home 
among  black  and  white,  red  and  tawny,  mountaineers  and  lowlanders, 
landsmen  and  seamen,  philosophers  and  journeymen,  men  and  women, 
jjatriarchs  and  children. 

Jesus  Christ  is  unifying  mankind  by  His  own  teaching.  Take,  in  way  of 
illustration.  His  doctrine  of  love  as  set  forth  in  His  own  mountain  sermon. 
For  instance.  His  beatitudes,  His  precepts  of  reconciliation,  nonresistance, 
love  of  enemies,  His  bidding  each  of  us  use,  although  in  solitary  closet 
prayer,  the  plural,  “  Our,  we,  us.”  Or  take,  particularly,  Christ’s  summary 
of  His  mountain  teaching  as  set  forth  in  His  own  golden  rule.  It  is  Jesus 
Christ’s  positive  contribution  to  sociology,  or  the  philosophy  of  society. 

Without  loitering  amid  minute  classification,  it  is  enough  to  say  that 
the  various  theories  of  society  may,  substantially  speaking,  be  reduced 
to  two. 

The  first  theory,  to  borrow  a  term  from  chemistry,  is  the  atomic.  It 
proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  men  are  a  mass  of  separated  units,  or 
independent  Adams,  having  no  common  bond,  or  organic  union,  or  inter¬ 
functional  connection.  Pushing  to  the  extreme  the  idea  of  individualism, 
its  tendency  is  egotistic,  disjunctive,  chaotic. 

The  second  theory,  to  borrow  again  from  chemistry,  is  the  molecular. 
It  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  there  is  such  an  actuality  as  mankind, 
and  this  mankind  is,  so  to  speak,  one  colossal  person,  each  individual  mem¬ 
ber  thereof  forming  a  vital  component,  a  functional  factor  in  the  one  great 
organism,  so  that  membership  in  society  is  universal,  mutual  co-member¬ 
ship.  Recognizing  each  individual  of  mankind  as  a  constituent  member  of 
the  one  great  human  corpus,  its  tendency  is  altruistic,  co-operative, 
constructive.  Its  motto  is:  “  We  are  members  one  of  another.”  It  is  the 
theory  of  Jesus  Christ  and  those  who  are  His. 

I  say,  then,  that  it  is  Jesus  Christ  Himself  who  has  given  us  the  key  to 
the  greatest  of  modern  problenis— the  problem  of  sociology.  Do  you  not 


CHRIST  THE  UNIFIER  OF  MANKIND. 


843 


•  # 

see,  then,  that  when  every  human  being  throughout  the  world  obeys  ^ur 
Master’s  golden  rule,  all  mankind  will,  indeed,  become  one  glorious  unity? 

Or  take  Christ’s  doctrine  of  neighborhood,  as  set  forth  in  His  parable  of 
the  Good  Samaritan.  According  to  this  parkble,  neighborhood  does  not  con¬ 
sist  in  local  nearness;  it  is  not  a  matter  of  ward,  city,  state,  nation,  conti¬ 
nent;  it  is  a  matter  of  glad  readiness  to  relieve  distress  wherever  found. 
Jesus  transfigures  physical  neighborhood  into  moral,  abolishing  the  word 
“foreigner,”  making  “  the  whole  world  kin.”  “Mankind,”  what  is  it  but 
“  man-kinned?  ”  How  subtle  Shakespeare’s  play  on  words  when  he  makes 
Hamlet  whisper  aside  in  presence  of  his  royal  but  brutal  uncle: 

A  little  more  than  kin  and  less  than  kind. 

Or  take  Christ's  doctrine  of  mankind  as  set  forth  in  His  own  missionary 
commission.  After  2,000  years  of  an  exclusively  Jewish  religion,  the  risen 
Lord  bids  His  countrymen  go  forth  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gos¬ 
pel  of  reconciliation  to  every  creature,  discipling  to  Himself  every  nation 
under  heaven.  How  majestically  the  son  of  Abraham  dilated  into  the  Son 
of  Man.  How  heroically  His  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  St.  Paul,  sought 
to  carry  out  his  Master’s  missionary  commission.  In  fact,  the  mission  of 
Paul  was  a  reversal  of  the  mission  of  Abraham.  Great  was  Abraham’s 
call;  but  it  was  a  call  to  become  the  founder  of  a  single  nationality  and  an 
isolated  religion.  Greater  was  Paul’s  call,  for  it  was  the  call  to  become 
the  founder,  under  the  Son  of  Man,  of  a  universal  brotherhood  of  a  cosmo¬ 
politan  religion.  He  himself  was  the  first  conspicuous  human  illustration 
of  his  Master’s  parable  of  the  (jood  Samaritan. 

And  so  he  sent  forth  into  all  the  world  of  the  vast  Roman  empire, 
announcing,  it  might  almost  be  said  in  literal  truth,  to  every  creature 
under  heaven  the  glad  tidings  of  mankind’s  reconciliation  in  Jesus  Christ. 
In  the  matter  of  the  “solidarity  of  the  nations,”  Paul,  the  Jew  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles,  towers  over  every  other  human  hero,  being  himself  the  first 
conspicuous  human  deputy  to 

The  parliament  of  man,  the  federation  of  the  world. 

Do  you,  then,  not  see  that  when  every  human  being  believes  in  Christ’s 
doctrine  of  mankind,  as  set  forth  in  His  missionary  commission,  all  man¬ 
kind  will  indeed  become  one  blessed  unity. 

Or  take  Christ’s  doctrine  of  the  church,  as  set  forth  in  his  own  parable 
of  the  sheep  and  the  goats — a  wonderful  parable,  the  magnificent  catho¬ 
licity  of  which  we  miss,  because  our  commentators  and  theologians,  in  their 
anxiety  for  standards,  insist  on  applying  it  only  to  the  good  and  the  bad 
living  in  Christian  lands,  whereas  it  is  a  parable  of  all  nations  in  all  times. 

What  unspeakable  catholicity  on  the  part  of  the  Son  of  Man !  Oh,  that 
His  church  had  caught  more  of  His  spirit;  even  as  His  apostle  Peter  did, 
when,  discerning  the  unconscious  Christianity  of  heathen  Cornelius,  he 
exclaimed: 

Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons;  but  that  in  every 
nation  he  that  feareth  Him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  acceptable  to  Him. 

Do  you  see,  then,  that  when  every  human  being  recognizes  in  every  min¬ 
istering  service  to  others  a  personal  ministry  to  Jesus  Christ  Himself,  all 
mankind  will  indeed  become  one  blessed  unity? 

Once  more,  and  in  a  general  summary  of  Christ’s  teaching,  take  His  own 
epitonie  of  the  law  as  set  forth  in  His  answer  to  the  lawyer’s  question; 
“Master,  which  is  the  greatest  of  the  commandments?  ”  And  the  Master’s 
answer  was  this: 

Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul, 
and  with  all  thy  mind,  and  with  all  thy  strength;  this  is  the  first  and  great  com¬ 
mandment.  And  a  second  like  unto  it  is  this:  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself.  On  these  two  commandments  liangeth  the  whole  law  and  the  prophets. 


844 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


Not  that  these  two  commandments  are  really  two;  they  are  simply  a 
two-fold  commandment;  each  is  the  complement  of  the  other;  both  being 
the  obverse  and  the  reverse  legends  engraved  on  the  golden  medallion  of 
God’s  will.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  real  difference  between  Christianity 
and  morality,  for  Christianity  is  morality  looking  Godward;  morality  is 
Christianity  looking  manward.  Christianity  is  morality  celestialized. 
Thus  on  this  two-fold  commandment  of  love  to  God  and  love  to  man  hangs, 
as  a  mighty  portal  hangs  on  its  two  massive  hinges,  not  only  the  whole 
Bible  from  Genesis  to  Apocalypse,  but  also  all  true  morality,  natural  as 
well  as  revealed,  or,  to  express  myself  in  language  suggested  by  the  undula- 
tory  theory:  Love  is  the  ethereal  medium  pervading  God’s  moral  universe, 
by  means  of  which  are  propagated  the  motions  of  His  impulses,  the  heat 
of  His  grace,  the  light  of  His  truth,  the  electricity  of  His  activities,  the 
magnetism  of  His  nature,  the  affinities  of  His  character,  the  gravitation  of 
His  will.  In  brief,  love  is  the  very  definition  of  Deity  Himself:  “  God  is 
love,  and  he  that  abideth  in  love  abideth  in  God  and  God  in  him.” 

I’m  apt  to  think  the  man 
That  could  surround  the  sum  of  things,  and  spy 
The  heart  of  God,  and  secrets  of  His  empire, 

Would  speak  but  love.  With  him  the  bright  result 
Would  change  the  hue  of  intermediate  scenes, 

And  make  one  thing  of  all  theology. 

Do  you  not,  then,  see  that  when  every  human  being  loves  the  Lord,  his 
God,  with  all  his  heart  and  his  neighbor  as  his  own  self  all  mankind  will 
indeed  become  one  blessed  unity? 

Jesus  Christ  is  unifying  mankind  by  His  own  death.  Tasting,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  death  for  every  man.  He  became  by  that  death  the  propi¬ 
tiation,  not  only  for  the  sins  of  the  Jews,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world.  And  in  thus  taking  away  the  sin  of  the  whole  world  by  reconciling 
in  Himself  God  to  man  and  man  to  God,  He  is  also  reconciling  man  to  man. 
What  though  His  reconciliation  has  been  slow,  ages  have  elapsed  since  He 
laid  down  His  own  life  for  the  life  of  the  world,  and  the  world,  still  rife 
with  wars  and  rumors  of  wars,  underrates  not  the  reconciling,  fusing  power 
of  our  Mediator’s  blood.  Recall  the  memorable  prophecy  of  the  high  priest 
Caiaphas,  when  he  counseled  the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  ground  of  the 
public  necessity: 

Ye  know  nothing  at  all,  nor  do  ye  take  account  that  it  is  expedient  for  you, 
that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people  and  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not. 

But  the  Holy  Ghost  was  upon  the  sacrilegious  pontiff,  though  he  knew 
it  not,  and  so  he  builded  larger  than  he  knew.  Meaning  a  narrow  Jewish 
policy,  he  pronounced  a  magnificently  Catholic  prediction: 

Now  this  he  said  not  of  himself  ;  but  being  high  priest  that  year,  he  prophesied 
that  Jesus  should  die  for  the  nation;  and  not  for  the  nation  only,  but  that  He 
might  also  gather  together  (synagogue)  into  one  the  children  of  God  that  are  scat¬ 
tered  abroad. 

Accordingly,  the  moment  that  the  Son  of  Man  bowed  His  head  and 
gave  back  His  spirit  to  His  Father,  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in 
twain  from  the  top  to  the  bottom;  thus  signifying  that  the  way  into  the 
true  holy  of  holies  was  henceforth  open  to  all  mankind  alike;  to  Roman 
Clement  as  well  as  to  Hebrew  Peter;  to  Greek  Athanasius  as  well  as  to 
Hebrew  John;  to  Indian  Khrishnu  Pal  as  well  as  to  Hebrew  Paul.  For,  in 
Christ  Jesus,  Gentiles,  who  were  once  far  off,  are  made  nigh;  for  He  is  the 
world’s  peace,  making  both  Jews  and  non-Jews  one  body,  breaking  down 
the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  them,  having  abolished  on  His  own 
cross  the  enmity,  that  He  might  create  in  Himself  of  the  twain,  Jews  and 
non- Jews,  one  new  man,  even  mankind  Christianized  into  one  unity,  so 
making  peace.  Thus  the  cross  declares  the  brotherhood  of  man,  under 
the  Fatherhood  of  God,  in  the  Sonhood  of  Christ.  Aye,  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
unifier  of  mankind. 


CHRIST  THE  UNIFIER  OF  MANKIND. 


845 


Jesus  Christ  is  unifying  mankind  by  His  own  immortality.  For  we 
Christians  do  not  worship  a  dead,  embalmed  deity.  The  Son  of  Man  has 
burst  the  bars  of  death  and  is  alive  for  evermore,  holding  in  His  own  grasp 
the  keys  of  hades.  The  followers  of  Buddha,  if  I  mistake  not,  claim  that 
Nirvana,  that  state  of  existence  so  nebulous  that  we  can  not  tell  whether 
it  means  simple  unconsciousness  or  total  extinction,  is  the  supremest  goal 
of  aspiration,  and  that  even  Buddha  himself  is  no  longer  a  self-conscious 
person,  but  has  himself  attained  Buddhahood,  or  Nirvana.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  followers  of  Jesus  claim  that  He  is  still  alive,  sitting  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens,  from  henceforth  expecting,  till  He  make 
His  foes  His  footstool.  Holding  personal  communion  with  Him,  His  dis¬ 
ciples  feel  the  inspiration  of  His  vitalizing  touch  and,  therefore,  are  ever 
waking  to  broader  thoughts  and  diviner  catholicities. 

As  He  Himself  promised.  He  is  with  His  followers  to  the  end  of  the  aeon, 
imbuing  them  with  His  own  gracious  spirit;  inspiring  them  to  send  forth 
His  evangel  to  all  nations;  to  soften  the  barbarism  of  the  world’s  legisla¬ 
tions;  to  abolish  its  cruel  slaveries,  its  desolating  wars,  its  murderous 
dramshops,  its  secret  seraglios;  to  found  institutes  for  body,  and  mind,  and 
heart;  to  rear  courts  of  arbitration;  to  lift  up  valleys  of  poverty;  to  cast 
down  the  mountains  of  opulence;  to  straighten  the  twists  of  wrongs;  to 
smooth  the  roughness  of  environment;  in  brief,  to  uprear  out  of  the  del3ris 
of  human  chaos  the  one  august  temple  of  the  new  mankind  in  Jesus 
Christ. 

Thus  the  Son  of  Man,  by  His  own  incarnation,  by  His  own  teachings, 
by  His  own  death,  by  His  own  immortality,  is  most  surely  unifying  mam 
kind. 

And  the  Son  of  Man  is  the  sole  unifier  of  mankind.  Buddha  was  in  many 
respects  very  noble,  but  he  and  his  religion  are  Asiatic.  What  has  Buddha 
done  for  the  unity  of  mankind?  Mohammed  taught  some  very  noble  truths, 
but  Mohammedanism  is  fragmental  and  antithetic.  Why  have  not  his'fol- 
lowers  invited  us  to  meet  at  Mecca?  Jesus  Christ  is  the  one  universal  man, 
and  therefore  it  is  that  the  first  Parliament  of  Religions  is  meeting  in  a 
Christian  land,  under  Christian  auspices.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  sole  bond  of 
the  human  race;  the  one  nexus  of  the  nations,  the  great  vertebral  column 
of  the  one  body  of  mankind.  He  it  is  who  by  His  own  personality  is  bridg¬ 
ing  the  rivers  of  languages,  tunneliug  the  mountains  of  caste,  dismantling 
the  fortresses  of  nations,  spanning  the  seas  of  races,  incorporating  all  human 
varieties  into  one  majestic  temple-body  of  mankind.  For  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  true  center  of  gravity,  and  it  is  only  as  the  forces  of  mankind  are  pivoted 
on  Him  that  they  are  in  balance.  And  the  oscillations  of  mankind  are 
perceptibly  shortening  as  the  time  of  the  promised  equilibrium  draws  near. 
There,  as  on  a  great  white  throne,  serenely  sits  the  Swordless  King  of  Ages — 
Himself  both  the  ancient  and  the  infant  of  days — calmly  abiding  the  cent¬ 
uries,  mending  the  bruised  reed,  fanning  the  dying  wick,  sending  forth 
righteousness  unto  victory;  there  He  sits,  evermore  drawing  mankind  nearer 
and  nearer  Himself;  and  as  they  approach  I  see  them  dropping  the  spear, 
waving  the  olive  branch,  arranging  themselves  in  symmetric,  shining,  rap¬ 
turous  groups  around  the  divine  Son  of  Man,  He  Himself  being  their  ever¬ 
lasting  mount  of  beatitudes. 

Down  the  dark  future,  through  long  generations. 

The  echoing  sounds  grow  fainter  and  then  cease; 

And  like  a  bell,  with  solemn,  sweet  vibrations, 

I  hear  once  more  the  voice  of  Christ  say  “  Peace.” 

Peace,  and  no  longer  from  its  brazen  portals 
The  blast  of  War’s  great  organ  shakes  the  skies; 

But,  beautiful  as  songs  of  the  immortals, 

The  holy  melodies  of  love  arise. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


CLOSING  SCENES  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 

Tlie  closing  scenes,  on  the  evening  of  September  27th,  were 
very  impressive.  On  the  platform  were  leading  representatives 
of  many  nationalities  and  creeds. 

The  exercises  began  with  “  Lift  Up  Your  Heads,  Oh,  Ye 
Gates  ”  by  the  Apollo  Club,  under  the  leadership  of  Professor 
Tomlins.  Then,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Bonney,  the  assembly 
arose  and  silently  invoked  the  divine  blessing.  Cardinal 
Newman’s  hymn,  “  Lead,  Kindly  Light,”  was  sung  by  the 
chorus. 

“  The  demands  of  the  occasion,”  said  Mr.  Bonney,  “  require 
the  utmost  possible  economy  of  our  time.  We  shall  endeavor 
to  present  during  the  evening  a  large  number  of  brief  speeches 
rather  than  a  few  long  ones.  Dr.  Barrows  will  now  present  some 
of  the  distinguished  guests  whom  we  have  entertained  during 
the  past  three  weeks,  and  who  have  taken  such  an  active  part 
in  the  World’s  Parliament  of  Religions.” 

“You  are  to  hear  to-night,”  said  Dr.  Barrows,  stepping  to 
the  reading  desk,  “  more  than  twenty  brief  speeches  and,  of 
course,  all  words  of  introduction  must  be  few.  The  first 
speaker  whom  I  have  the  honor  to  introduce  is  Dr.  Alfred  W. 
Momerie  of  London,  whom  we  all  know  as  a  brilliant  man,  and 
whom  we  all  have  discovered  is  a  very  lovable  man,  and  he  has 
come  to  love  the  White  City,  Chicago,  and  the  Parliament  of 
Religions.  When  he  goes  back  to  his  native  land  and  stands 
on  London  bridge  again  and  thinks  of  our  World’s  Fair  he 

will  no  doubt  say:  ‘  Though  lost  to  sight,  to  Momerie  dear.’  ” 

846 


CLOSING  SCENES  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 


847 


DR.  ALFRED  W.  MOMERIE  OF  LONDON. 

Dr.  Momerie  spoke  as  follows: 

Before  we  part,  I  wish  to_say  three  things.  First  of  all,  I  want  to  tender 
my  warmest  congratulations  to  Dr.  Barrows.  I  do  not  believe  there  is 
another  man  living  who  could  have  carried  this  congress  through  and  made 
it  such  a  gigantic  success.  It  needed  a  head,  a  heart,  an  energy,  a  common 
sense,  and  a  pluck  such  as  I  have  never  known  to  be  united  before  in  a 
single  individual. 

During  my  stay  in  Chicago,  it  has  been  my  singular  good  fortune  to  be 
received  as  a  guest  by  the  kindest  of  hosts  and  the  most  charming  of  host¬ 
esses,  and  among  the  many  j)leasures  of  their  brilliant  and  delightful 
tables  one  of  the  greatest  has  been  that  I  have  sat  day  by  day  by  Dr.  Bar- 
rows,  and  day  by  clay  I  have  learned  to  admire  and  love  him  more.  In  the 
successes  that  lie  before  him  in  the  future  I  shall  always  take  the  keenest 
interest;  but  he  has  already  achieved  something  that  will  eclipse  all.  jVs 
chairman  of  this  first  Parliament  of  Religions  he  has  won  immortal  glory 
which  nothing  in  the  future  can  diminish,  which  I  fancy  nothing  in  the 
future  can  very  much  augment. 

Secondly,  I  should  like  to  offer  my  congratulations  to  the  American 
people.  This  Parliament  of  Religions  has  been  held  in  the  New  World.  I 
confess  I  wish  it  had  been  held  in  the  Old  World,  in  my  own  country,  and 
that  it  had  had  its  origin  in  my  ov/n  church.  It  is  the  greatest  event  so 
far  in  the  history  of  the  world,  and  it  has  been  held  on  American  soil.  I 
congratulate  the  people  of  America.  Their  example  will  be  followed  in 
time  to  come  in  other  countries  and  by  other  peoples,  but  there  is  one  honor 
which  will  always  be  America’s— the  honor  of  having  led  the  way.  And, 
certainly,  I  should  like  to  offer  my  congratulations  to  you,  the  citizens  of 
Chicago. 

While  our  minds  are  full  of  the  parliament,  I  can  not  forget  the  Fair. 
I  have  seen  all  the  expositions  of  Europe  during  the  last  ten  or  twelve 
years,  and  I  am  sure  I  do  not  exaggerate  whon  I  say  that  your  exposition 
is  greater  than  all  the  rest  put  together.  But  your  Parliament  of  Religions 
is  far  greater  than  your  exposition.  There  havo  been  plenty  of  expositions 
before.  Yours  is  the  best,  but  it  is  a  comparatively  common  thing.  The 
Parliament  of  Religions  is  a  new  thing  in  the  world.  Most  people,  even 
those  who  regarded  the  idea  with  pleasure,  thought  that  it  was  an  impossi¬ 
bility.  But  it  has  been  achieved.  Here,  in  this  Hall  of  Columbus,  vast 
audiences  have  assembled  day  after  day,  the  members  of  which  came  from 
all  churches  and  from  all  sects,  and  sometimes  from  no  church  at  all.  Here 
they  sat  side  by  side  during  long,  I  had  almost  said  weary,  hours — the 
hours  would  have  been  weary  but  for  their  enthusiasm — here  they  sat 
side  by  side  during  the  long  hours  of  the  day,  listening  to  doctrines 
which  they  had  been  taught  to  regard  with  contempt,  listening  with 
respect,  with  sympathy,  with  an  earnest  desire  to  learn  something  which 
could  improve  their  own  doctrines. 

And  here  on  the  platform  have  sat,  as  brethren,  the  representatives  of 
churches  and  sects  which,  during  bygone  centuries,  hated  and  cursed  one 
another,  and  scarcely  a  word  has  fallen  from  any  of  us  which  could  possi¬ 
bly  give  offense.  If  occasionally  the  old  Adam  did  show  itself,  if  occasion¬ 
ally  something  was  said  which  had  been  better  left  unsaid,  no  harm  was 
done.  It  only  served  to  kindle  into  a  flame  of  general  and  universal 
enthusiasm  your  brotherly  love.  It  seemed  an  impossibility,  but  here  in 
Chicago  the  impossible  has  been  realized.  You  have  shown  that  you  do 
not  believe  in  impossibilities.  It  could  not  have  been  realized  but  for  you. 
It  could  not  have  been  realized  without  your  sympathy  and  your 
enthusiasm. 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


gl8 


Citizens  of  Chicago,  I  congratulate  you.  If  you  show  yourselves  in 
other  things  as  great  as  you  have  shown  yourselves  in  regard  to  this  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  Religions  most  assuredly  the  time  will  come  when  Chicago  will  be 
the  first  city  in  America,  the  first  city  in  the  world. 

EEV.  P.  C.  MOZOOMDAR. 

Rev.  P.  C.  Mozoomdar  of  the  Brahmo-Somaj  delivered  the 
following  address: 

Brethren  of  Different  Faiths :  This  Parliament  of  Religions,  this  con¬ 
course  of  spirits,  is  to  break  up  before  to-morrow’s  sun.  What  lessons  have 
we  learned  from  our  incessant  labors?  Firstly,  the  charge  of  materialism 
laid  against  the  age  in  general,  and  against  America  in  particular,  is 
refuted  forever.  Could  these  myriads  have  spent  their  time,  their  energy, 
neglected  their  business,  their  pleasures,  to  be  present  with  us  if  their 
spirit  had  not  risen  above  their  material  needs  or  carnal  desires?  The 
spirit  dominates  still  over  matter  and  over  mankind. 

Secondly,  the  unity  of  purpose  and  feeling  unmistakably  shown  in  the 
harmonious  proceedings  of  these  seventeen  days  teaches  that  men  with 
opposite  views,  denominations  with  contradictory  principles  and  histories, 
can  form  one  congregation,  one  household,  one  body,  for  however  short  a 
time,  when  animated  by  one  spirit.  Who  is  or  what  is  that  spirit?  It  is 
the  Spirit  of  God  Himself.  This  unity  of  man  with  man  is  the  unity  of 
man  with  God,  and  the  unity  of  man  with  man  in  God  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  When  I  came  here  by  the  invitation  of  you,  Mr.  President,  I  came 
with  the  hope  of  seeing  the  object  of  my  lifelong  faith  and  labors,  viz.,  the 
harmony  of  religions  effected.  The  last  public  utterance  of  my  leader, 
Keshub  Chunder  Sen,  made  in  1883,  in  his  lecture  called  “Asia’s  Message 
to  Europe,”  was  this: 

Here  will  meet  the  world’s  representatives,  the  foremost  spirits,  the  most 
living  hearts,  the  leading  thinkers  and  devotees  of  each  church,  and  offer  united 
hoinage,to  the  King  of  Kings  and  the  Lord  of  Lords.  This  central  union 
church  IS  no  Utopian  fancy  but  a  veritable  reality,  whose  beginning  we  see 
already  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  Already  the  right  wing  of  each  church 
is  pressing  forward,  and  the  advanced  liberals  are  drawing  near  each  other 
under  the  central  banner  of  the  new  dispensation. 

Believe  me,  the  time  is  coming  when  the  more  liberal  of  the  Catholic  and 
Protestant  branches  of  Christ’s  Church  will  advance  and  meet  upon  a  common 
platform,  and  form  a  broad  Christian  community  in  which  all  shall  be  identi¬ 
fied,  in  spite  of  all  diversities  and  differences  in  non-essential  matters  of  faith. 
So  shall  the  Baptists  and  Methodists,  Trinitarian  and  Unitarian,  the  Ritualists 
ai)d  the  Evangelical,  all  unite  in  a  broad  and  universal  church  organization, 
loving,  honoring,  serving  the  common  body  while  retaining  the  peculiarities  of 
each  sect.  Only  the  broad  of  each  sect  shall  for  the  present  come  forward,  will 
others  shall  follow  in  time. 

The  base  remains  where  it  is;  the  vast  masses  at  the  foot  of  each  church  and 
yet  remain,  perhaps  for  centuries,  where  they  now  are.  But  as  you  look  to  the 
lofty  heights  above  you  will  see  all  the  bolder  spirits  and  broad  souls  of  each 
church  pressing  forward,  onward,  heavenward.  Come,  then,  my  friends,  ye 
broad-hearted  of  all  the  churches,  advance,  and  shake  hands  with  each  other,  and 
promote  that  spiritual  fellowship,  that  kingdom  of  heaven  which  Christ  predicted. 

These  words  were  said  in  1883,  and  in  1893  every  letter  of  the  prophecy 
has  been  fulfilled.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  to  my  mind  a  vast  concen¬ 
tric  circle  with  various  circumferences  of  doctrines,  authorities,  and  organi¬ 
zations  from  outer  to  inner,  from  inner  to  inner  still,  until  heaven  and 
earth  become  one.  The  outermost  circle  is  belief  in  God,  and  the  love  of 
man.  In  the  tolerance,  kindness,  good-will,  patience,  and  wisdom,  which 
have  distinguished  the  work  of  this  parliament,  that  outermost  circle  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  has  been  described.  We  have  influenced  vast  numbers 
of  men  and  women  of  all  opinions,  and  the  influence  will  spread  and 
spread.  So  many  human  unities  drawn  within  the  magnetic  circle  of 


CLOSING  SCENES  OF  TBE  PARLIAMENT. 


849 


spiritual  sympathy  can  not  but  influence  and  widen  the  various  denomina¬ 
tions  to  which  they  belong.  In  the  course  of  time  those  inner  circles  must 
widen  also,  till  the  love  of  man  and  the  love  of  God  are  perfected  in  one 
church,  one  God,  one  salvation. 

I  conclude  with  acknowledging  the  singular  cordiality  and  appreciation 
extended  to  us  Orientals.  Where  everyone  has  done  so  well,  we  did  not 
deserve  special  honor,  but  undeserved  as  the  honor  may  be,  it  shows  the 
greatness  of  your  leaders,  and  especially  of  your  chairman.  Dr.  Barrows. 
Dr.  Barrows,  humanly  speaking,  has  been  the  soul  of  this  noble  movement. 
The  profoundest  blessings  of  the  present  and  future  generations  shall  fol¬ 
low  him. 

And  now,  farewell.  For  once  in  history  all  religions  have  made  their 
peace,  all  nations  have  called  each  other  brothers,  and  their  representatives 
have  for  seventeen  days  stood  up  morning  after  morning  to  pray  Our 
Father,  the  universal  Father  of  all,  in  heaven.  His  will  has  been  done  so 
far,  and  in  the  great  coming  future  may  that  blessed  will  be  done  further 
and  further,  forever  and  ever. 

“We  have  heard  a  voice  from  India,”  said  Dr.  Barrows. 
“  Let  us  now  hear  a  well-beloved  voice  from  Russia.”  Prince 
Serge  Wolkonsky  then  came  forward  and  said: 

I  hardly  realize  that  it  is  for  the  last  time  in  my  life  I  have  the  honor, 
the  pleasure,  the  fortune  to  speak  to  you.  On  this  occasion,  I  should  like 
to  tell  you  so  many  things  that  I  am  afraid  that  if  I  give  free  course  to 
my  sentiments  I  will  feel  the  delicate  but  imperative  touch  of  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent’s  hand  on  my  shoulder  long  before  I  reach  the  end  of  my  speech. 
Therefore,  I  will  say  thanks  to  all  of  you,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  in  the  short¬ 
est  possible  words — thanks  for  your  kind  attention,  for  your  kind  applause, 
your  kind  laughter,  for  your  hearty  hand  shakes.  You  will  believe  how 
deeply  I  am  obliged  to  you  when  I  tell  you  that  this  is  the  first  time  in 
my  life  that  I  ever  took  an  active  part  in  a  congress,  and  I  wish  any  enter¬ 
prise  I  might  undertake  later  on  might  leave  me  such  happy  remembrances 
as  this  first  experience. 

Before  bidding  you  farewell,  1  want  to  express  a  wish;  may  the  good 
feelings  you  have  shown  me  so  many  times,  may  they,  through  my 
unworthy  personality,  spread  to  the  people  of  my  country,  whom  you  know 
so  little  and  whom  I  love  so  much.  If  I  ask  you  that,  it  is  because  I  know 
the  prejudices  which  prevail  among  the  people  of  your  country.  A  com¬ 
patriot  said  the  other  day  that  Russians  thought  all  Americans  were 
angels,  and  that  Americans  thought  all  Russians  were  brutes.  Now,  once 
in  awhile,  these  angels  and  these  brutes  come  together,  and  both  are 
deceived  in  their  expectations.  We  see  that  you  are  certainly  not  angels, 
and  you  see  we  are  not  quite  as  much  brute  as  you  thought  we  were. 

Now,  why  this  disappointment  ?  Why  this  surprise  ?  Why  this  aston¬ 
ishment  ?  Because  we  won’t  remember  that  we  are  men,  and  nothing  else 
and  nothing  more.  We  can  not  be  anything  more,  for  to  be  a  man  is  the 
highest  thing  we  can  pretend  to  be  on  this  earth.  I  do  not  know  whether 
many  have  learned  in  the  sessions  of  this  parliament  what  respect  of  God 
is,  but  I  know  that  no  one  will  leave  the  congress  without  having  learned 
what  respect  of  man  is.  And  should  the  Parliament  of  Religions  of  1893 
have  no  other  result  but  this,  it  is  enough  to  make  the  names  of  Dr.  Bar- 
rows  and  those  who  have  helped  him  imperishable  in  the  history  of 
humanity. 

Should  this  congress  have  no  other  result  than  to  teach  us  to  judge  our 
fellowman  by  his  individual  value,  and  not  by  the  political  opinions  he 
may  have  of  his  country,  I  will  express  my  gratitude  to  the  congress,  not 
only  in  the  name  of  those  our  brothers  who  are  my  countrymen  but  in 


850 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


the  name  of  those  our  brothers  whom  we  so  often  revile  because  the  politi¬ 
cal  traditions  of  their  country  refuse  the  recognition  of  home  rule;  in  the 
name  of  those  our  fellowmen  whose  motherland  stands  on  the  neck  of 
India;  in  the  name  of  those  our  brothers  whom  we  so  often  blame  only 
because  the  governments  ot  their  country  send  rapacious  armies  on  the 
western,  southern,  and  eastern  coasts  of  Africa.  I  will  express  my  gratitude 
to  the  congress  in  the  name  of  those  my  brothers  whom  we  so  often  judge 
so  wrongly,  because  of  the  cruel  treatment  their  government  inflicts  upon 
the  Chinese.  I  will  congratulate  the  congress  in  the  name  of  the  whole 
world  if  those  who  have  been  here  have  learned  that,  as  long  as  politics 
and  politicians  exist,  there  is  no  happiness  possible  on  earth.  I  will  con¬ 
gratulate  the  congress  in  the  name  of  the  whole  humanity  if  those  who 
have  attended  sessions  have  realized  that  it  is  a  crime  to  be  astonished 
when  we  see  that  another  human  being  is  a  man  like  ourselves. 

Now,  Dr.  Bonney,  one  word  to  you  personally.  All  I  have  said  in 
thanking  these  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  beg  you  to  accept  for  yourself;  for 
all  I  owe  to  them  is  due  to  your  kindness.  I  pray  you  to  accept  my  per¬ 
sonal  gratitude,  and  the  assurance  that  wheeever  I  may  be  of  any  use  to 
you,  although  on  the  other  side  of  the  earth,  St.  Petersburg  will  be  near 
enough  to  Chicago.  No  continents,  no  oceans,  no  distances  will  ever  prevent 
me  from  reaching  a  friendly  hand  to  President  Bonney,  nor  to  any  of  the 
distinguished  gentlemen  and  ladies  I  am  so  happy  to  have  met  and  known. 

“  We  have  a  splendid  delegation  from  the  sunrise  kingdom 
of  Japan,”  remarked  Dr.  Barrows,  “  and  I’m  going  to  ask  our 
friends,  the  Buddhist  representatives  of  Japan,  to  rise  as  their 
names  are  called,  and  then  our  eloquent  friend,  Mr.  Hirai,  will 
speak  for  them.” 

The  four  Buddhist  priests,  attired  in  the  full  vestments  of 
their  order,  arose  and  saluted  the  audience.  “  Mr.  Hirai,”  con¬ 
tinued  Dr.  Barrows,  “  has  lived  for  several  years  in  our  country. 
His  voice  was  one  of  the  first  to  thrill  us  through  and  through 
as  he  told  us  of  the  wrongs  so-called  Christian  civilization  had 
committed  in  Japan.  I  now  have  the  pleasure  of  introducing 
him.” 

MR.  HIRAI. 

We  can  not  but  admire  the  tolerant  forbearance  and  compassion  of  the 
people  of  the  civilized  West.  You  are  the  j^ioneers  in  human  history.  You 
have  achieved  an  assembly  of  the  world’s  religions,  and  we  believe  your 
next  step  will  be  toward  the  ideal  goal  of  this  parliament,  the  realization  of 
international  justice.  We,  ourselves,  desire  to  witness  its  fulfillment  in  our 
lifetime,  and  to  greet  you  again  with  our  deepest  admiration.  By  your  kind 
hosj^itality  we  have  forgotten  that  we  are  strangers,  and  we  nre  very  much  ► 
attached  to  this  city.  To  leave  here  makes  us  feel  as  if  we  were  leaving  our 
native  country.  To  part  with  you  makes  us  feel  as  we  were  parting  from 
our  own  sisters  and  brothers.  When  we  think  of  our  homeward  journey  we 
can  not  help  shedding  tears.  Farewell.  The  cold  winter  is  coming,  and 
we  earnestly  wish  that  you  may  be  in  good  health.  Farewell. 

“  The  oldest  and  greatest  empire,”  said  Dr.  Barrows,  “  is 


CLOSING  SCENES  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 


851 


China.  The  honorable  Pung  Quang  Yu,  special  commissioner 
to  this  congress,  will  now  address  you.”  Instead  of  reading 
his  own  speech,  Mr.  Pung  Quang  Yu  simply  arose  and  saluted 
the  assembly  and  handed  his  manuscript  to  Dr.  Barrows,  who 
read  it  tis  follows : 

It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  touch  upon  the  existing  relations  between 
the  Government  of  China  and  that  of  the  United  States.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  Chinese  minister  at  Washington  and  the  honorable  Secre¬ 
tary  of  State  are  well  able  to  deal  with  every  question  arising  between  the 
two  countries  in  a  manner  satisfactory  and  honorable  to  both.  As  I  am  a 
delegate  to  the  religious  congresses,  I  can  not  but  feel  that  all  religious  people 
are  my  friends.  I  have  a  favor  to  ask  of  all  the  religious  people  of  Amer¬ 
ica,  and  that  is  that  they  will  treat,  hereafter,  all  my  countrymen  just  as 
they  have  treated  me.  I  shall  be  a  hundred  times  more  grateful  to  them 
for  the  kind  treatment  of  my  countrymen  than  of  myself.  I  am  sure  that 
the  Americans  in  China  receive  just  such  considerate  treatment  from  the 
cultured  people  of  China  as  I  have  received  from  you.  The  majority  of  my 
countrymen  in  this  country  are  honest  and  law-abiding.  Christ  teaches  us 
that  it  is  not  enough  to  love  one’s  brethren  only.  I  am  sure  that  all  relig- . 
ious  people  will  not  think  this  request  too  extravagant. 

It  is  my  sincere  hope  that  no  national  differences  will  ever  interrupt  the 
friendly  relations  between  the  two  governments,  and  that  the  two  peoples 
will  equally  enjoy  the  protection  and  blessings  of  heaven,  I  intend  to  leave 
this  country  shortly.  I  shall  tak§  great  pleasure  in  reporting  to  my 
government  the  proceedings  of  this  parliament  upon  my  return.  With  this 
I  desire  to  hid  all  my  friends  farewell. 

EIGHT  KEV.  ME.  SHABITA  OF  JAPAN. 

Mr.  Barrows  then  introduced  Bight  Bev.  Mr.  Shabita,  high 
priest  of  the  Shinto  religion  of  Japan.  The  Japanese  delegate 

arose  and  bowed  profoundly.  Dr.  Barrows  read  his  address: 

I  am  here  in  the  pulpit  again  to  express  my  thanks  for  the  kindness, 
hearty  welcome,  and  applause  I  have  been  enjoying  at  your  hands  ever 
since  I  came  here  to  Chicago.  You  have  shown  great  sympathy  with  my 
humble  opinion,  and  your  newspaper  men  have  talked  of  me  in  high  terms. 

I  am  happy  that  I  have  had  the  honor  of  listening  to  so  many  famous 
scholars  and  preachers  forwarding  the  same  o^jinion  of  the  necessity  of 
universal  brotherhood  and  humanity.  I  am  deeply  impressed  with  the 
peace,  politeness,  and  education  which  characterize  your  audiences.  But 
is  it  not  too  sad  that  such  jjleasures  are  always  short-lived?  I,  who  made 
acquaintance  with  you  only  yesterday,  have  to  part  with  you  to-day, 
though  reluctantly.  This  Parliament  of  Religions  is  the  most  remarkable 
event  in  history,  and  it  is  the  first  honor  in  my  life  to  have  the  privilege  of 
appearing  before  you  to  pour  out  my  humble  idea,  which  was  so  well 
accepted  by  you  all.  You  like  me,  but  I  think  it  is  not  the  mortal  Shabita 
that  you  like,  but  you  like  the  immortal  idea  of  universal  brotherhood. 

What  I  wish  to  do  is  to  assist  you  in  carrying  out  the  plan  of  forming 
the  universal  brotherhood  under  the  one  roof  of  truth.  You  know  unity 
is  i^ower.  I,  who  can  speak  no  language  but  Japanese,  may  help  you  in 
crowning  that  grand  project  with  success.  To  come  here  I  had  many 
obstacles  to  overcome,  many  struggles  to  make.  You  must  not  think  I 
represent  all  Shintoism.  I  only  represent  my  own  Shinto  sect.  But  who 


852  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGION^. 

dares  to  destroy  universal  fraternity?  So  long  as  the  sun  and  moon  con¬ 
tinue  to  shine  all  friends  of  truth  must  be  willing  to  tight  courageously  for 
this  great  principle.  I  do  not  know  as  I  shall  ever  see  you  again  in  this 
life,  but  our  souls  have  been  so  pleasantly  united  here  that  I  hope  they  may 
be  again  united  in  the  life  hereafter. 

Now  I  pray  that  8,000,000  deities  protecting  the  beautiful  cherry-tree 
country  of  Japan  may  protect  you  and  your  Government  forever,  and  with 
this  I  bid  you  good-by.  * 


H.  DHARMAPALA  OF  CEYLON. 

Peace,  Blessings,  and  Salutations,  Brethren:  This  Congress  of  Religions 
has  achieved  a  stupendous  work  in  bringing  before  you  the  representatives 
of  the  religions  and  philosophies  of  the  East.  The  committee  on  religious 
congresses  has  realized  the  Utopian  idea  of  the  poet  and  the  visionary.  By 
the  wonderful  genius  of  two  men — Mr.  Bonney  and  Dr.  Barrows — a  beacon 
light  has  been  erected  on  the  platform  of  the  Chicago  Parliament  of  Relig¬ 
ions  to  guide  the  yearning  souls  after  truth. 

I,  on  behalf  of  the  475,000,000  of  my  co-religionists,  followers  of  the 
gentle  Lord  Buddha  Gautama,  tender  my  affectionate  regards  to  you  and 
to  Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows,  a  man  of  noble  tolerance,  of  sweet  disposition, 
whose  equal  I  could  hardly  find.  And  you,  my  brothers  and  sisters,  born 
in  this  land  of  freedom,  you  have  learned  from  your  brothers  of  the  far 
East  their  presentation  of  the  respective  religious  systems  they  follow. 
You  have  listened  with  commendable  patience  to  the  teachings  of  the  all- 
merciful  Buddha  through  his  humble  followers.  During  his  earthly  career 
of  forty-five  years  he  labored  in  emancipating  the  human  mind  from  relig¬ 
ious  prejudices,  and  preaching  a  doctrine  which  has  made  Asia  mild.  By 
the  patient  and  laborious  researches  of  the  men  of  science,  you  are  given  to 
enjoy  the  fruits  of  material  civilization,  but  this  civilization  by  itself 
finds  no  praise  at  the  hands  of  the  great  naturalists  of  the  day. 

Learn  to  think  without  prejudice,  love  all  beings  for  love’s  sake,  express 
your  convictions  fearlessly,  lead  a  life  of  purity  and  the  sunlight  of  truth 
will  illuminate  you.  If  theology  and  dogma  stand  in  your  way  in  the 
search  of  truth  put  them  aside.  Be  earnest  and  work  out  your  own  salva¬ 
tion  with  diligence,  and  the  fruits  of  holiness  will  be  yours. 

Rev.  Dr.  George  T.  Candlin  of  China  was  next  introduced 
and  said: 

It  is  with  deepest  joy  that  I  take  my  part  in  the  congratulations  of  this 
closing  day.  The  parliament  has  more  than  justified  my  most  sanguine 
expectations.  As  a  missionary  I  anticipate  that  it  will  make  a  new  era  of 
missionary  enterprise  and  missionary  hope.  If  it  does  not,  it  will  not  be 
your  fault,  and  let  those  take  the  blame  who  make  it  otherwise.  Very 
sure  I  am  that  at  least  one  missionary,  who  counts  himself  the  humblest 
member  of  this  noble  assembly,  will  carry  through  every  day  of  work, 
through  every  hour  of  effort,  on  till  the  sun  of  life  sets  on  the  completion 
of  his  task,  the  strengthening  memory  and  uplifting  inspiration  of  this 
pentecost. 

By  this  parliament  the  city  of  Chicago  has  placed  herself  far  away 
above  all  the  cities  of  the  earth.  In  this  school  you  have  learned  what  no 
other  town  or  city  in  the  world  yet  knows.  The  conventional  idea  of  relig¬ 
ion  which  obtains  among  Christians  the  world  over  is  that  Christianity  is 
true,  all  other  religions  false;  that  Christianity  is  of  God,  while  other 
religions  are  of  the  devil;  or  else,  with  a  little  spice  of  moderation,  that 
Christianity  is  a  revelation  from  heaven,  while  other  religions  are  manu¬ 
factures  of  men.  You  know  better,  and  with  clear  light  and  strong  assur¬ 
ance  can  testify  that  there  may  be  friendship  instead  of  antagonism  between 


CLOSING  SCENES  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 


853 


religion  and  religion,  that  so  surely  as  God  is  our  common  Father,  oui 
hearts  alike  have  yearned  for  Him,  and  our  souls  in  devoutest  moods  have 
caught  whispers  of  grace  dropped  from  His  throne. 

Then  this  is  Pentecost,  and  behind  is  the  conversion  of  the  world. 

SWAMI  VIVE  KANANDA. 

Swami  Vive  Kananda  made  his  farewell  as  follows: 

The  World’s  Parliament  of  Religions  has  become  an  accomplished  fact, 
and  the  merciful  Father  has  helped  those  who  labored  to  bring  it  into 
existence  and  crowned  with  success  their  most  unselfish  labor.  My  thanks 
to  those  noble  souls  whose  large  hearts  and  love  of  truth  first  dreamed  this 
wonderful  dream  and  then  realized  it.  My  thanks  to  the  shower  of 
liberal  sentiments  that  has  overflowed  this  platform.  My  thanks  to  this 
enlightened  audience  for  their  uniform  kindness  to  me  and  for  their 
appreciation  of  every  thought  that  tends  to  smooth  the  friction  of  religions. 
A  few  jarring  notes  were  heard  from  time  to  time  in  this  harmony.  My 
special  thanks  to  them,  for  they  have,  by  their  striking  contrast,  made  the 
general  harmony  the  sweeter. 

Much  has  been  said  of  the  common  ground  of  religious  unity.  I  am 
not  going  just  now  to  venture  my  own  theory.  But  if  anyone  here  hopes 
that  this  unity  will  come  by  the  triumph  of  any  one  of  these  religions 
and  the  destruction  of  the  others,  to  him  I  say:  “  Brother,  yours  is  an 
impossible  hope.”  Do  I  wish  that  the  Christian  would  become  Hindu? 
God  forbid.  Do  I  wish  that  the  Hindu  or  Buddhist  would  become  Chris¬ 
tian?  God  forbid. 

The  seed  is  put  in  the  ground,  and  earth  and  air  and  water  are  placed 
around  it.  Does  the  seed  become  the  earth,  or  the  air,  or  the  water?  No. 
It  becomes  a  plant;  it  develops  after  the  law  of  its  own  growth,  assim¬ 
ilates  the  air,  the  earth,  and  the  water,  converts  them  into  plant  substance 
and  grows  a  plant. 

Similar  is  the  case  with  religion.  The  Christian  is  not  to  become  a 
Hindu  or  a  Buddhist,  nor  a  Hindu  or  a  Buddhist  to  become  a  Christian. 
But  each  must  assimilate  the  others  and  yet  preserve  its  individuality  and 
grow  according  to  its  own  law  of  growth. 

If  the  Parliament  of  Religions  has  shown  anything  to  the  world  it  is 
this:  It  has  proved  to  the  world  that  holiness,  purity,  and  charity  are  not 
the  exclusive  possessions  of  any  church  in  the  world,  and  that  every  system 
has  produced  men  and  women  of  the  most  exalted  character. 

In  the  face  of  this  evidence,  if  anybody  dreams  of  the  exclusive  survival 
of  his  own  and  the  destruction  of  the  others,  I  pity  him  from  the  bottom 
of  my  heart,  and  point  out  to  him  that  upon  the  banner  of  every  religion 
would  soon  be  written,  in  spite  of  their  resistance:  “Help  and  Not  Fight,” 
“Assimilation  and  Not  Destruction,”  “Harmony  and  Peace  and  Not 
Dissension.” 


VICHAND  GANDHI. 

Are  we  not  all  sorry  that  we  are  parting  so  soon?  Do  we  not  wish  that 
this  parliament  would  last  seventeen  times  seventeen  days?  Have  we  not 
heard  with  pleasure  and  interest  the  speeches  of  the  learned  representa¬ 
tives  on  this  platform?  Do  we  not  see  that  the  sublime  dream  of  the 
organizers  of  this  unique  parliament  has  been  more  than  realized?  If 
you  will  only  permit  a  heathen  to  deliver  his  message  of  peace  and  love  I 
shall  only  ask  you  to  look  at  the  multifarious  ide  is  presented  to  you  in  a 
liberal  spirit,  and  not  with  superstition  and  bigotry,  as  the  seven  blind  men 
did  in  the  elephant  story. 


854 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Once  upon  a  time  in  a  great  city  an  elephant  was  brought  with  a  circus. 
The  people  had  never  seen  an  elephant  before.  There  were  seven  blind 
men  in  the  city  who  longed  to  know  what  kind  of  an  animal  it  was,  so  they 
went  together  to  the  place  where  the  elephant  was  kept.  One  of  them 
placed  his  hands  on  the  ears,  another  on  the  legs,  a  third  on  the  tail  of  the 
elephant,  and  so  on.  When  they  were  asked  by  the  people  what  kind  of  an 
animal  the  elepli.uit  was,  one  of  the  blind  men  said:  “Oh,  to  be  sure,  the 
elephant  is  like  a  big  winnowing  fan.”  Another  blind  man  said:  “No,  my 
dear  sir,  you  are  wrong.  The  elephant  is  more  like  a  big,  round  post.”  The 
third:  “  You  are  quite  mistaken;  it  is  like  a  tapering  stick.”  The  rest  of 
them  gave  also  their  different  opinions.  The  proprietor  of  the  circus 
stepped  forward  and  said:  “  My  friends,  you  are  all  mistaken.  You  have  not 
examined  the  elephant  from  all  sides.  Had  you  done  so  you  would  not 
have  taken  one-sided  views.” 

Brothers  and  sisters,  I  entreat  you  to  hear  the  moral  of  this  story,  and 
learn  to  examine  the  various  religious  systems  from  all  standpoints. 

I  now  thank  you  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart  for  the  kindness  with 
which  you  have  received  us,  and  for  the  liberal  spirit  and  patience  with 
which  you  have  heard  us.  And  to  you,  Rev.  Dr.  Barrows  and  President 
Bonney,  we  owe  the  deepest  gratitude  for  the  hospitality  which  you  have 
extended  to  us. 

PIIINCE  MOMOLU  MASAQUOI  OF  AFRICA. 

Permit  me  to  express  my  hearty  thanks  to  the  chairman  of  this  con¬ 
gress  for  the  honor  conferred  upon  me  personally  by  the  privilege  of  repre¬ 
senting  Africa  in  this  World’s  Parliament  of  Religions.  There  is  an 
important  relationship  which  Africa  sustains  to  this  particular  gathering. 
Nearly  1,900  years  ago,  the  great  dawn  of  Christian  morning,  we  saw 
benighted  Africa  open  her  doors  to  the  infant  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  after¬ 
ward  the  Pounder  of  one  of  the  greatest  religions  man  ever  embraced,  and 
the  Teacher  of  the  highest  and  noblest  sentiments  ever  taught,  whose 
teaching  has  resulted  in  the  presence  of  this  magnificent  audience. 

As  I  sat  in  this  audience,  listening  to  the  distinguished  delegates  and 
representatives  in  this  assembly  of  learning,  of  philosophy,  of  systems  of 
religions  represented  by  scholarship  and  devout  hearts,  I  said  to  myself, 
“  What  shall  the  harvest  be.” 

The  very  atmosphere  seems  pregnant  with  an  indefinable,  inexpressible 
something — something  too  solemn  for  human  utterance — something  I  dare 
not  express.  Previous  to  this  gathering  the  greatest  enmity  existed  among 
the  world’s  religions.  To-night — I  dare  not  speak  as  one  seeing  visions  or 
dreaming  dreams — but  this  night  it  seems  that  the  world’s  religions,  instead 
of  striking  one  against  another,  have  come  together  on  amicable  delibera¬ 
tion  and  have  created  a  lasting  and  congenial  spirit  among  themselves. 
May  the  coming  together  of  these  wise  men  result  in  the  full  realization  of 
the  general  parliament  of  God,  the  brotherhood  of  man,  and  the  consecra¬ 
tion  of  souls  to  the  service  of  God. 

President  Bonney  then  announced  that,  having  listened  to 
the  representatives  of  the  far-away  countries,  the  audience 
would  be  addressed  by  speakers  from  America  in  two-minute 
addresses.  The  first  speaker  was  Rev.  Dr.  George  Dana 
Boardman  of  Philadelphia,  who  simply  said: 

Fathers  of  the  contemplative  East;  sons  of  the  executive  West — behold 
how  good  and  how  pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell  together  in  unity. 
The  New  Jerusalem,  the  city  of  God,  is  descending,  heaven  and  earth 
chanting  the  eternal  hallelujah  chorus. 


CLOSING  SCENES  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 


855 


DR.  EMIL  HIRSCH. 

Dr.  Emil  Hirscli  added  his  word  of  farewell  as  follows: 

The  privilege  of  being  with  you  on  the  morning  when,  in  glory  under 
God’s  blessing,  this  parliament  was  opened  was  denied  me.  At  the  very 
hour  when  here  the  hrst  words  of  consecration  were  spoken,  I  and  all  other 
rabbis  were  attending  worship  in  our  own  little  temx-)les,  and  could  thus 
only  in  spirit  be  with  you,  who  were  come  together  in  this  much  grander 
temple.  But  we  all  felt,  when  the  trumijet  in  our  ritual  announced  the 
birth  of  a  new  religious  year,  that  here  blazoned  forth  at  that  very  moment 
the  clearer  blast  heralding  for  all  humanity  the  dawn  of  a  new  era. 

None  could  appreciate  the  deeper  significance  of  this  parliament  more 
fully  than  we,  the  heirs  of  a  past  spanning  the  millennia,  and  the  motive 
of  whose  achievements  and  fortitude  was  and  is  the  coafident  hope  of  the 
ultimate  break  of  the  millennium.  Millions  of  my  co-religionists  hoped 
that  this  convocation  of  this  modern  great  synagogue  would  sound  the 
death-knell  of  hatred  and  lu-ejudice  under  which  they  have  pined  and  are 
still  suffering;  and  their  hope  has  not  been  disappointed.  Of  old,  Pales¬ 
tine’s  hills  were  every  month  aglow  with  firebrands  announcing  the  rise  of 
a  new  month. 

So  here  were  kindled  the  cheering  fires,  telling  the  whole  world  that  a 
new  period  of  time  had  been  consecrated.  We  Jews  came  hither  to  give 
and  to  receive.  For  what  little  we  could  bring  we  have  been  richly 
rewarded  in  the  precious  things  we  received  in  turn. 

According  to  an  old  rabbinical  practice,  friends  among  us  never  part 
without  first  discussing  some'*x)i'oblem  of  religious  life.  Our  whole  parlia¬ 
ment  has  been  devoted  to  such  discussion,  and  we  take  hence,  in  parting, 
with  us  the  richest  treasures  of  religious  instruction  ever  laid  before  man. 
Thus  the  old  Talmudic  promise  will  be  verified  in  us  that  when  even  three 
come  together  to  study  God’s  law  his  shekinah  abides  with  them. 

Then  let  me  bid  you  godspeed  in  the  old  Jewish  salutation  of  peace. 
When  one  is  carried  to  his  resting  place  we  Jews  will  bid  him  go  in  peace, 
but  when  one  who  is  still  in  the  land  of  the  living  turns  from  us  to  go  to 
his  daily  task  we  greet  him  with  the  phrase,  “  Go  thou  toward  peace.” 
Let  me  then  speed  you  on  your  way  toward  peace.  For  the  parliament  is  not 
the  gateway  to  death.  It  is  a  new  portal  to  a  new  life;  for  all  of  us  a  life  of 
greater  love  for  and  greater  trust  in  one  another.  Peace  will  not  yet  come  but 
is  to  come.  It  will  come  when  the  seed  here  planted  shall  sprout  up  to  blos¬ 
som  and  fruitage;  when  no  longer  we  see  through  a  blurred  glass,  but, 
like  Moses  of  old,  through  a  translucent  mirror.  May  God,  then,  bless  you. 
Brother  Chairman,  whose  loyalty  and  zeal  have  led  us  safely  through  the 
night  of  doubt  to  this  bright  hour  of  a  happy  and  glorious  consummation. 

REV.  DR.  FRANK  M.  BRISTOL. 

“  There  are  5,000,000  of  Methodists  in  the  United  States,” 
said  Mr.  Bonney,  “  and  Rev.  Dr.  Frank  M.  Bristol  will  tell  us 
what  tke  Methodists  think  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions.” 
Dr.  Bristol  said: 

Then  let  us  pray  that  come  it  may. 

As  come  it  will,  for  a’  that, 

That  man  to  man,  the  warl’  o’er. 

Shall  blithers  be  for  a’  that. 

Infinite  good,  and  only  good,  will  come  from  thiiB  parliament.  To  all  who 
have  come  from  afar  we  are  profoundly  and  eternally  indebted.  Some  of 


866 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


them  represent  civilization  that  was  old  when  Romulus  was  founding 
Rome,  whose  philosophies  and  songs  were  ripe  in  wisdom  and  rich  in  rhythm 
before  Homer  sang  his  Iliads  to  the  Greeks,  and  they  have  enlarged  our 
ideas  of  our  common  humanity.  They  have  brought  to  us  fragrant  flowers 
from  the  gardens  of  Eastern  faiths,  rich  gems  from  the  old  mines  of  great 
philosophies,  and  we  are  richer  to-night  from  their  contributions  of  thought, 
and  particularly  from  our  contact  with  them  in  spirit. 

Never  was  there  such  a  bright  and  hopeful  day  for  our  common  human¬ 
ity  along  the  lines  of  tolerance  and  universal  brotherhood.  And  we  shall 
find  that  by  the  words  that  these  visitors  have  brought  to  us,  and  by  the 
influence  they  have  exerted  they  will  be  richly  rewarded  in  the  conscious¬ 
ness  of  having  contributed  to  the  mighty  movement  which  holds  in  itself 
the  promise  of  one  faith,  one  lord,  one  father,  one  brotherhood.  A  distin¬ 
guished  writer  has  said,  it  is  always  morn  somewhere  in  the  world,  ^he 
time  hastens  when  a  greater  thing  will  be  said — ’tis  always  morn  every¬ 
where  in  the  world.  The  darkness  has  passed,  the  day  is  at  hand,  and 
with  it  will  come  the  greater  humanity,  the  universal  brotherhood. 

The  blessings  of  our  God  and  our  Father  be  with  you,  brethren  from  the 
East;  the  blessings  of  our  Savior,  our  elder  Brother,  the  teacher  of  the 
brotherhod  of  man,  be  with  you  and  your  peoples  forever. 

REV.  JENKIN  LLOYD  JONES. 

I  had  rather  be  a  doorkeeper  in  the  open  house  of  the  Lord  than  to 
dwell  in  the  tents  of  bigotry.  I  am  sufficiently  happy  in  the  knowledge 
that  I  have  been  enabled  to  be,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  feet  of  this  great 
triumph.  I  stand  before  you  to-night  with  my  brain  badly  addled,  with 
my  voice  a  good  deal  demoralized,  with  my  heel  somewhat  blistered,  but 
with  my  heart  warm  and  loving  and  happy. 

I  bid  to  you,  the  parting* guests,  the  godspeed  that  comes  out  of  a  soul 
that  is  glad  to  recognize  its  kinship  with  all  lands  and  with  all  religions; 
and  when  you  go,  you  go  not  only  leaving  behind  you  in  our  hearts  more 
hospitable  thoughts  for  the  faiths  you  represent  but  also  warm  and  loving 
ties  that  bind  you  into  the  union  that  will  be  our  joy  and  our  life  forever¬ 
more. 

But  I  will  not  stand  between  you  and  your  f  urther  pleasures  except  to 
venture,  in  the  presence  of  this  vast  and  happy  audience,  a  motion  which 
I  propose  to  repeat  in  the  next  hall,  and,  if  both  audiences  approve,  who 
dare  say  that  the  motion  may  not  be  realized?  It  has  been  often  said,  and 
I  have  been  among  those  who  have  been  saying  it,  that  we  have  been  wit¬ 
nessing  here  in  these  last  seventeen  days  what  will  not  be  given  men  now 
living  again  to  see;  but  as  these  meetings  have  grown  in  power  and  accu¬ 
mulative  spirit  I  have  felt  my  doubts  give  way,  and  already  I  see  in  vision 
the  next  Parliament  of  Religions,  more  glorious  and  more  hopeful  than  this. 
And  I  have  sent  my  mind  around  the  globe  to  find  a  fitting  place  for  the 
next  parliament.  When  I  look  upon  these  gentle  brethren  from  J apan  I 
have  imagined  that  away  out  there  in  the  calms  of  the^  Pacific  Ocean  we 
may,  in  the  city  of  Tokio,  meet  again  in  some  great  parliament.  But  I  am 
not  satisfied  to  stop  in  that  half-way  land,  and  so  I  have  thought  we  must 
go  farther,  and  meet  in  that  great  English  dominion  of  India  itsftf. 

At  first  I  thought  that  Bombay  might  be  a  good  place,  or  Calcutta  a 
better  place,  but  I  have  concluded  to  move  that  the  next  Parliament  of 
Religions  be  held  on  the  sacred  banks  of  the  Ganges,  in  the  ancient,  new 
city  of  Benares,  where  we  can  visit  these  brethren  at  their  noblest  head¬ 
quarters.  And  when  we  go  there  we  will  do  as  they  have  done,  leaving  our 
heavy  baggage  behind,  going  in  light  marching  order,  carrying  only  the 
working  principles  that  are  applicable  in  all  lands. 

Now,  when  shall  that  great  parliament  meet?  It  used  to  take  a  long 


CLOSING  SCENES  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 


857 


time  to  get  around  the  world,  but  I  believe  that  we  are  ready  here  to-night 
to  move  that  we  shall  usher  in  the  20th  century  with  a  great  Parliament 
of  Religions  in  Benares,  and  we  shall  make  John  Henry  Barrows  president 
of  it,  too. 

MRS.  CHARLES  HENROTIN. 

Mrs.  Henrotin,  Vice-President  of  the  Woman’s  Branch  of  the 
World’s  Congress  Auxiliary,  said: 

The  place  which  woman  has  taken  in  the  Parliament  of  Religions  and 
in  the  denominational  congresses  is  one  of  such  great  importance  that  it  is 
entitled  tofyour  careful  attention. 

As  day  by  day  the  parliament  has  presented  the  result  of  the  preliminary 
work  of  two  years,  it  may  have  appeared  to  you  an  easy  thing  to  put  into 
motion  the  forces  of  which  this  evening  is  the  crowning  achievement,  but  to 
bring  about  this  result  hundreds  of  men  and  women  have  labored.  There 
are  sixteen  committees  of  women  in  the  various  departments  represented 
in  the  Parliament  of  Religions  and  denominational  congresses,  with  a  total 
membership  of  228.  In  many  cases  the  men’s  and  the  women’s  committees 
have  elected  to  work  as  one,  and  in  others  the  women  have  held  separate 
congresses.  Sixteen  women  have  spoken  in  the  Parliament  of  Religions 
and  that  more  did  not  appear  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  denominational 
committee  had  secured  the  most  prominent  women  for  their  presentation. 

Dr.  Barrows  treated  the  woman’s  branch  with  that  courtesy  and  consid¬ 
eration,  and,  I  may  add,  justice,  which  he  has  extended  to  the  representa¬ 
tive  of  every  creed. 

In  the  denominational  congresses,  the  first  in  order  was  that  of  the  Jew¬ 
ish  women,  and  here  is  the  keynote  to  woman’s  position  in  the  modern 
religious  world.  It  is  that  of  the  worker,  for  it  is  not  in  the  Parliament  of 
Religions,  as  able  as  have  been  the  women  representing  her  in  the  parlia¬ 
ment,  that  you  can  judge  of  the  tremendous  power  which  she  wields.  It 
is  in  the  denominational  congress  that  her  work  is  best  illustrated. 

In  the  Roman  Catholic  congress,  the  work  of  the  women  for  their  church 
was  most  ably  presented.  His  eminence  Cardinal  Gibbons,  in  his  paper, 
“The  Needs  of  Humanity  Supijlied  by  the  Catholic  Religion,”  demonstrated 
that  the  needs  of  humanity  were  ministered  unto  by  women,  laity  as  well 
as  sisters,  in  the  Catholic  Church.  His  paper  could  fitly  have  been  named: 

“  What  Woman  Has  Accomplished  for  the  Catholic  Church.” 

The  congress  of  the  Jewish  women  was  a  memorable  occasion,  as  it  was 
the  first  time  in  the  world’s  history  that  the  Jewish  women  met  together 
as  a  religious  power.  Eighty-five  delegates  from  the  different  Jewish  com¬ 
munities  from  all  parts  of  the  United  States  were  present,  and  before  this 
congress  adjourned  an  international  association  of  Jewish  women  was 
formed,  which,  if  it  brings  into  the  religious  world  the  same  zeal  which  has 
animated  that  historic  race,  it  is  easy  to  conceive  what  a  tremendous  force 
has  here  been  put  into  motion. 

The  committee  of  Congregational  women  held  an  interesting  session, 
treating  df  practical  questions  connected  with  church  work. 

The  women  of  the  Lutheran  church  succeeded  in  uniting  the  Lutheran 
women  all  over  the  United  States  in  one  congress,  and  held  four  sessions  in 
which  Lutheran  women  spoke  on  the  work  of  women  in  their  church. 
Before  this  congress  closed  an  international  league  of  Lutheran  women 
was  formed. 

The  King’s  Daughters  presented  their  work  on  Monday,  October  2d. 
In  all  the  other  denominational  congresses  women  have  presented  their 
work  in  the  general  congress.  Two  hundred  and  twelve  women  have  taken 
part  in  the  denominational  and  mission  congresses. 


858 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Now  the  question  presents  itself:  Along  what  line  of  thought  have  most 
of  these  women  presented  papers?  And  I  may  truly  answer  that  they  have 
treated  of  practical  efforts  for  the  bettering  of  social  conditions. 

It  is  too  soon  to  ^prognosticate  woman’s  future  in  the  churches.  Hitherto 
she  has  been  not  the  thinker,  the  formulator  of  creeds,  but  the  silent 
worker.  That  day  has  passed;  it  remains  for  her  to  take  her  rightful  posi¬ 
tion  in  the  active  government  of  the  church,  and  to  the  question,  if  men  will 
accord  that  position  to  her,  my  experience  and  that  of  the  chairman  of  the 
women’s  committees  warrants  us  in  answering  an  emphatic  yes.  Her 
future  in  the  Western  churches  is  in  her  own  hands,  and  the  men  of  the 
Eastern  churches  will  be  emboldened  by  the  example  of  the  Western  to 
return  to  their  country  and  bid  our  sisters  of  those  distant  lands  to  go  and 
do  likewise. 

Woman  has  taken  very  literally  Christ’s  command  to  feed  the  hungry, 
clothe  the  naked,  heal  the  sick,  and  to  minister  unto  those  who  are  in  need 
of  such  ministrations.  As  her  influence  and  power  increase,  so  also  will  her 
zeal  of  good  works.  That  the  experiment  of  an  equal  presentation  of  men 
and  women  in  a  parliament  of  religions  has  not  been  a  failure  I  think  can 
be  proved  by  the  part  taken  by  the  women  who  have  had  the  honor  of 
being  called  to  participate  in  this  great  gathering. 

I  must  now  bear  witness  to  the  devotion,  the  unselfishness,  and  the  zeal 
of  the  chairman  of  every  committee  which  has  assisted  in  arranging  these 
programmes.  I  would  that  I  had  the  time  to  name  them  one  by  one. 
Their  generous  co-operation  and  unselfish  endeavor  are  of  those  good 
things,  the  memory  of  which  is  in  this  life  a  foreshadowing  of  how  divine 
is  the  principle  of  loyal  co-operation  in  working  for  righteousness. 

REV.  AUGUSTA  CHAPIN. 

The  past  seventeen  days  have  seemed  to  many  of  us  the  fulfillment  of  a 
dream;  nay,  the  fulfillment,  of  a  long-cherished  prophecy.  The  seers  of 
olden  time  foretold  a  day  when  there  should  be  concord,  something  like 
what  we  have  seen  among  el  ‘ments  before  time  discordant. 

We  have  heard  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  the  brotherhood  of  man,  and 
the  solidarity  of  the  human  race,  until  these  great  words  and  truths  have 
penetrated  our  minds  and  sunken  into  our  hearts  as  never  before.  They 
will  henceforth  have  larger  meaning.  No  one  of  us  all  bu't  has  been  intel¬ 
lectually  strengthened  and  spiritually  uplifted.  We  have  been  sitting 
together  upon  the  mountain  of  the  Lord.  We  shall  never  descend  to  the 
lower  places  where  our  feet  have  sometimes  trodden  in  times  past.  I  have 
tried,  as  I  have  listened  to  these  masterly  addresses,  to  imagine  what  effect 
this  comparative  study  of  religions  would  have  upon  the  religious  world 
and  upon  individual  souls  that  come  directly  under  the  sweep  of  its  influ¬ 
ence.  It  is  not  too  much  to  hope  that  a  great  impulse  has  been  given  to 
the  cause  of  religious  unity  and  to  pure  and  undefiled  religion  in  all  lands. 

We  who  welcomed  now  speed  the  parting  guests.  We  are  glad  you 
came,  O  wise  men  of  the  East.  With  your  wise  words,  your  large  tolera¬ 
tion,  and  your  gentle  ways,  we  have  been  glad  to  sit  at  your  feet  and  learn 
of  you  in  these  things.  We  are  glad  to  have  seen  you  face  to  face,  and  we 
shall  count  you  henceforth  more  than  ever  our  friends  and  co-workers  in 
the  great  things  of  religion. 

And  we  are  glad,  now  that  you  are  going  to  your  far-away  homes,  to 
tell  the  story  of  all  that  has  been  said  and  done  here  in  this  great  parlia¬ 
ment,  and  that  you  will  thus  bring  the  Orient  into  nearer  relations  with 
the  Occident,  and  make  plain  the  sympathy  which  exists  among  all  relig¬ 
ions.  We  are  glad  for  the  words,  that  have  been  spoken  by  the  wise  men 
and  women  of  the  West,  who  have  come  and  have  given  us  their  grains  of 
gold  after  the  washing.  What  I  said  in  the  beginning  I  will  repeat  now  at 


MRS,  CHARLES  HENROTIN, 
Vice-President  Woman’s  Branch  of  the  Auxiliary. 


SWAMi  VIVEKANANDA 


CLOSING  SCENES  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 


859 


the  ending  of  this  parliament.  It  has  been  the  greatest  gathering  ever 
in  the  name  of  religion  held  on  the  face  of  this  earth. 

JULIA  WARD  HOWE. 

Julia  Ward  Howe  was  introduced  amid  cheers  and  waving 
of  handkerchiefs.  She  said: 

Dear  Friends:  I  wish  I  had  brought  you  some  great  and  supreme  gift 
of  wisdom.  I  have  brought  you  a  heart  brimming  with  love  and  thankful¬ 
ness  for  this  crown  of  the  ages,  so  blessed  in  itself  and  so  full  of  a  more 
blessed  prophecy.  But  I  did  not  expect  to  speak  to-night. 

BISHOP  ARNETT. 

It  IS  an  old  saying,  and  true,  that  there  is  no  road,  however  long,  but  by 
continued  marches  you  will  find  its  end.  We  have  come  to  the  end  of  our 
deliberations  and  are  about  to  close  one  of  the  most  historic  meetings  that 
have  ever  occurred  among  the  children  of  men.  It  was  my  pleasure  and 
privilege,  at  the  meeting  of  the  parliament,  to  welcome  the  delegates  from 
the  different  parts  of  the  world  to  this  historic  city.  We  have  met  daily 
and  have  formed  friendships,  and  I  trust  they  will  be  as  strong  as  steel,  as 
pure  as  gold,  and  as  lasting  as  eternity.  I  have  never  seen  so  large  a  body 
of  men  meet  together  and  discuss  questions  so  vital  with  as  little  friction 
as  I  have  seen  during  this  parliament.  The  watchword  has  been  “  tolera¬ 
tion  and  fraternity,”  and  shows  what  may  or  can  be  done  when  men  assem¬ 
ble  in  the  proper  spirit. 

As  was  said  2,000  years  ago,  we  have  met  together  in  one  place  and  with 
one  accord,  each  seeking  for  the  truth,  each  presenting  his  view  of  the 
truth  as  he  understands  it.  Each  came  with  his  own  fund  of  information, 
and  now  we  separate,  having  gained  information  from  each  other  on  the 
subject  of  God,  mankind,  and  the  future  life.  There  is  one  thing  that  we 
have  all  agreed  upon — that  is,  that  the  source  of  the  true,  beautiful,  and 
the  good  is  spirit,  love,  and  light  of  infinite  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness. 

Thus  the  unity  of  the  spirituality  of  God  is  one  thing  that  we  have  all 
agreed  upon.  We  have  differed  as  to  how  to  approach  Him  and  how  to 
receive  His  favor  and  blessing.  If  the  parliament  has  done  nothing  more, 
it  has  furnished  comparative  theology  with  such  material  that  in  the  future 
there  will  be  no  question  about  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God.  The 
great  battle  of  the  future  will  not  be  the  Fatherhood  of  God  nor  that  we 
need  a  redeemer,  mediator,  or  a  model  man  between  God  and  man. 

There  was  some  apprehension  on  the  part  of  some  Christians  as  to  the 
wisdom  of  a  parliament  of  all  the  religions,  but  the  result  of  this  meeting 
vindicates  the  wisdom  of  such  a  gathering.  It  appears  that  the  conception 
was  a  divine  one  rather  than  human,  and  the  execution  of  the  plan  has 
been  marvelous  in  its  detail  and  in  the  harmony  of  its  working,  and  reflects 
credit  upon  the  chairman  of  the  auxiliary,  Mr.  Bonney,  and  also  on  Rev. 
J.  H.  Barrows,  for  there  is  no  one  who  has  attended  these  meetings  but 
really  believes  that  Christianity  has  lost  nothing  in  the  discussion,  but 
stands  to-day  in  a  light  unknown  in  the  past. 

The  Ten  Commandments,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  the  Golden  Rule 
have  not  been  superseded  by  any  that  has  been  presented  by  the  various 
teachers  of  religion  and  philosophy,  but  our  mountains  are  just  as  high  and 
our  doctrines  are  just  as  pure  as  before  our  meeting,  and  every  man  and 
woman  has  been  confirmed  in  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 

'Another  good  of  this  convention:  It  has  taught  us  a  lesson  that  while 
we  have  truth  on  our  side  we  have  not  had  all  the  truth;  while  we  have  had 


8G0 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


theory  we  have  not  had  all  the  practice,  and  the  stronjnrest  criticism  we 
have  received  was  not  as  to  our  doctrines  or  methods  but  as  to  our 
practice  not  being  in  harmony  with  our  own  teachings  and  with  our  own 
doctrines. 

I  believe  that  it  will  do  good,  not  only  to  the  dominant  race  but  to  the 
race  that  I  represent;  it  is  a  godsend,  and  from  this  meeting  we  believe 
will  go  forth  a  sentiment  that  will  right  a  great  many  of  our  wrongs  and 
lighten  up  the  dark  places  and  assist  in  giving  us  that  which  we  are  now 
denied — the  common  privileges  of  humanity — for  we  find  that  in  this  con¬ 
gress  the  majority  of  the  people  represented  are  of  the  darker  races,  which 
will  teach  the  American  people  that  color  is  not  the  standard  of  excellency 
or  of  degradation.  But  I  trust  that  much  good  will  come  to  all,  and  not 
only  the  Fatherhood  of  God  be  acknowledged  but  the  brotherhood  of  man. 

And  now,  to  my  brothers  and  friends  of  foreign  lands,  as  I  bade  you 
welcome,  I  now  bid  you  good-by,  and  I  assure  you  that  your  coming  and 
your  staying  have  been  a  benediction  to  us.  And  I  trust  that  you  will  feel 
that  your  long  travel  has  been  fully  repaid  by  the  hospitality  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  people  and  what  you  have  witnessed  of  the  progress  of  our  Christian 
civilization.  As  you  return  to  your  homes  be  assured  that  loving  hearts 
will  follow  you  with  their  prayers,  that  you  may  enjoy  the  blessings  that 
belong  to  mankind;  and  should  we  never  meet  again  (which  we  never  will 
any  more)  may  each  of  us  so  live  and  so  conduct  ourselves  that  our  last 
end  may  be  one  of  peace  and  joy.  I  bid  you,  in  the  name  of  those  1  repre¬ 
sent,  a  long  and  affectionate  farewell. 

ET.  KEY.  DR.  J.  J.  KEANE  OF  WASHINGTON. 

Friends  and  Brethren:  When,  in  the  midst  of  the  wise  men  who  were 
intrusted  with  the  organizing  of  the  Columbus  celebration,  Mr.  Bonney 
rose  up  and  said  that  man  meant  more  than  things  and  proclaimed  the 
motto,  “  Not  things  but  men,  ”  people  said.  “  Why,  that  is  only  a  com¬ 
monplace.  Any  man  could  think  that.” 

“  Yes,”  said  Columbus,  “  any  man  could  do  that,”  when  he  put  the  egg 
upon  its  end.  Mr.  Bonney  proclaimed  that  motto.  May  it  make  him 
immortal. 

When  in  the  midst  of  the  men  who,  under  the  inspiration  of  that  motto, 
were  organizing  the  congresses  of  the  world.  Dr.  Barrows  arose  and  pro¬ 
claimed  the  grand  idea  that  all  the  religions  of  the  world  should  be  brought 
here  together,  men  said:  “  It  is  impossible.”  He  has  done  it,  and  may  it 
make  his  name  immortal. 

When  the  invitation  to  this  parliament  was  sent  to  the  old  Catholic 
Church  and  she  was  asked  if  she  would  come  here,  people  said:  “Will  she 
come?  ”  And  the  old  Catholic  Church  said:  “  Who  has  as  good  a  right  to 
come  to  a  parliament  of  all  the  religions  of  the  world  as  the  old  Catholic 
Universal  Church?  ” 

Then  people  said:  “  But  if  the  old  Catholic  Church  comes  here,  will  she 
find  anybody  else  here?”  And  the  old  church  said:  “Even  if  she  has  to 
stand  alone  on  that  platform,  she  will  stand  on  it.” 

And  the  old  church  has  come  here,  and  she  is  rejoiced  to  meet  her  fellow- 
men,  her  fellow-believers,  her  fellow-lovers  of  every  shade  of  humanity  and 
every  shade  of  creed.  She  is  rejoiced  to  meet  here  the  representatives  of 
the  old  religions  of  the  world,  and  she  says  to  them: 

We  leave  here.  We  will  go  to  our  homes.  We  will  go  to  the  olden  ways. 
Friends,  will  we  not  look  back  to  this  scene  of  union  and  weep  because 
separation  still  continues?  But  will  we  not  pray  that  there  may  have 
been  planted  here  a  seed  that  will  grow  to  union  wide  and  perfect?  Oh, 
friends,  let  us  pray  for  this.  It  is  better  for  us  to  be  one.  If  it  were  not 
better  for  us  to  be  one  than  to  be  divided,  our  Lord  and  God  would  not 


CLOSING  SCENES  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 


861 


have  prayed  to  His  Father  that  we  might  all  be  one  as  He  and  the  Father 
are  one.  Oh,  let  us  pray  for  unity,  and  taking  up  the  glorious  strains  we 
have  listened  to  to-night,  let  us,  morning,  noon,  and  night,  cry  out:  “  Lead, 
kindly  light;  lead  from  all  gloom;  lead  from  all  darkness;  lead  from  all 
imperfect  light  of  human  opinion;  lead  to  the  fullness  of  the  light.” 

KEY.  DK.  JOHN  HENEY  BAKEOWS. 

In  the  midst  of  all  these  representatives  of  various  faiths 
and  churches,”  said  Mr.  Bonney,  “sits  a  Presbyterian  minister 
who  has  performed  one  of  the  greatest  offices  ever  committed 
to  the  hand  of  man — the  unification  of  the  world  in  the  things 
of  religion.  That  man  now  comes  to  say  his  closing  words  to 
this  world’s  Parliament  of  Religions,  and  I  have  the  honor  to 
present  Rev.  Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows,  chairman  of  the  general 

committee.”  He  spoke  as  follows: 

The  closing  hour  of  this  parliament  is  one  of  congratulation,  of  tender 
sorrow,  of  triumphant  hopefulness.  God  has  been  better  to  us  by  far  than 
our  fears,  and  no  one  has  more  occasion  for  gratitude  than  your  chairman, 
that  he  has  been  upheld  and  comforted  by  your  cordial  co-operation,  by  the 
prayers  of  a  great  host  of  God’s  noblest  men  and  women,  and  by  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  divine  favor. 

Our  hopes  have  been  more  than  realized.  The  sentiment  which  has 
inspired  this  parliament  has  held  us  together.  The  principles  in  accord 
with  which  this  historic  convention  has  proceeded  have  been  put  to  the 
test,  and  even  strained  at  times,  but  they  have  not  been  inadequate.  Toler¬ 
ation,  brotherly  kindness,  trust  in  each  other’s  sincerity,  a  candid  and 
earnest  seeking  after  the  unities  of  religion,  the  honest  purpose  of  each  to 
set  forth  his  own  faith  without  compromise  and  without  unfriendly  criti¬ 
cism — these  principles,  thanks  to  your  loyalty  and  courage,  have  not  been 
found  wanting. 

Men  of  Asia  and  Europe,  we  have  been  made  glad  by  your  coming  and 
have  been  made  wiser.  I  am  happy  that  you  have  enjoyed  our  hospital¬ 
ities.  While  floating  one  evening  over  the  illumined  waters  of  the  White 
City,  Mr.  Dharmapala  said,  with  that  smile  which  has  won  our  hearts, 
“  All  the  joys  of  heaven  are  in  Chicago,”  and  Dr.  Momerie,  with  a  char¬ 
acteristic  mingling  of  enthusiasm  and  skepticism,  replied:  “  I  wish 
I  were  sure  that  all  the  joys  of  Chicago  are  to  be  in  heaven.”  But  surely 
there  will  be  a  multitude  there  whom  no  man  can  number,  out  of  every 
kindred,  and  people,  and  tongue,  and  in  that  perpetual  parliament  on  high 
the  people  of  God  will  be  satisfled. 

Seventeen  days  ago  there  davvned  in  many  hearts  a  new  world-con¬ 
sciousness,  a  sense  of  universal  brotherhood,  and  to  this  fact,  in  part,  I 
attribute  it  that  this  parliament  of  all  the  faiths  has  been  marked  by 
less  acrimonious  discussion— although  we  have  been  separated  by  immense 
doctrinal  distances — than  is  often  found  in  a  single  meeting  of  Christians 
bearing  the  same  doctrinal  name. 

Now  that  the  parliament  is  over  we  almost  wonder  why  it  was  not  called 
earlier  in  human  history.  When  the  general  committee  discovered  that  a 
wondrous  response  followed  their  first  appeals,  that  they  struck  a  chord  of 
universal  sympathy,  they  were  Arm  in  their  determination  to  go  forward,  in 
spite  of  ten  thousand  obstacles,  and  do  what  so  many  feared  was 
impracticable. 


862 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


1  thank  God  for  these  friendships  which  we  have  knit  with  men  and 
women  beyond  the  sea,  and  I  thank  you  for  your  sympathy  and  over-gener¬ 
ous  apf)reciation  and  for  the  constant  help  which  you  have  furnished  in  the 
midst  of  my  multiplied  duties.  Christian  America  sends  her  greetings 
through  you  to  all  mankind.  We  cherish  a  broadened  sympathy,  a  higher 
respect,  a  truer  tenderness  to  the  children  of  our  common  Father  in  all 
lands,  and,  as  the  story  of  this  parliament  is  read  in  the  cloisters  of  Japan, 
by  the  rivers  of  Southern  Asia,  amid  the  universities  of  Europe,  and  in  the 
isles  of  all  the  seas,  it  is  my  prayer  that  non-Christian  readers  may,  in  some 
measure,  discover  what  has  been  the  source  and  strength  of  that  faith  in 
divine  Fatherhood  and  human  brotherhood  which,  embodied  in  an  Asiatic 
peasant  who  was  the  Son  of  God  and  made  divinely  potent  through  Him,  is 
clasping  the  globe  with  bands  of  heavenly  light. 

Most  that  is  in  my  heart  of  love  and  gratitude  and  happy  memory  must 
go  unsaid.  If  any  honor  is  due  for  this  magnificent  achievement,  let  it  be 
given  to  the  spirit  of  Christ,  which  is  the  spirit  of  love  in  the  hearts  of 
those  of  many  lands  and  faiths  who  have  toiled  for  the  high  ends  of  this 
great  meeting.  May  the  blessing  of  Him  who  rules  the  storm  and  holds 
the  ocean  waves  in  His  right  hand,  follow  you,  with  the  prayers  of  all  God’s 
people,  to  your  distant  homes.  And  as  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  closed  his 
lectures  on  “  The  Art  of  Painting  ”  with  the  name  of  Michael  Angelo,  so, 
with  a  deeper  reverence,  I  desire  that  the  last  words  which  I  speak  to  this 
parliament  shall  be  the  name  of  Him  to  whom  I  owe  life  and  truth  and 
hope  and  all  things,  who  reconciles  all  contradictions,  pacifies  all  antag¬ 
onisms,  and  who,  from  the  throne  of  His  heavenly  kingdom,  directs  the 
serene  and  unwearied  omnipotence  of  redeeming  love — Jesus  Christ,  the 
Savior  of  the  world. 

PRESIDENT  bonnet’s  FAREWELL. 

The  closing  speech  of  the  evening  was  by  Mr.  Bonney: 

Worshipers  of  God  and  Lovers  of  Man :  The  closing  words  of  this 
great  event  must  now  be  spoken.  With  inexpressible  joy  and  gratitude  I 
give  them  utterance.  The  wonderful  success  of  this  first  actual  Congress 
of  the  Religions  of  the  World  is  the  realization  of  a  conviction  which  has 
held  my  heart  for  many  years.  I  became  acquainted  with  the  great  relig¬ 
ious  systems  of  the  world  in  my  youth,  and  have  enjoyed  an  intimate  asso¬ 
ciation  with  leaders  of  many  churches  during  my  maturer  years.  I  was 
thus  led  to  believe  that,  if  the  great  religious  faiths  could  be  brought  into 
relations  of  friendly  intercourse,  many  points  of  sympathy  and  union  would 
be  found,  and  the  coming  unity  of  mankind  in  the  love  of  God  and  the 
service  of  man  be  greatly  facilitated  and  advanced.  Hence  when  the  occa¬ 
sion  arose  it  was  gladly  welcomed  and  the  effort  more  than  willingly  made. 

What  men  deemed  impossible,  God  has  finally  wrought.  The  religions 
of  the  world  have  actually  met  in  a  great  and  imposing  assembly;  they 
have  conferred  together  on  the  vital  questions  of  life  and  immortality  in  a 
frank  and  friendly  spirit,  and  now  they  part  in  peace  with  many  warm 
expressions  of  mutual  affection  and  respect. 

The  laws  of  the  congress,  forbidding  controversy  or  attack,  have,  on  the 
whole,  been  wonderfully  observed.  The  exceptions  are  so  few  that  they  may 
well  be  expunged  from  the  record  and  from  the  memory.  They  even  served 
the  useful  purpose  of  timely  warnings  against  the  tendency  to  indulge  in 
intellectual  conflict.  If  an  unkind  hand  threw  a  fire-brand  into  the  assem¬ 
bly,  let  us  be  thankful  that  a  kinder  hand  plunged  it  in  the  waters  of  for¬ 
giveness  and  quenched  its  flame. 

If  some  Western  warrior,  forgetting  for  the  moment  that  this  was  a 
friendly  conference  and  not  a  battlefield,  uttered  his  warcry,  let  us  rejoice, 
our  Orient  friends,  that  a  kinder  spirit  answered:  “Father,  forgive  them, 
for  they  know  not  what  they  say.” 


CLOSING  SCENES  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT. 


863 


No  Bystem  of  faith  or  worship  has  been  compromised  by  this  friendly 
conference;  no  apostle  of  any  religion  has  been  placed  in  a  false  position 
by  any  act  of  this  congress.  The  knowledge  here  acquired  will  be  carried, 
by  those  who  have  gained  it,  as  precious  treasure  to  their  respective  coun¬ 
tries,  and  will  there,  in  freedom  and  according  to  reason,  be  considered, 
judged,  and  applied  as  they  shall  deem  right. 

The  influence  which  this  Congress  of  the  Religions  of  the  World  will 
exert  on  the  peace  and  the  prosperity  of  the  world  is  beyond  the  power  of 
human  language  to  describe.  For  this  influence,  borne  by  those  who  have 
attended  the  sessions  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions  to  all  parts  of  the 
world,  v/ill  affect  in  some  important  degree  all  races  of  men,  all  forms  of 
religion,  and  even  all  governments  and  social  institutions. 

And  now,  farewell.  A  thousand  congratulations  and  thanks  for  the 
co-operation  and  aid  of  all  who  have  contributed  to  the  glorious  results 
which  we  celebrate  this  night.  Henceforth  the  religions  of  the  world  will 
make  war,  not  on  each  other,  but  on  the  giant  evils  that  afflict  mankind. 
Henceforth  let  all  throughout  the  world  who  worship  God  and  love  their 
fellowmen  join  in  the  anthem  of  the  angels: 

Glory  to  God  in  the  highest ! 

Peace  on  earth,  good  will  among  men ! 

At  the  close  of  President  Bonney’s  speech  Kabbi  Hirsch  led 
the  great  audience  in  the  universal  prayer.  Bishop  Keane 
then  said  a  prayer  of  benediction,  and  the  vast  audience  slowly 
dispersed,  ending  probably  the  most  remarkable  convocation  in 
the  world’s  history. 


JOHN  W.  POSTGATE, 

In  Charge  Chicago  Herald  Report. 


PART  III. 


DENOMINATIONAL  CONGRESSES. 


While  the  main  interest  of  the  religious  world  was  centered 
about  the  great  Parliament  of  Religions,  there  were  other 
meetings  at  the  Art  Institute  which  demanded  more  than  pass¬ 
ing  attention.  The  aim  of  the  organizers  was  to  have  a  pres¬ 
entation  of  the  faith  and  creeds  of  every  denomination  in 
Christendom  as  well  as  expositions  of  the  beliefs  of  peoples 
and  sects  outside  its  pale.  Arrangements  were  made  therefore 
to  hold  denominational  congresses  which  should  precede  and 
follow,  as  well  as  run  parallel  with,  the  Parliament  of  Religions. 
Beginning  on  Sunday,  August  27th,  forty-one  separate  con¬ 
gresses  were  held  up  to  the  close  of  the  series  on  Sunday, 
October  15th.  Almost  every  conceivable  form  of  worship  and 
faith  was  represented  by  these  gatherings,  which  were  attended, 
not  only  by  their  own  followers,  but  by  a  large  number  of 
seekers  after  truth. 

Before  the  Parliament  of  Religions  was  called  to  order  on 
September  11th,  there  were  held  the  Jewish  Church  Congress, 
the  Lutheran  Greneral  Council,  the  Congress  of  Wales,  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Congress,  the  Columbian  Catholic  Con¬ 
gress,  the  Congress  of  Colored  Catholics,  the  Congress  of 
Jewish  Women,  the  German  Catholic  Young  Men’s  Guilds, 
the  Societies  of  St.  Vincent  de  Paul,  the  Catholic  Benevolent 
Legion,  the  Catholic  Young  Men’s  National  Union,  the  Cath¬ 
olic  Press,  the  Reunion  of  the  Students  of  the  American  Col¬ 
lege  of  Louvain,  the  German  Catholic  Young  Men’s  Guild, 
and  the  Catholic  Young  Men’s  Societies.  All  of  these 

8J- 


8C6 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


congresses  were  largely  attended  and  the  proceedings  of  each 
were  characterized  by  great  zeal  and  earnestness.  In  many 
instances  the  subjects  discussed  were  afterward  presented  to  the 
Parliament  of  Religions  in  the  form  of  special  essays  and 
addresses.  Indeed,  as  already  set  forth,  the  great  parliament 
covered  almost  every  form  of  religious  thought  and  expression 
current  in  the  world.  In  this  way  interest  was  kept  alive,  and 
the  labors  of  the  denominational  congresses  amply  supple¬ 
mented. 

During  the  progress  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions  itself, 
contemporaneous  conventions  were  held  by  the  following 
bodies:  The  Congregational  Church,  the  Lutheran  General 
Synod,  the  Universalist  Church,  the  Catholic  Church,  the  Dis¬ 
ciples  of  Christ,  the  New  Jerusalem  Church,  the  United  Breth¬ 
ren  Church,  the  Advent  Christian  Church,  the  Reformed  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  the  Lutheran  Women,  the  Theosophists,  the 
Seventh  Day  Baptist  Church,  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the 
Sunday-School  Union,  the  Friends’  Societies,  the  Unitarian 
Church,  the  Evangelical  Association,  the  Free  Religious  Asso¬ 
ciation,  the  Christian  Scientists,  the  Reformed  Church  of  the 
United  States,  the  Reformed  (Dutch)  Church,  the  Friends’ 
Orthodox  Church,  the  King’s  Daughters  and  Sons,  and  Inter¬ 
national  Board  of  Women’s  Christian  Associations,  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Endeavor  Society,  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America, 
the  Swedish  Evangelical  Mission  Covenant,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church,  the 
Evolutionists,  and  the  International  Board  of  Women’s  Chris¬ 
tian  Associations. 

On  Thursday,  September  28th,  the  day  after  the  close  of  the 
Parliament  of  Religions,  the  Sunday-Rest  Congress  began, 
and  following  came  the  Congress  of  Missions,  the  Ethical  Con¬ 
gress,  the  Congress  of  Woman’s  Missions,  the  Young  Women’s 
Christian  Association,  and  for  eight  days  the  Evangelical 
Alliance  was  in  session,  closing  this  vast  series  of  World’s 
Religious  Congresses  on  Sunday  evening,  October  15th. 


*..**•.  i* 


^i>E  I  mm 


/ 


JEWISH  CHURCH  CONGRESS. 


867 


It  is  not  our  purpose  in  this  review  to  set  forth  the  proceed¬ 
ings  of  these  various  congresses  in  detail.  We  shall  content 
ourselves  with  a  brief  resume  of  their  leading  features,  giving 
wherever  possible  the  presentation  of  faith  of  each  as  submitted 
from  the  respective  platforms.  No  such  series  of  religious 
meetings  was  ever  before  held  in  the  world,  and  their  effect  on 
religious  thought  and  life  can  not  be  over-estimated.  The  best 
and  most  earnest  men  and  women  of  each  denomination  attended 
the  various  sessions,  and  the  papers  offered  for  consideration 
contained  valuable  information  and  suggestions  regarding  the 
modes  of  worship  and  belief  under  review.  Indeed  these 
congresses  were  scarcely  second  in  importance  to  the  great 
Parliament  of  Religions  itself.  As  heretofore  explained,  many 
of  the  topics  formed  the  subject  of  learned  deliberation  -in  the 
parliament,  and  will  be  found  fully  elucidated  in  the  report  of 
the  proceedings  of  that  eminent  body. 


JEWISH  CHURCH  CONGRESS. 

The  Congress  of  the  Jewish  Church  occupied  four  days.  It 
opened  in  the  Hall  of  Columbus  on  Sunday,  August  27th,  with 
a  large  number  of  Jews  present  from  all  parts  of  the  United 
States,  Canada,  and  Europe.  Among  those  assembled  on  the 
platform  were  Rabbi  Emil  G.  Hirsch  of  Chicago,  Rabbi  I.  L. 
Leucht  of  New  Orleans,  Rabbi  Isaac  M.  Wise  of  Cincinnati, 
Rabbi  G.  Gottheil  and  Rabbi  K.  Kohler  of  New  York.  C.  C. 
Bonney,  President  of  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary,  delivered 
a  pleasing  address  of  welcome,  to  which  Dr.  Hirsch  replied  in 
the  name  of  the  Jews  of  Chicago.  Rabbi  Wise  and  Rabbi 
Gottheil  also  made  brief  responses.  Then  the  Congress  settled 
down  to  a  consideration  of  topics  of  especial  interest  to  the 
church  and  its  congregations.  Rabbi  Kohler  delivered  an  elo¬ 
quent  address  on  ‘‘The  Synagogue  and  the  Church,  and  Their 
Mutual  Relations  with  Reference  to  Their  Ethical  Teachings.” 
Throughout  his  address  Dr.  Kohler  paid  beautiful  tributes  to 
Jesus  as  a  man,  but  combated  the  claim  of  His  being  the 


8G8 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Savior  of.  mankind.  He  said  that  1600  years  of  persecution 
had  not  been  able  to  destroy  Judaism,  which  remained  a  living 
vital  force  in  the  world,  because  it  was  founded  on  an  inde¬ 
structible  system. 

At  the  evening  session  of  the  first  day.  Rabbi  Wise  spoke  on 
the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Judaism,  and  Rabbi  Joseph  Silver- 
man  of  New  York  addressed  the  Congress  on  popular  errors 
about  the  Jews.  He  pointed  out  that  dense  ignorance  exists 
regarding  the  social  and  domestic  life  of  the  Jews,  as  well  as 
their  history,  their  literature,  their  achievements  and  disap¬ 
pointments,  their  religion,  their  ideals  and  hopes.  He  regretted 
this  ignorance,  and  said  that  none  is  more  desirous  of  fraternity 
than  the  Jew,  but  he  will  not  gain  it  at  the  loss  of  his  man¬ 
hood.  He  will  not  accept  fraternity  as  a  patronage,  but  would 
rather  claim  it  as  a  simple  matter  of  equality.  That,  said  the 
Rabbi,  is  a  point  which  our  critics  and  detractors  do  not  under¬ 
stand.  He  held,  further,  that  the  Jew  is  tolerant  by  nature,  as 
well  as  by  virtue  of  his  religious  teaching.  The  Jew  believes 
in  allowing  every  man  what  he  claims  for  himself — the  right 
to  work  out  his  own  salvation  and  make  his  own  peace  with  God. 

On  the  second  day  other  subjects  of  deep  interest  to  the 
Jewish  Church  and  people  were  discussed.  Rabbi  Moses  of 
Chicago  presided  over  the  morning  session,  which  was  held 
in  one  of  the  small  halls.  Rabbi  Charles  Levy  of  Cincinnati 
sent  an  address  on  ‘‘  Ethics  of  the  Talmud,”  which  was  read 
by  Prof.  M.  Millziner  of  the  Union  Hebrew  Club.  The  paper 
was  a  scholarly  review  of  the  Talmud,  and  showed  that  there  is 
quite  a  marked  similarity  between  the  ethical  teachings  of  that 
rabbinical  compilation  and  those  of  the  Bible.  He  also 
defended  the  Talmudic  literature  against  the  accusations  some¬ 
times  made  by  Christian  teachers,  that  it  is  illiberal  in  its 
teachings.  He  claimed  that  it  teaches  the  duties  of  man  to 
man  without  distinction  of  creeds  or  races,  and  in  some 
instances  it  reminds  us  that  the  duties  of  justice  and  charity 
are  to  be  fulfilled  to  all  the  heathens  as  well  as  the  Israelites. 
The  liberal  spirit  of  the  Talmudic  ethies  is  evidenced  in  one 


JEWISH  CHURCH  CONGRESS. 


869 


sentence;  “  The  pious  and  virtuous  of  all  nations  participate  in 
the  eternal  bliss.” 

Rabbi  S.  Sale  of  St.  Louis,  read  an  interesting  paper  on 
“  Contributions  of  the  Jews  to  the  Preservation  of  the  Sciences 
of  the  Middle  Ages,”  in  which  he  showed  how,  in  that  dark 
period  of  the  world’s  history,  the  Jews  held  aloft  the  torch  of 
learning  and  carried  along  into  later  modern  life  the  traditional 
sciences  of  Greece  and  Rome  and  of  the  Arabs.  At  the  after¬ 
noon  session  the  subject  for  discussion  was  “  What  Organized 
Forces  Can  Do  for  Judaism,”  and  the  addresses  were:  “A 
Jewish  Department  of  the  Chautauqua,”  by  Rabbi  H.  Berko- 
witz,  Philadelphia;  “A  Union  of  Young  Israel,”  by  S.  C. 
Eldridge,  Jefferson,  Texas;  “A  Jewish  Publication  Society,” 
by  Miss  Henrietta  Szold,  Philadelphia.  At  the  evening  meet¬ 
ing  the  exercises  included  an  interesting  address  on  “  Rever¬ 
ence  and  Rationalism,”  by  Dr.  M.  H.  Harris  of  New  York;  a 
paper  on  “  The  Position  of  Women  Among  the  Jews,”  by 
Rabbi  Sale  of  St.  Louis,  and  a  valuable  contribution  on  Bible 
criticism  by  Dr.  Hirsch. 

Three  sessions  were  held  on  the  following  day.  Rabbi  Joseph 
Stolz  of  Chicago  presiding.  Rabbi  G.  Deutsch  of  Cincinnati 
gave  an  interesting  review  of  the  history  of  the  Jews  as  it 
relates  to  the  culture  of  the  various  ages  of  nations.  “  The 
Attitude  of  Judaism  to  the  Sciences  of  Comparative  Religions  ” 
was  discussed  by  Rabbi  L.  Grossman  of  Detroit,  and  Rabbi  C. 
H.  Levy  of  Lancaster  considered  “  Universal  Ethics  According 
to  Prof.  Stienthal.” 

During  the  afternoon  session  Dr.  A.  Moses  of  Louisville, 
Ky.,  gave  an  interesting  definition  of  Heathenism;  Rabbi 
Hecht  of  Milwaukee  urged  the  advisability  of  a  Sabbath 
School  Union,  and  Rabbi  Felsenthal  spoke  on  “  The  Study 
of  Past  Biblical  History.”  The  evening  session  was  devoted  to 
the  consideration  of  the  question,  “  What  Organized  Forces 
Can  Do  for  the  Jewish  Poor  and  Jewish  Emigrants.” 

The  concluding  sessions  of  the  congress  on  August  30th, 
were  equally  interesting.  Rabbi  Schwab  of  St.  Joseph,  Mo., 


870  the  parliament  OF  RELIGIONS. 

reviewed  the  Messianic  idea  of  the  Jews  from  the  earliest  times 
to  the  rise  of  Christianity,  and  another  interesting  paper  on 
the  “Genius  of  the  Talmud”  was  presented  by  one  of  the 
learned  rabbis.  Taken  altogether,  the  Congress  of  the  Jewish 
Church  was  an  interesting  and  inspiring  event.  It  seemed 
meet  that  the  oldest  faith,  the  forerunner  of  Christianity, 
should  usher  in  a  series  of  world’s  religious  congresses 
designed  to  promote  the  spiritual  welfare  of  mankind. 


CONGRESS  OF  JEWISH  WOMEN, 

Representative  Jewish  women  from  all  parts  of  the  United 
States  and  a  number  of  their  sisters  of  the  Christian  faith  met 
in  the  large  statuary -room  of  ihe  Art  Institute  on  Monday 
morning,  September  5th.  Mrs.  Henry  Solomon  presided,  and 
after  the  usual  opening  exercises  Mrs.  Charles  Henrotin  of 
Chicago  delivered  an  appropriate  address  of  welcome.  Mrs. 
Solomon,  in  her  opening  remarks,  said  it  was  a  new  departure 
for  the  Jewish  woman  to  occupy  herself  with  matters  of  the 
kind  represented  by  this  congress,  but  she  felt  that  in  the 
great  parliament  of  all  creeds  the  Jewish  woman  should  have 
a  place. 

The  first  feature  of  the  programme  was  a  poem  entitled 
“White  Day  of  Peace,”  written  by  Mrs.  Miriam  del  Banco. 
The  leading  sentiment  of  the  poem  was  the  gratitude  of  the 
Jewish  people  for  the  haven  of  rest  they  had  found  in  the 
New  World,  and  their  pure  devotion  to  the  principles  of  liberty 
on  which  the  American  Republic  is  found.  Mrs.  Louise  Man- 
hehner  of  Cincinnati  contributed  a  paper  portraying  the 
Jewish  woman  of  biblical  and  medieval  days.  This  was  fol¬ 
lowed  by  an  address  on  modern  Jewish  women,  prepared  by 
Mrs.  Helen  Kahn  Weil  of  Kansas  City.  These  papers  led  to  a 
brief  discussion  by  Mrs.  Henry  Frank  of  Chicago,  Rev.  Dr. 
Kohler  of  New  York,  and  Di.  Hirsch  of  Chicago.  An  inter¬ 
esting  incident  of  the  session  was  an  address  by  Mrs.  Isabella 
Beecher  Hooker,  who,  after  expressing  her  deep  admiration  for 


CONGRESS  OF  JEWISH  WOMEN, 


871 


the  people  of  the  Jewish  race,  concluded  with  the  following 

remarks,  which  were  received  with  many  tokens  of  approval: 

I  believe  you  are,  through  these  great  financiers  of  yours,  yet  to  return 
to  Jerusalem  and  hold  it  as  the  golden  city.  I  have  always  wished  that  I 
had  a  drop  of  this  Jewish  blood  in  my  veins,  and  if  this  wish  has  been  with 
me  all  these  years,  you  may  imagine  how  greatly  it  is  emphasized  when  I 
hear  these  words  and  see  these  women.  I  will  have  to  be  content  to  envy. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  papers  presented  was  on  the 
“  Influence  of  the  Discovery  of  America  on  the  Jews,”  by 
Mrs.  Pauline  H.  Rosenburg.  She  set  forth  that  at  the  time  of 
the  discovery  of  America  the  Jews  were  suffering  under  the 
yoke  of  oppression  in  the  countries  of  the  Old  World.  They 
hailed  America  as  a  haven  of  peace,  but  even  in  America  the 
problem  of  religious  freedom  had  to  be  worked  out.  Religious 
intolerance  was  for  a  long  time  prevalent  among  all  people  on 
the  shores  of  the  New  World,  and  the  dangerous  experiment  of 
forcing  conviction  was  often  tried.  But  in  time  these  clouds 
were  dispelled,  and  America  became  the  opportunity  of  all  the 
oppressed.  In  conchision,  Mrs.  Rosenburg  said: 

Nowhere  to-day  can  we  find  as  happy  a  working  class  and  as  comfort¬ 
able  a  middle  class  as  in  this  country,  and  that  which  is  the  generality  of 
the  nation  is  true  of  her  Jews.  It  has  been  said  that  “each  country  has 
the  Jews  it  deserves,”  The  American  Jews  to-day,  except  refugees  that 
have  fled  to  America  in  recent  years  to  escape  Russian  oppression,  hold 
positions  of  responsibility  and  influence,  and  are  persons  of  culture.  They 
mingle  freely  with  the  general  population,  and,  except  in  the  matter  of 
religious  belief,  are  fully  grafted  in  that  population.  And  although  we  occa¬ 
sionally  hear  of  a  wave  of  anti-semiticism  in  a  civilized  country,  such  a 
movement  can  never  become  general  nor  endure  for  any  length  of  time. 
The  future  of  the  Jews  in  America,  judging  from  the  achievements  of  the 
past,  is  bright  with  promise. 

This  congress  continued  four  days,  and  the  proceedings  were 
marked  with  great  fervor.  Among  those  who  took  a  leading 
part  in  the  exercises  were  Miss  Esther  Witkowsky  of  Chicago, 
Miss  Julia  Richman  of  New  York,  Miss  Sadie  Leopold  of 
Chicago,  Miss  Rebecca  Lesem  of  Quincy,  Miss  Julia  Cohen 
of  Philadelphia,  Miss  Julia  Felsenthal,  Miss  Cora  Wilburn  of 
Marshfield,  Mass.;  Mrs.  Eva  Storm  of  New^  York,  Mrs.  Carl 
Stevenson  Benjamin,  Miss  Bamber  of  Boston,  Mrs.  Blighton 
Safed  of  Constantinople.  It  was  regarded  as  significant  that 
the  proceedings  were  watched  with  the  deepest  concern  by  men 
and  women  not  of  the  house  of  Israel.  Archbishop  Ireland 


872 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


was  warmly  commended  for  the  liberal  spirit  he  displayed  in 
attending  one  of  the  evening  meetings  and  leading  the  discus¬ 
sion  on  the  subject  of  Jewish  persecution.  Before  the  con¬ 
gress  adjourned  a  permanent  organization  was  formed,  under 
the  title  of  “  The  National  Council  of  Jewish  Women.”  Mrs. 
H.  Solomon  was  elected  president;  Mrs.  E.  Mandel,  vice- 
president;  Mrs.  America,  corresponding  secretary;  Miss  L. 
Wolf,  recording  secretary,  and  Mrs.  H.  Selz,  treasurer. 


THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH  CONGRESSES. 

The  Lutheran  Church  had  accorded  it  the  liberty  of  at  least 
four  distinct  congresses  during  the  month  of  September.  The 
Greneral  Council,  together  with  the  Norwegian  United  Synod, 
held  theirs  on  the  2d;  the  Missouri  Synod  on  the  3d;  the  Gren¬ 
eral  Synod  on  the  11th  and  12th,  and  the  Lutheran  Women  on 
the  14th  and  15th.  Some  of  these  gatherings  were  very  large, 
notably  those  on  the  evening  of  thellth,  the  14th,  and  especially 
that  of  Sunday  the  3d,  when  at  least  6,000  persons  filled  both 
Columbus  and  Washington  Halls.  The  singing  on  some  occa¬ 
sions  was  by  choirs  of  hundreds,  well  drilled  in  choruses  and 
Luther’s  great  “  Battle  Hymn,”  “  A  Mighty  Fortress  Is  Our 
God.”  One  of  the  most  impressive  events  was  the  response  from 
representative  women  from  Germany,  Sweden,  Norway,  Den¬ 
mark,  Iceland,  India,  and  Finland.  The  addresses  of  cordial 
welcome  were  made  by  the  Hon.  C.  C.  Bonney  and  Mrs.  Chas. 
Henrotin. 

The  kinship  of  the  Lutheran  Church  with  the  reformation 
of  the  16th  century  influenced  it  in  the  belief  that  there 
is  a  peculiar  propriety  in  holding  such  a  congress  by  the 
Church  of  the  Reformation  on  soil  discovered  by  Christopher 
Columbus.  Columbus  and  Luther  were  cotemporaries,  and 
Providential  co-workers,  only  ditfering  in  this,  that,  whilst  the 
one  discovered  a  new  continent,  the  other  provided  for  it  the 
elements  of  its  glorious  liberty.  When  Columbus  was  making 
’  his  famous  voyages  to  America,  which  were  destined  to  revolu- 


THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH  CONGRESSES. 


873 


tionize  the  sciences  of  geography,  commercOj  and  civil  govern¬ 
ment,  Martin  Luther,  at  Eisenach,  Magdeberg,  and  Erfurt,  was 
storing  his  mind  with  that  liberal  education  and  those  prin¬ 
ciples  of  individual  liberty  of  judgment  which  disenthralled 
Europe  and  eventually  gave  the  land  of  Columbus  its  unpar¬ 
alleled  liberty  and  the  greatest  republic  the  world  ever  saw. 

The  movement  inaugurated  by  the  Reformer  stood  out  in 
bold  contrast  with  other  events  then  and  since.  Within  one 
week  of  when  Mohammed’s  rule  overthrew  the  freedom  of  the 
Mameluke  power  in  Egypt,  Luther  nailed  upon  the  castle 
church  of  Wittenberg  those  “  Theses,”  the  eclio  of  whose 
hammer  sound  struck  the  long  silent  chord  of  freedom  in  all 
Europe,  and  at  the  time  when  such  men  as  Francis  I.,  Henry 
VIII.,  and  Charles  V.  lield  the  scepter  of  the  great  nations  of 
the  age,  and  on  the  very  day  when  Cortez  conquered  Monte¬ 
zuma  and  placed  Mexico  under  Spanish  Roman  rule,  there  was 
enacted  at  Worms  a  scene  which  forever  checked  arrogant 
supremacy  over  human  liberty,  and  which,  as  Carlyle  says, 
‘‘  Was  the  great  point  from  which  the  whole  subsequent  history 
of  civilization  takes  its  rise.”  These  events  laid  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  our  xiivil  liberty,  and  Lutherans,  therefore,  took  a  special 
pride  in  this  Columbian  anniversary. 

Prof.  E.  J.  Wolf,  D.  D.,  of  Gettysburg,  Pa.,  who  addressed 
one  of  the  meetings  upon  “  The  Place  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  History,”  maintained  that  “  with  this  church,  as  the  first 
army  that  waged  successful  battle  with  Rome,  modern  history 
has  its  birth.”  There  never  was  an  earthly  power  so  nearly 
absolute,  so  nearly  omnipotent.  It  was  the  supreme  temporal 
and  spiritual  authority,  it  held  in  subjection  men’s  bodies  and 
their  souls,  it  was  sovereign  over  reason  aud  conscience,  it  held 
in  subjection  the  most  powerful  monarch  as  well  as  the 
most  abject  slave.  At  last  its  power  is  shaken  and  shattered 
from  one  end  of  Europe  to  the  other,  its  dominion  is  torn  to 
pieces,  its  rule  is  repudiated,  its  fulminations  are  answered 
with  defiance  and  its  yoke  falls  from  the  neck  of  millions. 
This  result  was  achieved  by  a  company  of  earnest  believers 


874 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


who  had  experienced  that  salvation  is  a  free  gift,  that  Christ 
atoned  for  all  actual  sins  of  men,  and  that  the  sinner  is  justi¬ 
fied  by  faith  alone.  Thus  darkness  vanished  before  the  rising 
sun.  It  was  a  revolution  that  contained  the  germ  and  pledge 
of  every  advance  that  society  has  made  in  four  hundred 
years. 

The  men  who  were  God’s  instruments  in  achieving  this 
result,  were  styled  “  Lutherans,”  and  the  church  constituted 
by  their  administration  of  word  and  sacrament  was  called  in 
derision  the  Lutheran  Church.”  This  church  gave  birth  to 
other  communions.  She  is  the  mother  of  Protestantism.  Dr. 
Schaff  says,  her  confession  struck  the  key-note  to  the  other 
evangelical  confessions.”  The  Lutheran  Church  is  the  great 
mediating  power  between  ancient  and  modern  Christianity. 
She  set  forth  again  the  primitive  doctrines  of  the  cross,  and 
did  not  unnecessarily  destroy  the  heritage  of  liturgy,  song,  and 
service.  The  Lutherans  have  been  censured  for  their  failure 
to  attack  and  overthrow  monarchy  and  subvert  despotism  in 
the  state  when  overthrowing  it  in  the  church.  Luther  and 
his  co-laborers  fearlessly  announced  principles  which  shook 
absolutism  to  its  inmost  center.  Instead  of  resorting  to  brute 
force  and  invoking  the  slaughter  of  rulers  for  the  triumph  of 
principles,  they  showed  their  transcendent  faith  in  the  power 
of  ideas,  and  having  .emancipated  the  eternal  truths  which 
underlie  all  civil,  liberty,  tbey  w^ere  content  to  leave  their 
development  to  their  own  inherent  energy. 

The  Lutheran  Church  took  the  lead  in  missions  among  the 
heathen.  Though  the  principal  Lutheran  countries  were  not 
given  to  maritime  pursuits  and  had  no  colonies,  yet  through 
the  intervention  of  the  Danish  government  two  Lutheran  mis¬ 
sionaries,  Ziegenbalg  and  Pluetschau,  proceeded  to  India  in 
the  year  1704,  antedating  by  one  hundred  years  the  missionary 
movements  of  other  Protestant  communions  excepting  only  the 
Moravians.  She  was  the  first,  through  the  Swedes,  to  colonize 
this  country  in  the  interests  of  missions.  When  there  is  added 
to  these  things  the  fact  that  the  spiritual  and  ethical  power  of 


THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH  CONGRESSES. 


8/5 


the  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Church  are  of  the 
highest  order  of  fruits,  and  that  it  is  the  church  of  culture  and 
schools,  we  may  have  a  conception  of  the  leading  place  this 
communion  has  in  civil,  social,  and  religious  history. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  H.  W.  Roth  of  Chicago,  gave  also  an  account 
of  the  immigrations  of  several  centuries  ago  and  later  on,  and 
pictured  the  scenes  of  endurance,  development  in  character,  and 
the  growth  of  churches  until  now.  The  denomination  numbers 
in  population  in  America  eight  or  ten  millions. 

Prof.  R.  F.  Weidner,  D.  D.,  of  Chicago,  spoke  on  the 
“Essential  Qualifications  of  Luther  for  His  Work  as  Reformer.” 
He  said  the  immortal  Luther  is  not  read  and  not  understood  by 
those  who  know  only  of  the  “Table  Talk”  and  some  of  his 
letters  and  some  sayings  falsely  ascribed  to  him.  He  was  a 
profound  student,  wrote  commentaries  of  the  most  profound 
character,  translated  the  Bible  into  the  language  of  the  people, 
itself  a  work  for  a  score  of  men,  and  produced  various  literary 
and  theological  works  of  the  first  order,  and  had  the  fullest 
experience  of  the  power  of  truth  in  the  heart  and  life.  He 
was  said  to  be  gentle  and  never  overbearing  in  private  life  and 
among  his  friends.  The  severe  language  of  the  times  he  used 
in  disputations  when  his  assailants  challenged  and  evoked  it. 
His  language  in  the  Bible  translation  has  made  the  language 
of  the  nation,  and  is  unsurpassed  by  poet,  historian,  or  philos¬ 
opher. 

Prof.  S.  F.  Breckenridge,  D.  D,,  Springfield,  Ohio,  read  a 
paper  on  the  “  Relation  of  the  Church  to  Higher  Criticism.” 
The  Lutheran  Church,  he  said,  holds  unmistakably,  in  its  con¬ 
fessional  standards,  that  the  “  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  are  the  word  of  God,  and  constitute  the  only  infal¬ 
lible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  All  creeds  and  opinions  must 
be  judged  by  the  word  which  was  given  through  the  instru¬ 
mentality  of  men  who  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Though  rationalism  had  swept  over  Germany  once,  it 
may  be  doubtful  whether  any  professor  who  taught  it  could  be 
called  Lutheran,  and  it  is  also  true  that  through  this  church 


87G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


the  myth-theories  have  been  annihilated.  The  method  of  dis¬ 
pelling  the  dark  clouds  of  heresy  has  not  been  to  try  men 
for  heresy,”  but  to  place  by  the  side  of  error  the  bright  light 
of  truth. 

Confining  the  study  now  to  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  to  be  said, 
the  higher  critics  deny  the  “  traditional  view  ”  that  these  five 
books  were  written  by  Moses,  the  inspired  law-giver  and 
prophet  of  God.  Including  the  book  of  Joshua  with  the 
Pentateuch,  the  ‘^critics”  hold  that  these  as  a  whole  are  a 
compilation  of  four  documents,  none  of  which  was  extant  until 
many  centuries  after  the  death  of  Moses.  The  theories  and 
discussions  are  almost  entirely  based  on  internal  circumstances 
in  differences  of  words  and  phrases,  style,  legislation,  concep¬ 
tions  of  God  and  His  providences,  all  of  which  differences  it  is 
presumed  are  proof  against  the  unity  of  authorship.  It  is  not 
known  that  any  professor  or  teacher  in  the  Lutheran  colleges 
and  seminaries  of  this  country  have  ever  held  or  taught  any¬ 
thing  but  the  traditional  view  that  the  authors  of  these  books 
were  they  to  whom  the  books  themselves  ascribe  the  authorship. 

When  once  the  ever-varying  differences  of  the  critics  are 
settled,  when  their  theories  agree,  when  they  can  fix  their 
hitherto  fluctuating  dates,  and  the  like,  then  there  will  be  time 
to  have  any  serious  fears  about  the  soundness  of  the  old 
and  Scriptural  view.  It  is  said  “  and  Moses  wrote  this  law,” 
and  like  expressions  are  not  to  be  set  aside  as  having  been 
fraudulent  for  thousands  of  years,  and  now  only  discovered  in 
this  late  day.  A  few  additions  were  certainly  made,  such  as 
the  record  of  the  death  of  Moses,  but  the  books  as  a  whole  are 
regarded  by  the  Lutheran  Church,  in  harmony  with  the  views 
of  the  universal  Christian  and  Jewish  church  as  far  back  as 
history  can  be  traced,  as  historic  narratives. 

The  great  doctrine  of  a  ‘‘standing  or  falling  church,”  justi¬ 
fication  by  faith,  was  treated  by  Prof.  F.  Pieper  of  St.  Louis. 
“  By  justification  we  understand  the  remission  of  sins.  Since 
Christ  has  already  perfectly  acquired  forgiveness  of  sins  for 
all  men,  and  since  this  forgiveness  is  offered  and  exhibited  to 


•Vy  --.  r:.  ,  , 


4l:- 


REV.  L.  M.  HEILMAN,  D.  D., 


Chairman  Committee  of  Lutheran  Congress. 


frV 


i 


a 


\\ 


( 


t  ‘ 


?"  ^-v- 


i 


■\ 


*  ^ 


■'•O’  ' 

■  _Ji  V 


N  f 


THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH  CONGRESSES. 


men  through  the  means  of  grace,  to-wit,  the  gospel  and  the 
sacraments,  the  only  means  on  our  part  of  obtaining  forgive¬ 
ness  of  sins  and  salvation  is  that  faith  which  accepts  of  the 
promise  of  God.  All  works  and  worthiness  of  our  own  are 
entirely  excluded  as  a  means  of  obtaining  remission  of  sins  or 
justification.  The  assertion  that  conversion  and  salvation 
depends  not  only  upon  the  grace  of  God,  but  to  some  extent 
also  on  the  conduct  of  man,  overthrows  the  article  of  justifi¬ 
cation,  destroys  the  essential  character  of  the  Christian 
religion,  and  places  it  on  equal  footing  with  the  heathen 
religions.  Hence,  there  is  no  co-operation  on  the  part  of  man 
toward  conversion,  but  man  is  only  the  object  that  is  to  be 
converted.”  The  natural  man  is  dead  in  sin,  in  enmity  against 
God,  and  can  not  be  obedient  or  subject  to  the  holy  law  of  God. 

The  Lutheran  doctrine  upon  divine  predestination  is  not 
Arminian,  but  a  middle  ground  between  Arminianism  and 
Calvinism.  It  holds  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  election,  but 
rejects  that  of  a  limited  atonement  and  of  the  preterition  or 
predestination  to  death. 

The  address  of  Dr.  C.  Jensen  of  Brecklum,  Germany,  set 
forth  the  nature  and  duty  of  the  Christian  ministry.  Men  are 
needed  who  have  thoroughly  grounded  convictions  of  truth, 
and  who  have  themselves  deeply  experienced  the  power  of  sav¬ 
ing  truth.  The  polity  of  the  Lutheran  Church  government  is 
in  principle  congregational.  The  people  elect  their  own  officers 
at  stated  times,  and  choose  also  their  own  pastors.  The  min¬ 
istry  as  an  office  is  held  to  be  divine,  but  the  church  calls  and 
ordains  the  ministers.  There  is  among  the  ministry  a  parity 
of  office — no  one  having  a  higher  call  than  another.  The  real 
and  only  ecclesiastical  authority  or  power  is  the  word  of  God. 
The  idea  of  priesthood  is  utterly  rejected.  The  doctrine  of 
ordination  is  that  it  is  not  a  divine  ordinance.  The  sacraments 
are  not  held  out  as  a  priestly  sacrifice.  There  is  in  these  the 
presence  and  communication  of  divine  grace,  but  no  gross 
conception  of  the  presence  of  Christ’s  body  and  blood,  and  the 
changing  of  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  in  any  sense  from 


878 


THE  PARLIxiMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


bread  and  wine.  Here  is  no  sacrifice  or  worship  by  the  ele¬ 
ments  and  conducted  as  by  priests.  The  administering  of 
baptism  is  not  a  certainty  of  salvation  to  the  baptized. 

On  the  deaconess’  work  in  the  church,  Dr.  Gr.  U.  Wenner  of 
New  York  City  gave  a  statement  of  the  modern  origin  of 
deaconesses’  houses  to  be  from  Kaiserswerth  on  the  Ehine,  1836, 
under  the  Lutheran  pastor,  Fliedner.  Luther  had  recom¬ 
mended  women  as  teachers  of  the  young,  comforters  of  the 
afflicted,  and  wished  that  for  general  pastoral  work  he  had 
deaconesses  as  Chrysomtom  had  in  Constantinople,  and  as  Paul 
even  had.  In  the  church  the  office  had  fallen  into  disuse  long 
before  Luther’s  day,  through  the  system  of  nunneries.  The 
sisters  connected  with  the  General  Conference  of  Kaiserswerth 
in  1861  were  1,197  in  27  houses  and  2  fields  of  labor.  In 
1891  there  were  8,478  sisters  in  63  houses  and  2,774  stations. 
A  few  of  these  are  in  this  country,  a  few  in  each  of  the 
countries  of  Sweden,  Norway,  Denmark,  and  England,  but 
the  greatest  number  are  in  Germany,  and  are  mostly  Lutheran. 
Their  work  is  among  the  sick  in  hospitals  and  in  homes, 
the  insane,  the  poor,  the  houseless  and  fallen,  and  in  the  gen¬ 
eral  work  of  leading  souls  to  Christ.  The  office  is  regarded 
not  as  a  mere  temporal  one,  but  a  divine  ministry.  No  vows 
are  taken,  so  that  those  who  enter  this  service  can  retire  from 
it  at  any  time.  The  General  Synod  in  this  country  is  sending 
young  ladies  for  training  in  the  work  to  Kaiserswerth. 

The  questions  of  education  were  considered  by  Prof.  E.  F. 
Bartholomew  of  Bock  Island,  who  maintained  the  necessity  of 
taking  up  larger  enterprises  in  the  way  of  colleges.  Prof.  H. 
Sauer,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,  said:  “  We  love  this  our  country,  and 
therefore  love  our  parochial  schools.”  He  advocates  that  the 
fuller  and  truer  manhood  is  educated  when  the  young  have 
religious  training  along  with  their  secular  and  classic.  It  may 
be  said  that  probably  300,000  English  speaking  Lutheran 
communicants  in  America  have  no  parochial  schools. 

“  The  Church  Should  Be  Entirely  Free  from  State  and 
State  from  Church  Control,”  was  the  title  of  the  address  of 


THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH  CONGRESSES. 


879 


Prof.  A.  Crull  of  Fort  Wayne,  Iiid.  “  The  Rite  of  Confirmation 
and  the  Work  of  Catechisation,”  was  discussed  by  Rev.  J.  N. 
Kildahl.  The  teaching  of  the  catechism,  he  said,  is  meant  to 
be  but  an  enforcement  of  the  teachings  of  scripture,  the  heart 
is  to  be  reached,  the  young  are  taught  the  necessity  of  a  con¬ 
verted  life,  and  to  bear  fruits  of  regeneration,  and  by  this 
course  of  instruction  are  to  be  made  intelligent  as  to  the 
duties  of  a  church  life.  The  results  of  this  mode  of  receiving 
the  young  into  church  membership  are  fully  as  successful  as, 
if  not  more  so  than,  many  other  methods.  Confirmation  itself 
is  only  a  human  ordinance,  is  not  material,  excepting  that  it  is 
a  mode  of  publicly  avowing  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  the 
Christian  religion. 

“  The  Press  in  the  Lutheran  Church  ”  was  the  theme  of 
Rev.  Dr.  V.  L.  Conrad,  editor  of  the  Lutheran  Observer., 
Philadelphia.  There  are  in  this  country  fifty-three  English 
Lutheran  periodicals,  fifty  German,  sixteen  Norwegian,  sixteen 
Swedish,  four  Danish,  one  Icelandic,  three  Finnish,  and  one 
French. 

Dr.  Stoecker,  former  court  preacher  at  Berlin,  speaking  in 
German,  gave  an  account  of  the  relation  between  “  The  People 
of  the  Reformation  on  This  Side  and  That  Side  of  the  Sea.”  He 
thinks  Germany  is  seeking  now  too  many  new  things.”  The 
old  gospel  and  its  old  methods  should  be  adhered  to  steadily. 

Speaking  for  the  “  Fifty  Years  of  Sound  Lutheranism  ”  in 
the  Missouri  Synod,  Prof.  A.  Graebner  of  St.  Louis  set  forth 
the  merit  of  his  own  synod  since  its  organization  in  1846. 
They  believe  in  a  Lutheran  pulpit  for  Lutheran  ministers  only, 
and  a  Lutheran  altar  for  Lutheran  communicants  only;  yet 
they  do  hold  that  there  are  also  God’s  children  in  other 
churches  whom  they  esteem.  They  educate  and  catechise  their 
young,  discuss  doctrines  in  their  synods  and  conferences,  and 
so  train  the  laity  to  be  able  to  vote  on  the  fitness  of  men  for 
ordination. 

On  the  “  Sights,  Scenes,  and  Life  Among  the  Scandinavian 
Peoples  ”  Rev.  Dr.  M.  W.  Hamma  of  Baltimore  gave,  not  only 


^80  the  parliament  of  religions. 

pictures  of  the  charming  country,  but  of  the  noble  people  in 
all  ages  and  stages  of  life,  and  showed  how  the  hardy  race 
there  had  superior  character  in  honesty  and  industry,  and  in 
their  life  as  Lutheran  church  people  they  displayed  a  degree  of 
piety  and  fidelity  that  puts  beyond  all  doubt  that  no  mission¬ 
aries  need  be  sent  there.  These  people  themselves  send  mis¬ 
sionaries  to  foreign  fields.  In  Iceland,  where  all  are  Lutherans, 
of  the  whole  population  of  75,000  there  is  not  a  fallen  woman. 
The  young  are  taught,  before  confirmation,  to  be  able  to  con¬ 
duct  family  worship.. 

The  mission  fields,  both  home  and  foreign,  were  represented 
in  the  Women’s  Congress.  Dr.  Anna  Kugler  of  Guntoor, 
India,  gave  some  wholesome  words  which  disproved  the  claims 
made  by  Brahman  and  Buddhist  priests  and  Mohammedans  for 
morality  and  benevolence.  “The  Mission  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  ”  was  discussed  by  the  Bev.  Dr.  E.  K.  ' 
Belle  of  Cincinnati.  He  said  the  Saxons  have  come  to  stay. 
They  are  coming  here  with  their  virtues  of  industry  and  their 
manuals  of  devotion.  They  of  old  conquered  Home  and 
England.  They  are  crowding  our  land  and  are  noble  citizens. 
The  few  loud-talking  Anarchists  in  our  cities  do  not  represent 
the  people.  The  Lutheran  Church  has  wealth,  and  within  her 
hand  the  greatest  field  and  prospects  of  any  and  all  com¬ 
munions  in  the  land.  There  is  liberty  and  happy  faith  in  the 
church ;  it  has  not  been  unfelt  in  the  issues  of  temperance  in 
the  West;  it  is  the  church  of  the  people,  in  fact  as  well  as  in 
polity.  It  needs  but  self-denial  and  loyalty  in  its  members, 
and  the  work  and  mission  assigned  it  by  Providence  will  be 
successfully  achieved. 

Kev.  Dr.  S.  B.  Barnitz,  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Home 
Missions,  told  of  the  numerous  calls  for  more  missionaries. 
The  statistics  of  “  Lutheranism  in  All  Lands,”  were  given  by 
Rev.  J.  N.  Lenker,  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Church  Exten¬ 
sion.  In  Germany  there  are  16,000  ministers,  22,500  churches, 
29,300,000  baptized  members,  61,000  parochial  schools,  and 
6,731  deaconesses;  in  Denmark,  1,700  ministers,  1,900  chwrches, 


THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH  CONGRESSES. 


881 


2,030,000  baptized  members,  3,100  parochial  schools,  and  171 
deaconesses;  in  Norway,  869  ministers,  960  churches,  2,010,000 
baptized  members;  in  Sweden,  2,541  ministers,  2,514  churches, 
4,764,000  baptized  members.  Total  in  Europe,  including  Greece, 
England,  Scotland,  Holland,  Switzerland,  and  others,  24,416 
ministers,  32,897  churches,  45,370,308  baptized  members, 
89,764  parochial  schools,  7,702  deaconesses.  In  Asia  there  are 
252  ministers,  169  churches,  and  114,350  members,  756 
parochial  schools,  and  42  deaconesses;  in  Africa,  328  ministers, 
256  churches,  100,863  members,  714  parochial  schools,  and  44 
deaconesses;  in  Oceanica,  168  ministers,  410  churches,  137,294 
members,  and  180  schools;  in  South  America,  62  ministers,  90 
churches,  115,545  members,  90  schools;  in  Greenland,  United 
States  and  Canada,  and  West  Indies,  5,120  ministers,  9,135 
churches,  7,012,500  members,  2,513  schools,  and  65  deacon¬ 
esses.  The  grand  total  in  the  world  shows  30,346  ministers, 
42,877  churches,  52,850,660  baptized  members,  94,017  paro¬ 
chial  schools,  and  7,853  deaconesses. 

The  Columbiad  written  by  Rev.  Dr.  M.  Sheeliegh,  Fort 
Washington,  Pa.,  closes  thus: 

What  glory  yet'  for  thee  awaits 
When  blends  thy  poly  glottic  host, 

As  faith  the  more  to  life  translates. 

And  farther  shine  thy  temple  gates 
For  God,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 

Rev.  Lee  M.  Heilman  of  Chicago  thus  summarizes  the  pres¬ 
entation  of  the  Lutheran  Congresses: 

1.  The  Lutheran  Church  has  been  in  America  for  more 
than  two  and  a  half  centuries,  and  has  had  its  hand  eminently 
in  achieving  our  noble  liberties. 

2.  This  church  has  fostered  popular  and  higher  education. 

3.  This  church  is  misunderstood  by  many  to  be  much  like 
the  Romish. 

Though  it  has  in  many  places  considerable  of  a  liturgical 
service,  it  is  the  farthest  possible  removed  from  any  doctrines 
or  practices  of  priestly  power,  and  is  really  “low  church  ”  in 
its  polity,  since  the  laity  elect  their  officers,  and^all,  and,  in 


882 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


principle,  ordain  the  ministry — the  only  authority  in  the 
church  being  the  divine  word. 

It  is  not  true  that  it  holds  the  Romish  view  of  Baptismal 
Regeneration,  but  rather  teaches  that,  through  baptism,  grace  is 
offered,  and  that  children  presented  to  God  thereby  are  received 
into  His  favor? 

« 

As  to  the  Lord’s  Supper,  the  oft-repeated  assertion  by  men 
and  in  books  that  the  Lutheran  Church  holds  the  doctrine  of 
Consubstantiation  or  nearly  Tran  substantiation  is  alsp  utterly 
untrue.  The  elements  of  bread  and  wine  are  not  regarded  as 
changed  at  all.  Even  the  strictest  adherents  to  all  the  confes¬ 
sional  standards  deny,  and  all  Lutheran  theologians  have  always 
denied,  any  belief  in  the  physical  or  local  presence  of  Christ, 
in  the  Lord’s  Supper,  as  circumscribed  by  space.  The  receiv¬ 
ing  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  entirely  separated  from 
every  idea  of  a  gross  or  carnal  presence  or  physical  eating,  but 
is  held  to  be  of  a  supernatural,  spiritual,  and  incomprehensible 
presence  of  the  glorious  Lord. 

Catechisation  may  be  abused  as  other  good  methods  are,  but  ’ 
it  is  the  means  of  thorough  systematic  Bible  instruction,  and 
the  Word  has  been  blessed  by  the  Spirit  to  the  upbuilding  of 
young  Christians  ini  faith  and  character,  has  led  the  unbeliev¬ 
ing  to  the  truth,  and  made  intelligent  Christians  of  the  church 
membership. 

Confirmation  is  only  a  human  rite  and  a  solemn  mode  of  unit¬ 
ing  outwardly  with  the  church.  Of  the  doctrine  of  the  Sabbath, 
Luther  clearly  adhered,  and  the  confessions,  understood  in  the 
light  of  the  circumstances,  and  most  eminent  theologians  and 
synods,  adhere  to  the  divine  and  perpetual  obligation  of  the 
Lord’s  day. 

So  in  this  Columbian  anniversary  it  may  be  repeated  that 
the  confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  while  other  confessions 
have  hung  in  the  balance,  has  continued  to  hold  its  place  in 
Protestantism,  and  stands  to-day,  strong  as  Gibraltar,  heralding 
the  old  life-giving  and  liberating  doctrines.  The  perpetuity  of 
these  principles  is  also  promised  us  through  the  million  and  a 


THE  CONGRESS  OF  WALES. 


883 


half  of  Lutheran  comumnieants  and  their  seven  millions,  at 
least,  of  a  population  in  America,  who,  by  their  one-third 
worshiping  in  the  English  tongue,  and  the  remainder  in  near  a 
dozen  other  languages,  and  by  their  customs  of  education, 
Christian  nurture,  and  culture  in  the  virtues  of  industry  and 
morality,  occupy  no  second  place  of  influence  in  conserving 
the  old  and  promoting  ever  new  results  under  their  liberty¬ 
awakening  faith.  Ten  years  ago  the  world- wide  400th  anni¬ 
versary  of  the  birth  of  the  immortal  Luther  was  but  a  Titanic 
stepping-stone  of  the  ever-advancing  truth  which  the  more 
than  fifty  millions  of  Lutherans  in  the  world  live  to  advocate, 
enjoy,  and  further  as  a  blessing  to  mankind. 


THE  CONGRESS  OF  WALES. 

The  people  of  Wales  are  generally  faithful  to  what  is  known 
as  the  evangelical  type  of  creed.  The  Episcopal  Church  of 
England  is  the  state  church  of  the  principality,  but  the  great 
majority  of  the  people  are  of  other  denominations  and  opposed 
to  the  union  of  church  and  state.  There  is  in  Wales  at  the 
present  time  a  strong  movement  in  favor  of  disestablishment 
and  disendowment,  which  seems  to  some  people  to  be  within 
measurable  distance  of  complete  success. 

The  Welsh  convened  for  the  first  session  of  their  congress 
in  the  Memorial  Art  Palace  at  11  A.  M.,  September  3,  1893. 

The  Rev.  R.  Trogwy  Evans,  Chicago,'  presided,  and  the  plat¬ 
form  was  occupied  by  a  large  number  of  representative  minis¬ 
ters  from  the  various  religious  denominations  of  Wales.  At 
the  conclusion  of  the  devotional  exercises,  which  were  con¬ 
ducted  by  the  Rev.  R.  I.  Lewis  (Callesto),  S.  Job,  Esq.,  of 
Pullman,  Ill.,  representing  the  Hon.  C.  C.  Bonney,  opened  the 
congress  with  a  very  appropriate  address,  and  extended  to  all 
a  cordial  welcome.  The  programme  included  a  paper  by  the 
Rev.  D.  Parker  Morgan,  D.  D.,  of  New  York,  on  “  The  Early 
British  Church.”  This  important  and  interesting  topic  receives 
very  able  and  scholarly  treatment  from  Dr.  Morgan,  who  has 
evidently  approached  his  subject  with  deep  sympathy. 


884 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  chief  address  was  delivered  by  the  Rev.  R.  Williams  of 
North  Wales,  on  “  The  Mysteries  of  the  Faith.” 

The  afternoon  session  was  presided  over  by  the  Rev.  Ellis 
Roberts,  Chicago,  and  the  following  took  part  in  the  proceed¬ 
ings:  Rev.  H.  O.  Rowlands,  Chicago;  Rev.  J.  W.  Jones,  Rev. 
W.  W.  Jones,  Bellevue,  Neb.;  Rev.  D.  Harries,  D.  D., 
Chicago;  Rev.  D.  J.  Philipps,  Rev.  R.  Williams,  (Hwfa  Mon) 
Nebraska;  Prof.  I.  P.  Jones,  Chicago,  and  Rev.  O.  F.  Pugh, 
Chicago.  The  paper  of  the  Rev.  John  Evans  (Eglwysbach), 
Cardiff,  South  Wales,  was  not  received  in  time  to  be  read  at 
this  session.  The  subject  of  Mr.  Evans’  paper  is  “  The  Refor¬ 
mation  and  the  Welsh.”  He  has  made  a  most  interesting  con¬ 
tribution  to  the  literature  of  an  important  subject  which  seems 
to  have  been  surprisingly  neglected. 

The  Rev.  D.  Harries,  D.  I).,  Chicago,  presided  at  the  evening 
session,  which  was  opened  with  prayer  and  reading  of  the 
scriptures  by  the  Rev.  E.  Hughes,  Grinnell,  and  the  Rev.  R.  T. 
Lewis,  D.  D.,  of  St.  Louis.  Addresses  were  delivered  by  the 
Rev.  W.  Fawcett,  D.  D.,  Chicago;  Miss  Rosina  Davies  of 
South  Wales,  and  the  Rev.  R.  Williams  of  Llangollen. 

The  last  paper  was  by  the  Rev.  H.  O.  Rowlands,  D.  D.,  of 
Chicago,  on  “The  Religious  Characteristics  of  the  Welsh.” 

The  congress  was  closely  connected  with,  and  owed  much  of 
the  splendid  attendance  it  commanded  to,  the  International 
Eisteddfod  of  the  Welsh  people,  which  was  held  for  four  days  in 
the  week  succeeding  the  congress.  Professor  Apmadoc,  its  able 
and  indefatigable  secretary,  did  more  than  anyone  else  toward 
making  each  meeting  a  grand  success.  The  Eisteddfod  is  a 
national  literary  and  musical  contest.  The  subject  of  the  chief 
competition  in  poetry  this  year  was  “  Jesus  of  Nazareth.” 
This  institution  embodies  in  itself  so  many  of  the  characteristics 
of  the  Welsh  people  that  the  church  is  bound  to  strive  at  regu¬ 
lating  it  and  elevating  it  to  the  utmost.  Dating  its  origin  in  a 
very  early  period,  it  has  survived  all  the  vicissitudes  of  the 
nation  and  seems  destined  to  continue  its  ever-youthful  vitality 
as  long  as  the  nation  lasts.  Never  before  was  there  such  a 


THE  CONGRESS  OF  WALES. 


885 


large  gathering  of  Welsh  people  in  any  city  of  the  United 
-States  as  there  was  in  Chicago  at  the  time  of  the  congress  and 
Eisteddfod.  The  public  press  declared  at  the  time  that  the 
first  session  of  the  Welsh  Congress  was  the  first  of  all  the 
congresses  to  command  a  first-rate  attendance,  and  it  increased 
day  after  day  until  at  the  last  session  of  the  Eisteddfod,  held, 
at  Festival  Hall,  it  amounted  to  8,000  people. 

It  is  the  hope  and  ambition  of  the  church  that  the  day  shall 
never  dawn  on  Wales  when  religion  is  divorced  there  from 
music,  literature,  and  art. 

One  of  the  notable  papers  prepared  for  the  congress,  but 
received  too  late  for  presentation,  was  on  “  The  Effect  of  the 
Protestant  Reformation'  in  Wales,”  by  Rev.  John  Evans  of 
Cardiff,  Wales.  It  will  be  read  with  interest  by  Welshmen 
all  over  the  world: 

Wales  is  a  small  country  but  a  large  subject.  Its  early  religious  history 
is  an  extremely  difficult  one.  The  effect  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  on 
this  little  country  is  a  topic  that  involves  special  difficulties.  It  bristles 
with  critical  points,  and  must  be  considered  with  care  and  impartiality.  In 
order  to  arrive  at  anything  like  clear  conclusions  repecting  it,  the  terms  of 
the  subject  must  be  defined.  What  is  really  meant  by  the  Protestant 
Reformation?  If  the  term  simply  denotes  the  emancipation  of  the 
churches  from  the  ecclesiastical  yoke  of  papal  Rome,  then  we  affirm  that 
the  effect  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  was  immediate  and  general.  The 
union  of  Wales  with  England  had  been  completed  in  1535,  just  about  the 
time  Henry  VIII.  broke  off  with  Rome,  so  that  any  change  of  this  kind 
effected  in  England  would  apply  also  to  Wales. 

But  if  by  the  phrase,  “The  Protestant  Reformation,”  we  mean  anything 
deeper  and  more  spiritual  than  this,  any  real  change  in  the  creed  and  the 
religious  proclivities  of  the  Welsh  people,  then  it  is  very  doubtful  whether 
it  had  any  real  effect  on  the  Principality  of  Wales  for  100  years. 

The  history  of  the  Reformation  in  Wales  differs  considerably  in  several 
important  respects  from  that  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  and  even  in  England 
itself.  It  really  forms  a  chapter  by  itself  in  the  history  of  Protestantism,  and 
a  chapter,  unfortunately,  that  has  not  yet  been  adequately  recorded.  And 
it  is  questionable  whether  it  ever  can  be  accurately  and  fully  written.  So 
many  of  the  necessary  documents  are  either  lost  or  inaccessible.  Important 
ascertained  facts  have  been  transmitted  through  the  dark  ages  without 
their  historical  environments,  detached  from  one  another  like  broken 
chains,  and  so  far  the  missing  links  are  not  to  be  found.  The  religious 
history  of  Wales  begins  so  far  back;  the  tribal  quarrels  and  the  civil  wars 
of  the  middle  ages  have  been  so  destructive  to  life  and  property;  the  edi¬ 
fices,  the  manuscripts,  and  other  fossils  of.  history  that  belonged  to  the 
ante-Protestant  centuries  are  so  few  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  trace, 
with  any  certainty,  the  religious  condition  of  the  country  in  the  15th  cent¬ 
ury;  and  without  this  who  can  tell  the  effect  of  the  Reformation  on  it 
during  the  century  following.  And,  moreover,  so  many  political  factions, 
and  religious  controversies,  and  ecclesiastical  issues  are  bound  up  with  the 
historical  events  of  this  period,  that  historians  have  found  it  most  difficult 


m 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


to  rise  above  their  prejudices  in  the  fragments  of  history  that  are  given  us. 
Historians  too  often  bear  marks  of  their  specific  schools  and  marshal  their 
forces  under  colored  banners  to  fight  gallantly  in  the  interest  of  their  own 
side  and  sect.  Recent  researches  have  resulted  in  increasing  raw  material, 
but  so  far  hardly  anything  has  been  done  toward  critical  analysis  and  clear 
conclusions  respecting  the  history  of  Wales  in  the  15th  and  16th  centuries. 
The  Protestant  and  the  Roman  Catholic,  the  conservative  churchman  and 
the  radical  nonconformist,  reads  and  writes  the  history  of  this  dark  period 
in  his  own  way,  and  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  decide  positively  and  clearly 
how  far  Wales  was  affected  by  the  Protestant  Reformation  at  the  time. 

One  thing  is  morally  certain,  namely,  that  the  Welsh  people,  and  prob¬ 
ably  all  the  Celtic  races  of  Britain,  had  received  their  Christianity  from 
some  other  source  than  papal  Rome.  This  fact  has  an  important  bearing 
on  the  subject  of  this  paper,  and  presents  Wales  in  a  direct  contrast  to 
England  with  reference  to  the  Protestant  Reformation.  Originally,  the 
English  people  were  benighted  pagans.  This  was  their  sad  condition  when 
Augustine  and  his  monks  were  sent  from  Rome  in  597.  He  found  them  totally 
ignorant  of  Christianity,  and  was  commissioned  by  Pope  Gregory  to 
enlighten  and  convert  them.  Augustine  was  a  Roman  Catholic  missionary 
and  when  the  Anglo-Saxons  were  converted  under  his  ministry,  they  simply 
accepted  the  popish,  corrupt  form  of  the  Christian  religion.  This  was  the 
only  form  of  it  that  was  first  taught  them,  and  they  heard  nothing  else 
concerning  Christianity  for  600  years,  when  Wycliffe,  the  morning  star  of  the 
Reformation,  appeared. 

But  such  was  not  the  case  with  the  Welsh.  Pure  Christianity  had  been 
preached  to  them  from  an  early  period,  probably  as  early  as  the  2d 
century,  and  possibly  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  the  apostles.  It  is  not 
conclusively  proved  that  the  Apostle  Paul  himself  visited  Britain,  but  it  is 
highly  probable  that  Bran,  the  father  of  Caradog,  and  Gurgain,  his  own 
daughter,  heard  Paul  preach  at  Rome  during  the  time  they  were  retained 
there  by  Claudius  Cassar  as  hostages  for  Caradog’s  good  behavior,  when  he 
was  allowed  to  return  home  as  tributary  ruler  of  South  Wales.  Bnln  and 
Gurgain  remained  at  Rome  for  seven  years,  and  old  Welsh  documents  tell 
us  that  the  prince  was  converted  to  Christianity  while  there,  and  that  after 
his  return  to  Wales  he  converted  his  countrymen.  However,  it  is  gener¬ 
ally  admitted  that  there  was  in  the  principality  a  British  church  previous 
to  the  visit  of  Augustine,  and  therefore  that  the  Welsh  people  had  received 
their  Christianity  from  some  other  source  than  papal  Rome.  When  King 
Ethelbert  convened  the  churches  in  Wales  in  603,  to  meet  Augustine,  it  is 
stated  on  good  authority  that  all  the  efforts  of  the  monk  to  win  them  over 
to  accept  the  Romish  tenets  and  supremacy  were  absolutely  fruitless.  It 
was  late  i^  the  7th  century  before  the  people  of  Wales  could  be  persuaded 
to  submit  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope.  And  thus  for  several  centuries 
Wales  had  its  own  Christian  church,  with  its  Christian  teaching  and 
church  order,  its  own  Christian  services  and  institutions,  and  probably  its 
own  written  copies  of  the  scriptures,  translated,  in  part,  into  the  vernacular 
— copies  that  were  lost  or  destroyed  during  the  ravages  of  the  middle  ages. 
This  was  not  the  case  in  England.  To  the  English  the  introduction  of 
Protestantism  was  a  reformation,  while  to  the  Welsh  the  Reformation 
itself  was  only  a  revival.  This  important  fact  must  be  kept  before  us  in 
considering  the  effect  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  on  Wales. 

Another  fact  that  naturally  follows  and  clearly  differentiates  the  Ref¬ 
ormation  in  Wales  is  this:  that  it  was  not  the  result  of  a  gradual  develop¬ 
ment  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  but  a  sudden  change  imposed  upon  them 
by  a  superior  objective  power.  In  Germany  the  blow  that  Luther  gave  to 
the  papacy  was  only  the  culminating  point  of  a  long  and  ever-increasing 
Protestant  process  that  had  been  at  work  in  the  religious  thought  of  Ger¬ 
many  and  other  parts  of  the  continent  for  many  years.  There  had  been 


THE  CONGRESS  OF  WALES. 


887 


“  Reformers,”  as  Ullman  proves,  “  before  the  Reformation.”  Such  was  the 
case,  also,  in  England.  Henry’s  quarrel  with  the  Pope  became  the  excit¬ 
ing  cause  of  the  Protestant  Reformation,  but  its  true  antecedents  and  real 
cause  must  be  traced  to  the  mental  and  religious  upheaval  of  the  people 
ever  since  the  days  of  Wycliffe  and  the  Lollards. 

The  effect  of  Wycliffe’s  awakening  was  partly  felt  in  Wales  also,  espe¬ 
cially  on  the  borders  of  England.  John  of  Kentchurch  became  a  Lollard; 
Sir  John  Oldcastle,  afterward  Lord  Cobham,  and  Walter  Brute  partook  of 
the  same  spirit.  These  men  and  a  few  less  illustrious  comrades  were 
excellent  Christians,  and  preached  against  the  pretensions  of  Rome, 
denouncing  the  dogma  of  transubstantiation,  opposing  indulgences  and 
every  other  priestly  craft  that  endangered  the  salvation  of  the  people.  But 
the  effects  of  their  efforts  did  not  penetrate  far  into  the  interior  of  the 
principality  at  any  time,  and  at  their  death  the  whole  nation  plunged  itself 
into  a  state  of  unbroken  indifference  for  at  least  a  century.  The  thick 
darkness  of  popery  covered  the  land  like  the  shadow  of  death.  This  was 
the  deplorable  condition  of  Wales  when  the  trumpet  blast  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion  was  heard  in  England,  about  the  year  1540.  In  fact,  there  was  no 
preparation  leading  up  toward  an  outbreak  in  the  Welsh  mind.  The  Ref¬ 
ormation,  so  called,  was  only  an  outward  change  thrust  suddenly  upon  the 
people  by  the  fitful  will  of  the  reigning  monarch. 

Henry  VIII.  was  on  the  throne  at  the  time.  He  descended  in  a 
direct  line  from  Owen  Tudor  of  Penymynydd,  Mon — the  Welsh  hero.  At 
that  time  and  for  many  years  afterward  Wales  was  extremely  loyal. 
Creed  and  practice  had  to  go  whenever  the  Tudor  king  desired  a  change. 
The  union  had  just  been  completed  through  the  efforts  of  Sir  John  Price. 
Certain  privileges  had  recently  been  conferred  on  the  new  subjects.  The 
country  had  been  divided  into  counties;  members  were  appointed  to  repre¬ 
sent  these  divisions  in  Parliament,  and  Wales  for  the  first  time  had  a  voice 
and  a  vote  in  the  legislature  of  the  kingdom.  All  these  privileges  recently 
received  at  the  hands  of  the  gracious  monarch  greatly  intensified  the  loyalty 
of  the  people,  so  that  if  Henry  had  become  a  Protestant  even  in  name, 
Wales  professedly  hastened  to  acknowledge  the  change. 

They  knew  also  that  Henry  had  an  iron  will  as  well  as  a  stone  heart. 
His  whispered  desires  came  to  them  with  the  thundering  force  of  a  direct 
command.  They  knew  how  the  monasteries  had  been  quickly  visited  by 
his  officials — the  small  ones  at  first  and  afterward  the  larger  institutions — 
and  how  all  their  endowments  beyond  a  certain  sum  had  been  claimed  for 
the  king’s  treasury.  Henry  was  in  earnest.  He  meant  a  reformation. 
Wales  understood  this  and  professedly  submitted  to  the  change.  But  their 
Protestantism  was  not  deex)  and  natural.  It  was  a  twist  rather  than  a 
change.  A  political  reform  rather  than  a  religious  reformation.  It  had 
not  originated  within.  There  was  no  thought,  no  heart  in  it  on  the  part 
of  the  people.  It  was  a  human  creation,  wrought  for  a  selfish  purpose  by 
one  of  the  most  wanton  kings  that  ever  occupied  the  English  throne.  No 
wonder  that  King  Henry’s  reformation  in  Wales  provided  only  three 
martyrs — and  all  these  three  were  Englishmen — throughout  the  entire 
principality  who  were  sufficiently  possessed  of  the  Reformation  spirit  to 
die  for  their  faith  with  the  300  Protestant  heroes  that  perished  in  the 
flames  during  the  Marian  persecution. 

Another  distinguishing  feature  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  in  Wales 
is  the  patent  fact  that  laymen  were  more  forward  in  its  favor  than  the 
clergy.  On  the  continent,  clergymen  like  Erasmus  and  Melanchthon,  Calvin 
and  Zunglius,  rallied  around  Luther,  the  monk  that  shook  the  world,  as 
the  principal  promoters  of  the  Reformation;  and  in  England,  Wycliffe,  Lat¬ 
imer,  Ridley,  Cranmer,  and  other  prominent  church  dignitaries  were  the 
leaders,  and  afterward  became  the  martyrs,  of  the  Protestant  campaign. 
It  was  emphatically  a  clerical  movement,  stoutly  opposed  at  first  by  several 


888 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


influential  laymen,  and  even  when  others  of  them  accepted  its  principles 
and  furthered  its  extension,  they  did  it  as  followers  of  the  clergy  and  not 
as  leaders. 

But  in  Wales  it  was  quite  the  reverse.  The  laymen  took  the  lead. 
Under  the  influence  of  the  Protestant  awakening  produced  by  Wycliffe  and 
the  English  Lollards,  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  and  Walter  Brute — both  laymen — 
were  the  first  and  almost  the  only  Welshmen  to  catch  its  inspiration.  Sir 
John  Price  in  North  Wales,  and  Dr.  Ellis  Price  in  the  southern  part  of  the 
country,  were  the  first  great  iconoclasts  under  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  to 
purge  the  churches  from  idols  and  relics  and  to  cast  out  popish  superstitions 
from  the  land.  Morris  Kyftin,  the  layman,  translated  Bishop  Jewel’s 
apology  into  Welsh;  William  Middleton  (Gwilym  Canoldref),  another 
learned  layman,  rendered  the  whole  Book  of  Psalms  direct  from  the 
Hebrew  into  Welsh — arranged  according  to  the  rules  of  the  twenty-four 
metres,  and  William  Salesbury,  a  layman  still,  brought  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  out  of  the  press  in  the  language  of  the  people.  It  is  true  that 
William  Morgan,  who  translated  the  whole  Bible  into  the  vernacular  in 
1588,  was  a  clergyman,  and  he  and  the  few  other  clergymen  who  partook 
of  the  same  spirit  rendered,  in  their  way,  to  the  Reformation  valuable 
service;  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  they  came  to  its  aid  as  learned 
followers  rather  than  as  active  leaders. 

And,  after  all,  this  strange  fact  is  not  difficult  to  understand  when 
we  remember  the  nature  and  the  circumstances  of  the  introduction  of 
the  Reformation  into  Wales.  Being  forced  upon  the  people  by  the 
will  of  the  monarch,  as  we  have  seen  was  the  case,  and,  therefore, 
amounting  to  a  political  movement,  it  was  only  natural  that  the  laymen, 
especially  those  of  them  who  sustained  official  relationship  to  the  throne, 
should  take  the  first  and  foremost  part  in  the  promotion  of  the  Reformation 
in  Wales.  Some  of  them  were  officially  appointed  to  reform  the  services  of 
the  churches  as  well  as  to  alter  the  creed  and  the  religious  practices  of  the 
people.  Such  a  course  of  procedure  was  regarded  by  the  clergy  with 
doubt  and  suspicion  and  made  many  of  them  very  reluctant  to  take  any 
prominent  part  in  aid  of  the  movement.  The  drastic  measures  adopted  by 
the  king  with  reference  to  monastic  endowments  and  church  livings 
tended  still  further  in  the  same  direction.  It  embittcjed  the  minds  of  the 
monks  and  the  priests  toward  the  new  departure.  And  further,  it  must  be 
admitted  that,  owing  either  to  ignorance  or  chronic  inactivity,  or  both,  the 
spiritual  condition  of  the  Welsh  clergy  at  that  time  was  at  a  low  ebb. 
How  could  such  men  be  but  conspicuously  backward  in  taking  their  proper 
place  as  the  spiritual  leaders  of  the  people  in  connection  with  this  mighty 
movement.  But  God  raised  up  several  competent  and  demoted  laymen,  who 
were  placed  in  high  positions  of  power  and  who  nobly  bore  the  brunt  of 
the  battle  with  the  papacy,  so  that  Wales  was  not  left  altogether 
untouched  by  the  blessed  effect  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  from’  the 
beginning. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  right  to  add  that  the  conclusion  of  the  whole 
matter  is  this:  that  Protestantism,  especially  in  its  spiritual  blessings,  was 
not  established  in  Wales  to  a  great  extent  or  with  great  force  for  nearly  a 
century  after  its  rise  in  England.  Wales  was  isolated  and  far  from  the 
center  of  influence.  Great  movements  in  London  and  Oxford  often 
exhausted  themselves  before  they  reached  the  inhabitants  of  this  distant 
country.  The  Reformation  only  touched  its  outskirts  at  first,  and  took  a 
long  time  to  travel  over  the  whole  district.  And  when  it  did,  the  effect  was 
superficial  and  broken.  It  was  a  long  time  before  it  leavened  the  whole 
lump.  Certain  parts  of  Wales  were  regarded  as  safe  hiding-places  for 
monks  and  priests  who  were  not  willing  to  disavow  their  adherence  to  Rome. 
Even  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  this  was  the  case.  At  farmhouses  out 
cf  the  way,  and  in  mountainous  hamlets  followers  of  the  Pope  were  in 


THE  CONGRESS  OF  WALES. 


889 


hiding,  paying  for  their  maintenance  by  teaching  the  children  and  prepar¬ 
ing  the  boys  for  the  universities.  Tradition  says  that  William  Morgan  of 
Evvybrnant,  afterward  the  translator  of  the  Bible,  was  prepared  in  this 
way  by  a  secreted  monk.  And  probably  this  case  is  not  unique.  These 
disguised  teachers  had  a  golden  opportunity.  They  indoctrinated  their 
young  scholars  in  their  own  creed,  and  thereby  exerted  considerable  influ¬ 
ence  over  the  wealthier  families  in  these  secluded  regions.  William  Mor¬ 
gan  met  with  it  in  the  parish  of  Llawhaiddr,  near  the  close  of  the  16th 
century.  When  it  became  known  that  he  was  engaged  in  the  great  work  of 
translating  the  Bible  into  Welsh,  some  of  his  popish  parishioners  preferred 
charges  against  him,  which  necessitated  his  appearing  first  before  his 
bishop,  and  afterward  before  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

Most  of  the  poets  of  this  period  were  Roman  Catholics,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  their  occasional  satirical  attacks  upon  the  perfunctory  priest.  Many 
of  the  prose  writers  were  also  leaning  strongly  in  the  same  direction.  In 
fact,  from  the  rise  of  the  Reformation  in  England  to  the  end  of  the 
century,  Wales  passed  through  a  dreary  period  of  dark  and  degraded  days. 
It  is  depressing  to  read  the  descriptions  given  of  the  state  of  Wales  during 
this  period,  immediately  before  and  for  a  long  time  after  the  rise  of  the 
Protestant  Reformation  in  England.  Barlow,  the  bishop  of  St.  David, 
in  a  letter  to  Thomas  Cromwell,  the  Prime  Minister  of  England,  dated 
1535,  says:  “As  to  the  deplorable  corruptions,  the  exacting  taxation,  the 
immoral  practices,  the  heathenish  idolatry,  that  are  most  shamefully 
encouraged  under  the  dominion  of  the  church  people,  I  do  not  think  that 
any  diocese  is  more  corrupt  than  this.”  Strype,  in  his  “  Ecclesiastical  Memo¬ 
rials,”  writes:  “Anno  1550.  As  to  the  success  of  the  Reformation,  it  went 
on  but  slowly  in  the  parts  farther  distant  from  London.  In  Wales  the 
people  ordinarily  carried  their  beads  about  with  them  to  church  and  used 
them  in  prayer.  And  even  at  the  church  at  Carmarthen,  while  the  bishop 
was  at  the  communion  table  bareheaded  doing  his  devotions,  the  people 
kneeled  there  and  knocked  their  breasts  at  the  sight  of  the  communion, 
using  the  same  superstitious  ceremonies  as  they  had  used  in  times  past 
before  the  mass.  They  brought  corpses  to  be  buried  with  songs  and 
candles  lighted  about  thepci.  *  *  *  Also  this  country  was  very  infamous 
for  concubinacy,  adultery,  and  incest.  Many  of  these  sinners  were  priests.” 

Myrick,  the  bishop  of  Bangor,  gives  a  similar  description  of  the  country 
in  1560.  He  complained  that  he  had  only  two  preachers  in  the  whole  of 
his  diocese.  The  other  Welsh  dioceses  were  in  a  similar  deplorable  condi¬ 
tion.  The  morality  of  the  ciergy  was  seriously  bad.  John  Penry  says: 
“This  I  dare  affirm  and  stand  to,  that  if  a  view  of  all  the  registries  in 
Wales  be  taken  the  name  of  that  shire,  that  town,  that  parish,  can  not 
be  found  where  for  the  space  of  six  years  together,  within  these  twenty- 
nine  years,  a  godly,  learned  minister  hath  executed  the  duty  of  a  faithful 
teacher.  And  what,  then,  should  you  tell  me  about  abbey-lubbers,  who 
take  no  pains,  though  they  be  able?  Miserable  days!  Into  what  times  we 
are  fallen  that  thieves  and  murderers  of  souls,  the  very  patterns  and 
patrons  of  all  covetousness,  proud  and  more  than  popelike  tyrants,  the 
very  defeaters  of  God’s  truth,  unlearned  dolts,  blind  guides,  unseasoned 
and  unsavory  salt,  drunkards,  adulterers,  foxes  and  wolves,  mire  and 
puddle.”  This  was  written  of  Wales  under  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  about 
half  a  century  after  the  rise  of  the  Reformation  in  England. 

For  nearly  a  hundred  years  after  the  Reformation,  excepting  in  churches 
and  chapels,  there  were  no  Bibles  in  Wales.  Preachers  in  the  establish¬ 
ment  were  few  and  ineffective  for  many  years.  The  people  were  left  in 
ignorance  and  sin  until  the  beginning  of  the  17th  century,  when  the 
People’s  Bible  was  published  and  circulated,  probably  by  Vicar  Pritchard. 
This  was  not  the  only  service  he  rendered  to  the  Reformation  in  Wales. 
Perceiving  that  the  people  were  fond  of  poetry,  he  turned  the  substance  of 


890 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


his  sermons  into  verse,  and  his  book,  called  “  Canwyll  n  Cymry,”  did  more 
to  inhuence  and  evangelize  the  people  than  any  other  book  ever  published 
in  Wales,  save  the  Bible.  The  Rev.  Griffith  Jones  of  Danddovvfor  rendered 
incalculable  service  by  instituting  circulating  schools  to  teach  the  people 
to  read.  All  this  prepared  the  way  for  the  work  of  nonconformity,  and 
both  found  their  climax  in  the  Methodist  revival. 

So  that,  while  the  Protestant  Reformation  was  an  outside  change  forced 
upon  the  people  by  the  king  at  first  and  taken  up  by  official  laymen,  while 
it  only  touched  the  outskirts  of  the  principality  by  its  spiritual  in  fluence, 
and  that  only  for  a  time,  and  left  the  country  generally  almost  for  a  cent¬ 
ury  in  dangers  and  sin,  yet  it  was  a  great  blessing  to  Wales.  It  delivered 
the  country  at  once  from  the  tyranny  of  the  Pope;  it  led  up  gradually  to 
the  rendering  of  the  scriptures  into  the  vernacular;  it  prepared  the  way  for 
the  rise  of  nonconformity  and  culminated  in  the  outbreak  of  the  Methodist 
revival.  The  Protestant  Reformation  gave  Wales  an  open  Bible  and  a  relig¬ 
ious  liberty  that  we  had  not  possessed  before.  The  effect  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion  on  Wales  has  been  good  from  the  beginning,  although  for  a  long  time 
it  was  limited  in  its  extent  and  shallow  in  its  hold  upon  the  people.  It  con¬ 
tained  the  seeds  of  subsequent  harvests,  and  became  the  reluctant  herald 
of  a  coming  millennium. 


COLUMBIAN  CATHOLIC  CONGRESS. 

In  point  of  attendance  and  interest  aroused,  perhaps  the 
Columbian  Catholic  Congress,  which  began  on  Monday, 
September  4th,  and  continued  for  a  week,  was  the  most 
important.  It  was  held  in  Columbus  Hall,  which  was  crowded 
to  its  utmost  capacity  every  session.  Cardinal  Gibbons, 
Archbishop  Corrigan  of  New  York,  Archbishop  Feehan  of 
Chicago,  Archbishop  Ryan  of  Philadelphia,  Archbishop  Ire¬ 
land  of  St.  Paul,  Archbishop  Hennessey  of  Dubuque,  Arch¬ 
bishop  Jansens  of  New  Orleans,  Bishop  Redwood  of  New  Zea¬ 
land,  Bishop  Watterson  of  Columbus,"  Ohio,  Bishop  Foley  of 
Detroit,  Bishop  Chatard,  Bishop  Moore,  Bishop  Heslin,  Bishop 
Maes,  and  a  number  of  other  dignitaries  of  the  Catholic 
Church  were  present  at  most  of  the  sessions.  Morgan  J. 
O’Brien  of  New  York  was  the  chairman.  Much  of  the  success 
of  this  congress  was  due  to  the  exertions  of  W.  J.  Onahan  of 
Chicago,  Secretary  of  the  Committee  on  Organization. 

Pope  Leo  XIII.  signified  his  approval  of  the  congress  by 
gending  the  following  benediction: 

Leo  XIII.,  Pope.  To  Our  Beloved  Son,  James  Gibbons,  by  the  Title  of 
Sancta  Maria  in  Transtevere,  Cardinal  Priest  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church, 
Archbishop  of  Baltimore.  Beloved  Son:  Health  and  apostolic  benediction. 


ARCHBISHOP  IRELAND, 


THE 
OF  THE 

UHiVIfiSin  OF  1LUHW« 


f^o' 

.s 


■  P  , 


'«u 


■‘-X. 


COLUMBIAN  CATHOLIC  CONGRESS. 


891 


It  has  afforded  us  much  satisfaction  to  be  informed  by  you  that  in 
the  coming  month  of  September  a  large  assembly  of  Catholic  gentlemen 
will  meet  at  Chicago,  there  to  discuss  matters  of  great  interest  and 
importance. 

Furthermore,  we  have  been  specially  gratified  by  your  devotion  and 
regard  for  us  in  desiring,  as  an  auspicious  beginning  for  such  congress,  our 
blessing  and  our  prayers.  This  filial  request  we  do  indeed  most  readily 
grant  and  beseech  Almighty  God  that  by  His  aid  and  the  light  of  His 
wisdom.  He  may  graciously  be  pleased  to  assist  and  illumine  all  who  are 
about  to  assemble  with  you,  and  that  He  may  enrich  with  the  treasures  of 
His  choicest  gifts  your  deliberations  and  conclusions. 

To  you,  therefore,  our  beloved  son,  and  to  all  who  take  part  in  the  con¬ 
gress  aforesaid,  and  to  the  clergy  and  faithful  committed  to  your  care,  we 
lovingly  in  the  Lord  impart  our  apostolic  benediction. 

Given  at  Rome,  at  St.  Peter’s,  the  7th  day  of  August,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety-three,  and  of  our  pontificate  the  six¬ 
teenth.  ■ 

Leo  XIII.,  Pope. 

In  this  brief  review,  it  is  impossible  to  refer  to  all  the  topics 
considered  by  the  Columbian  Catholic  Congress.  The  pro¬ 
ceedings  were  reported  at  great  length  in  one  of  the  Chicago 
newspapers,  and  attracted  world- wide  attention. 

The  papers  read  at  the  various  sessions  included  the  following: 

“Isabella  the  Catholic,”  by  Miss  Mary  J.  Onahan,  Chicago. 

“Christopher  Columbus;  His  Mission  and  Character,”  by  Richard  H. 
Clarke. 

“The  Independence  of  the  Holy  See;  Its  Origin,  and  the  Necessity  for 
Its  Continuance  in  the  Cause  of  Civilization,”  by  Martin  F.  Morris,  Wash¬ 
ington,  D.  C, 

“Civil  Government  and  the  Catholic  Citizen,”  by  George  Smith. 

“The  Relations  of  the  Catholic  Church  to  the  Social,  Civil, and  Political 
Institutions  of  the  United  States,”  by  Edgar  H.  Gans. 

“  Consequences  and  Results  to  Religion  of  the  Discovery  of  the  New 
World,”  by  George  Parsons  Lathrop. 

“Pauperism;  the  Evil  and  the  Remedy,”  by  Thomas  Dwight. 

“The  Progress  of  the  Church  on  the  American  Soil  and  the  Love  We 
Should  Bear  America  for  the  Opportunities  that  It  Presents  for  Progress,” 
by  Bishop  Foley,  Detroit; 

“The  Negro  Race;  Its  Condition,  Present  and  Future,”  by  John  R. 
Slattery,  St.  Joseph  Seminary,  Baltimore. 

“  Young  Men’s  Society,”  by  Warren  E.  Mosher. 

“  The  Rights  of  Labor,”  by  Edward  Osgood  Brown. 

“  Pope  Leo  XIII.  on  the  Condition  of  Labor,”  by  H.  C.  Semple. 

“  Catholic  Societies  and  Societies  for  Young  Men,”  by  Rev.  F.  J.  Maguire, 
Albany,  N.  Y. 

“  Public  and  Private  Charities,”  by  Dr.  Charles  A.  Wingate,  Wheeling, 
W.  Va.;  Richard  R.  Elliott,  Detroit;  Thomas  F.  Ring,  Boston. 

“Duties  of  Capital,” by  Rev.  Dr.  William  Barry,  Dorchester,  England. 

“The  Missionary  Outlook  in  the  United  States,”  by  Walter  Elliott,  New 
York. 

“The  Encyclical  of  Pope  Leo  XIII.,”  by  Rt.  Rev.  John  A.  Watterson, 
Columbus. 

“Women’s  Work  in  Religious  Communities,”  by  F.  M.  Edselas. 

“Women  of  the  Middle  Ages,”  by  Anna  T.  Sadlier,  New  York, 


892 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


“  The  Catholic  Summer  School  and  the  Reading  Circles,”  by  Katherine 
E.  Conway,  Boston. 

“Immigration  and  Colonization,”  by  Dr.  Augustus  Kaiser,  Detroit;  Rev. 
Michael  Callaghan. 

“Our  Twenty  Millions  Loss,”  by  M.  T.  Elder,  New  Orleans. 

“Life  Insurance  and  Pension  Funds  for  Wage  Workers,”  by  E.  M. 
Sharon,  Davenport. 

“  Their  Insurance  Feature  Preferable  to  Pension  Funds,”  by  J.  P.  Lauth, 
Chicago. 

“Reasons  for  Establishment  of  an  Organization  by  Columbian  Catholic 
Congress,”  by  Frank  J.  Sheridan. 

“  Trade  Combinations  and  Strikes,”  by  Robt.  M.  Douglass. 

“  Italian  Immigration  and  Colonization,”  by  Rev.  Joseph  L.  Andreis, 
Baltimore. 

“  Temperance  Question;  Its  Evils  and  Remedies,”  by  Rev.  Jas.  M.  Cleary. 

“  Woman’s  Work  in  Art,”  by  Miss  Eliza  Allen  Starr. 

“  Importance  of  a  Catholic  Chaplain  in  the  Army,”  by  Ed.  J.  Vattmann, 

U.  S.  A. 

“  Woman  and  Mammon,”  by  Rose  Hawthorne  Lathrop. 

“Woman’s  Work  in  Literature,”  by  Eleanor  C.  Donnelly. 

“Society  of  St.  Vincent  de  Paul,”  by  Joseph  A.  Kernan,  New  York. 

“  The  Condition  and  Future  of  the  Negro  Race  in  the  United  States,” 
by  Charles  H.  Butler,  Washington,  D.  C. 

“  Prayer  for  America,”  by  Rev.  F.  G.  Lentz. 

“Catholic  Truth  Societies’  Work,”  by  Wm.  F.  Markoe. 

“  Present  and  Future  Prospects  of  the  Indians  of  the  United  States,” 
by  Bishop  Jas.  W.  McGolrick,  Duluth. 

“Catholic  Education,”  by  Bishop  Keane. 

“  The  Needs  of  Catholic  Colleges,”  by  Dr.  Maurice  Francis  Egan,  Notre 
Dame,  Ind. 

“  Establishing  Free  Catholic  Schools,”  by  Rev.  Jas.  T.  Murphy,  Pitts¬ 
burg. 

“  Alumnm  Associations  in  Convent  Schools,”  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

“Lessons  of  the  Catholic  Educational  Exhibit,”  by  Brother  Ambrose. 

“  Catholic  Societies,”  by  H.  J.  Sparmhorst  of  St.  Louis. 

“Bursaries  for  Ecclesiastical  Seminaries,”  by  Rev.  Dr.  McGinness  of 
Scotland. 

The  utmost  enthusiasm  was  aroused  on  Tuesday,  September 
5th,  when  Mgr.  Satolli,  the  Pope’s  delegate  to  the  United 
States,  addressed  the  congress.  Attired  in  the  full  robes  of  his 
office,  and  his  whole  nature  attuned  to  the  significance  of  the 
occasion,  the  delegate  made  a  thrilling  speech  in  his  native 

tongue,  which  was  translated  by  Archbishop  Ireland  as  follows: 

I  beg  leave  to  repeat,  in  unmusical  tones,  a  few  of  the  thoughts  that  his 
excellency,  the  most  right  reverend  apostolic  delegate,  has  presented  to 
you  in  his  own  beautiful  and  musical  Italian  language.  The  delegate 
expresses  his  great  delight  to  be  this  morning  in  the  presence  of  the  Colum¬ 
bian  Catholic  Congress.  He  begs  leave  to  offer  you  the  salutation  of  the 
great  pontiff,  Leo  XIII.  In  the  name  of  Leo  he  salutes  the  spiritual  chil¬ 
dren  of  the  church  on  the  American  continent;  in  the  name  of  Leo  he 
salutes  the  great  American  people.  He  says  it  is  a  magnificent  spectacle  to 
see  laymen,  priests,  and  bishops  assembled  here  together  to  discuss  the 
vital  social  problems  which  the  modern  conditions  of  humanity  bring 
up  before  us.  The  advocates  of  error  have  their  congresses,  why  should 


COLUMBIAN  CATHOLIC  CONGRESS. 


m 


not  the  friends  and  advocates  of  truth  have  their  congresses?  This  con¬ 
gress  assembled  here  to-day  will,  no  doubt,  be  productive  of  rich  and  mag¬ 
nificent  results.  You  have  met  to  show  that  the  church,  while  opening  to 
men  the  treasures  of  heaven,  offers  also  felicity  on  earth.  As  St.  Paul  has 
said:  “ShQ  is  made  for  earth  and  heaven;  she  is  the  promise  of  the  future 
life  and  the  life  that  is.”  All  congresses  are,  so  to  speak,  concentrations  of 
great  forces.  Your  object  is  to  consider  the  social  forces  that  God  has 
provided  and  to  apply,  as  far  as  you  can,  to  the  special  circumstances  of 
your  own  time  and  country  these  great  principles. 

The  great  social  forces  are  thought,  will,  and  action.  In  a  congress  you 
bring  before  you  these  three  great  forces.  Thought  finds  its  food  in  truths; 
so  in  all  that  you  do,  in  all  the  practical  conclusions  that  you  formulate,  you 
must  bear  in  mind  that  they  must  all  rest  upon  the  eternal  principles  of 
truth.  Will  is  the  rectitude  of  the  human  heart,  and  until  the  human 
heart  is  voluntarily  subjected  to  truth  and  virtue  all  social  reforms  are 
impossible.  Then  comes  action,  which  aims  at  the  acquisition  of  the  good 
needed  for  the  satisfaction  of  mankind;  and  this,  again,  must  be  regulated 
by  truth  in  thought  and  by  virtue  in  the  human  will.  The  well-being  of 
society  consists  in  the  perfect  order  of  the  different  elements  toward  the 
great  scope  of  society.  Order  is  the  system  of  the  different  relations  of  the 
different  elements,  one  to  the  other,  and  these  relations  to  which  men  are 
subject  are  summarized  in  three  words — God,  man,  and  nature. 

Man  has  first  of  all  his  great  duties  to  God,  which  never  must  be  for¬ 
gotten.  He  then  has  his  duties  to  himself  and  to  his  fellowmen;  and, 
finally,  he  has  relations  with  the  great  world  of  nature,  over  which  his 
action  is  exercised.  From  the  several  considerations  of  these  different 
relations  spring  up  the  great  problems  which  at  all  times  have  vexed  man’s 
mind — the  great  problems  which  to-day  are  before  us  in  view  of  the  differ¬ 
ent  evolutions,  social  and  otherwise,  which  mark  our  modern  needs.  Your 
social  congress  has  convened  to-day.  Bear  in  mind  that  there  was  a  great 
social  congress,  which  is  to  be  the  model  of  yours,  which  gave  out 
the  principles  which  must  underlie  your  deliberations.  That  great  social 
congress,  the  ideal  and  model  of  all  others,  was  held  when  Christ,  sur¬ 
rounded  by  the  thousands  of  the  children  of  Israel,  delivered  His  great  dis¬ 
course  on  the  mountain. 

There  the  solution  was  given  to  human  problems;  there  were  laid  down 
the  vital  principles.  “  Seek  first  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  its  justice,  and 
all  other  things  shall  be  added  unto  you,”  says  the  good  book.  “  Seek  first 
the  Kingdom  of  God.”  Look  up  the  divinity  without  which  man  is  abso¬ 
lutely  at  sea.  Fill  out  first  your  duties  to  God,  without  the  observance  of 
which  other  duties  are  but  a  name.  Seek  God’s  justice  in  your  relations 
one  with  another.  Be  guided  by  the  eternal  law  of  the  Most  High,  and  then 
all  things  shall  be  added  unto  you.  Know  God’s  truth  and  live  by  God’s 
justice,  and  the  peace  and  the  felicity  of  earth  shall  be  yours.  The  same 
great  voice  said:  “  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit;  blessed  are  they  who  thirst 
after  justice;  blessed  are  the  merciful.” 

Men  should  not  devote  their  whole  being  and  all  their  energies  to  the 
seeking  out  of  mere  matter.  “  blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit  ” — that  is,  free 
and  independent  of  the  shackles  of  mere  matter.  “  Blessed  are  they  who 
hunger  and  thirst  after  justice  ” — justice  first  before  self-satisfaction, 
before  all  attention  to  one’s  personal  wants.  And  “  blessed  are  the  merci¬ 
ful.”  Blessed  are  they  who  know  and  feel  that  they  do  not  live  for  them¬ 
selves,  whose  hearts  go  out  in  sweetest  mercy  to  all  their  fellows.  History 
has  proved  that  human  reason  alone  does  not  solve  the  great  social  prob¬ 
lems.  These  problems  were  spoken  of  in  pre-Christian  times,  and  Aristotle 
and  Plato  discussed  ohem.  But  pre-Christian  times  gave  us  a  world  of  slav¬ 
ery,  when  the  multitude  lived  only  for  the  benefit  of  the  few. 

There  is  authority  throughout  the  story  of  man  of  a  divine,  providential 


894 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


design.  Blind  is  he  who  sees  it  not,  and  he  who  studies  it  not  courts 
disaster.  It  was  when  Christ  brought  down  upon  earth  the  great  truths 
from  the  bosom  of  His  Father  that  humanity  was  lifted  up  and  entered 
upon  a  new  road  to  happiness  and  felicity.  Christ  brought  to  nature  the 
additional  gift  of  the  supernatural.  Both  are  needed,  and  he  who  would  have 
one  without  the  other  fails.  The  supernatural  comes  not  to  destroy  or  elim¬ 
inate  the  natural,  but  to  purify  it,  to  elevate  it,  to  build  it  up,  and  hence, 
since  the  coming  of  Christ,  science,  art,  philosophy,  social  economy,  all 
studies  partake  of  the  natural  as  well  as  the  supernatural — the  natural 
coming  from  man’s  own  thoughts  and  man’s  own  actions,  and  the  super¬ 
natural  pouring  down  upon  those  thoughts  and  actions  direction,  richness, 
and  grace. 

To-day  it  is  the  duty  of  Catholics  to  bring  into  the  world  the  fullness  of 
supernatural  truth  and  supernatural  life.  This  is  especially  the  duty  of  a 
Catholic  congress.  There  are  nations  who  are  never  separated  from  the 
church,  but  which  have  neglected  often  to  apply  in  full  degree  the  lessons 
of  the  gospel.  There  are  nations  who  have  gone  out  from  the  church, 
bringing  with  them  many  of  her  treasures,  and  because  of  what  they  have 
brought  yet  show  virgin  light;  but,  cut  off  from  the  source,  unless  that 
source  is  brought  into  close  contact  with  them,  there  is  danger  for  them. 
Bring  them  in  contact  with  those  divine  forces  by  your  action  and  your 
teachings.  Bring  your  fellow-countrymen  back;  bring  your  country  into 
immediate  connection  with  the  great  source  of  truth  and  light  and  the 
blessed  influence  of  Christ  and  Christ’s  Church.  And  in  this  manner  shall 
it  come  to  pass  that  the  words  of  the  psalmist  shall  be  fulfilled:  “  Mercy 
and  justice  have  you  one  with  another;  justice  and  peace  prevail.” 

Let  us  restore  among  men  justice  and  charity.  Let  us  teach  men  to  be 
prompt  ever  to  make  sacrifice  of  self  for  the  common  good.  This  is  the 
foundation  of  your  own  congress.  Now,  all  these  great  principles  have 
been  marked  out  in  most  luminous  lines  in  the  encyclicals  of  the  great 
pontiff,  Leo  XIII.  We  must  then  study  these  encyclicals;  hold  fast  to 
them  as  the  safest  anchorage.  The  social  questions  are  being  studied  the 
world  over.  It  is  well  they  should  be  studied  in  America,  for  here  do  we 
have  more  than  elsewhere  the  key  to  the  future.  Here  in  America  you 
have  a  country  blessed  specially  by  Providence  in  the  fertility  of  its  fields 
and  the  liberty  of  its  institutions.  Here  you  have  a  country  which  will 
pay  back  all  efforts,  not  merely  ten-fold  but  a  hundred-fold;  and  this  no  one 
understands  better  than  the  immortal  Leo,  and  he  charges  his  delegates  to 
speak  out  to  America  words  of  hope  and  blessing. 

Then,  in  conclusion,  the  delegate  begs  of  you  American  Catholics  to  be 
fully  loyal  to  your  great  mission  and  to  the  duties  which  your  circumstances 
impose  upon  you.  Here  are  golden  words  spoken  by  the  delegate  in  concluding 
his  discourse:  “  Go  forward,  in  one  hand  bearing  the  book  of  Christian  truth, 
and  in  the  other  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Christian  truth 
and  American  liberty  will  make  you  free,  happy,  and  prosperous.  They 
will  put  you  on  the  road  to  progress.  May  your  steps  ever  persevere  on 
that  road.  Again  he  salutes  you  with  all  his  heart.  Again  he  expresses 
his  delight  to  be  with  you  and  again  speaks  forth  to  you  in  strongest  and 
sweetest  tones  the  love  of  your  Holy  Father,  Leo  XIII. 

At  the  closing  session  on  Saturday,  September  9th,  the  con¬ 
gress  unanimously  adopted  the  following  report  of  the  commit¬ 
tee  on  resolutions,  which  was  presented  by  Judge  Moran  of 
Chicago : 

The  Columbian  Catholic  Congress  of  the  United  States,  assembled  in 
Chicago,  in  the  year  of  grace,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  ninety- 


COLUMBIAN  CATHOLIC  CONGRESS. 


895 


three,  with  feelings  of  profound  gratitude  to  Almighty  God  for  the  mani¬ 
fold  blessings  which  have  been  vouchsafed  to  the  church  in  the  United 
States  and  to  the  whole  American  people,  and  which  blessings  in  the 
material  order  have  found  their  compendious  expression  in  the  marvelous 
exposition  of^  the  World’s  Fair,  held  to  celebrate  the  four-hundredth  anni¬ 
versary  of  the  discovery  of  this  continent  by  the  great  Catholic  navigator, 
Christopher  Columbus,  conforming  to  the  custom  of  such  occasions,  adopt 
the  following  resolutions : 

1.  We  reaffirm  the  resolutions  of  the  Catholic  Congress,  held  in  Balti¬ 
more,  November  11  and  12,  A.  D.  1889. 

2.  We  declare  our  devoted  loyalty  and  unaltered  attachment  to  our 
Holy  Father,  Pope  Leo  XIII.,  and  we  thank  him  for  sending  us  a  special  rep¬ 
resentative,  and  we  enthusiastically  hail  his  apostolic  delegate  as  the  host¬ 
age  of  his  love  for  America  and  a  pledge  of  his  paternal  solicitude  for  our 
country  and  its  institutions.  It  is  the  sense  of  this  congress  that  the  vicar 
of  Christ  must  enjoy  absolute  independence  and  autonomy  in  the  exercise 
of  that  sublime  mission  to  which,  in  the  providence  of  God,  he  has  been 
called  as  the  head  of  the  church  for  the  welfare  of  religion  and  humanity. 

3.  We  congratulate  our  hierarchy  on  the  wondrous  growth  and  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  church  throughout  the  United  States,  the  results,  under  God, 
of  the  united  wisdom  and  unselfish  devotion  of  those  true  shepherds  of  the 
Christian  flock,  and  we  pledge  to  our  bishops  and  priests  our  unfaltering 
devotion  and  fidelity. 

4.  While  the  signs  of  the  times  are  hopeful  and  encouraging,  and 
material  prosperity  is  more  widely  diffused  than  in  any  previous  age,  we 
should  be  willfully  blind  did  we  fail  to  recognize  the  existence  of  dangers  to 
the  church  and  to  society  requiring  a  most  earnest  consideration.  Among 
the  most  obvious  of  these  dangers  is  the  growing  discontent  among  those 
who  earn  their  living  by  manual  labor.  A  spirit  of  antagonism  has  been 
steadily  growing  between  the  employer  and  the  employed  that  has  led  in  many 
instances  to  deplorable  results.  The  remedies  suggested  vary  from  the 
extreme  df  anarchical  revolution  to  different  types  of  state  socialism.  These 
remedies,  by  whatever  names  they  may  be  called,  with  whatever  zeal  and 
sincSrity  they  are  urged,  must  fail  wherever  they  clash  with  the  principles 
of  truth  and  justice.  We  accept  as  the  sense  of  this  congress,  and  urge  upon 
the  consideration  of  all  men,  whatever  be  their  religious  views  or  worldly 
occupations,  the  encyclical  of  our  Holy  Father,  Leo  XIII.,  on  the  condition 
of  labor,  dated  May  15,  A.  D.  1891.  In  the  spirit  of  his  luminous  exposi¬ 
tion  of  this  subject,  we  declare  that  no  remedies  can  meet  with  our  approval 
save  those  which  recognize  the  right  of  private  ownership  of  property  and 
human  liberty.  Capital  can  not  do  without  labor,  nor  labor  without  cap¬ 
ital.  Through  the  recognition  of  this  inter-dependence  and  under  the  Chris¬ 
tian  law  of  love  and  by  mutual  forbearance  and  agreement  must  come  the 
relief  for  which  all  good  men  should  earnestly  strive. 

5.  We  strongly  indorse  the  principles  of  conciliation  and  arbitration  as 
an  appropriate  remedy  for  the  settlement  of  disagreements  between 
employer  and  employed,  to  the  end  that  strikes  and  lockouts  may  be 
avoided;  and  we  recommend  the  appointment  by  this  congress  of  a  com¬ 
mittee  to  consider  and  devise  some  suitable  method  of  carrying  into  opera¬ 
tion  a  system  of  arbitration. 

6.  We  suggest  to  our  clergy  and  laity,  as  a  means  of  applying  the  true 
principles  of  Christian  morality  to  the  social  problems  that  have  now 
attained  such  importance,  the  formation  of  societies,  or  the  use  of  already 
existing  societies,  of  Catholic  men,  for  the  diffusion  of  sound  literature  and 
the  education  of  their  minds  on  economic  subjects,  thus  counteracting  the 
pernicious  effects  of  erroneous  teachings;  and  we  especially  recommend 
the  letters  of  our  Holy  Father,  particularly  those  on  “  Political  Power,” 
“  Human  Liberty,”  and  “  The  Christian  Constitution  of  the  State.”  The 


806 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


condition  of  great  numbers  of  our  Catholic  working  girls  and  women  in 
large  towns  and  cities  is  such  as  to  expose  them  to  serious  temptations  and 
dangers,  and  we  urge  as  a  meritorious  work  of  charity,  as  well  as  of 
justice,  the  formation  of  Catholic  societies  for  their  assistance,  encourage¬ 
ment,  and  protection.  We  advocate  also  the  continued  extension  of  Cath¬ 
olic  life  insurance,  beneficial,  and  fraternal  societies.  The  work  that  such 
associations  have  already  accomplished  warrants  the  belief  that  they  are 
founded  upon  true  principles. 

'  7.  One  of  the  great  causes  of  misery  and  immorality  is  the  indiscrim¬ 
inate  massing  of  people  in « cities  and  large  towns,  and  their  consequent 
crowding  into  tenement  houses,  where  the  children  are,  from  their  infancy, 
exposed  to  every  bad  example  and  corrupting  infiuence.  This  evil  has  drawn 
the  attention  of  legislators  in  foreign  countries.  We  believe  it  wise  charity 
to  help  the  poor  to  help  themselves,  and  therefore  advise  the  adoption  of 
appropriate  measures  to  encourage  and  assist  families  to  settle  in  agricult¬ 
ural  districts.  As  indicated  by  the  Holy  Father,  the  true  policy  is  to  induce 
as  many  as  possible  to  become  owners  of  the  land. 

8.  In  discharging  the  great  duty  of  Christian  charity,  the  Catholic 
laity  can  and  should  do  much  by  personal  service  to  supplement  the  admi¬ 
rable  work  of  the  religious  orders  devoted  to  charity,  and  we  urge  them  to 
join  or  otherwise  encourage  the  conferences  of  St.  Vincent  de  Paul  and 
kindred  organizations  for  rendering  systematic  aid  to  the  needy.  And  we 
would  recall  to  the  minds  of  all  people  the  time-honored  Catholic  practice 
of  setting  apart  from  their  incomes  a  proportionate  sum  for  charity. 

9.  An  obvious  evil,  to  which  may  be  traced  a  very  large  proportion  of 
the  sorrows  that  afflict  the  people,  is  the  vice  of  intemperance.  While  we 
believe  that  the  individual  should  be  guided  in  this  matter  by  the  dictates 
of  right  conscience,  we  can  not  too  strongly  commend  every  legitimate 
effort  to  impress  upon  our  fellowmen  the  dangers  arising,  not  only  from 
the  abuse  but  too  often  from  the  use  of  intoxicating  drink.  To  this  end 
we  approve  and  most  heartily  commend  the  temperance  and  total  absti¬ 
nence  societies  already  formed  in  many  parishes,  and  we  advise  th^ir  multi¬ 
plication  and  extension.  We  favor  the  enactment  of  approjjriate  legislation 
to  restrict  and  regulate  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  and,  emphasizing 
the  admonition  of  the  last  Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore,  we  urge  Catholics 
everywhere  to  get  out  and  keep  out  of  the  saloon  business. 

10.  To  the  members  of  our  secular  clergy,  religious  orders,  and  laity 
who  are  devoting  their  lives  to  the  noble  work  of  educating  the  Indian  and 
negro  races,  we  extend  our  hearty  sympathy  and  offer  our  co-operation. 
We  congratulate  them  on  the  consoling  success  thus  far  attending  their 
labors  and  wish  them  godspeed. 

11.  As  the  preservation  of  our  national  existence,  the  Constitution  under 
which  we  live,  and  all  our  rights  and  liberties  as  citizens,  depend  upon  the 
intelligence,  virtue,  and  morality  of  our  people,  we  must  continue  to  use 
our  best  efforts  to  increase  and  strengthen  our  parochial  schools  and  Catho¬ 
lic  colleges,  and  to  bring  all  our  educational  institutions  to  the  highest 
standard  of  excellence.  It  is  the  sense  of  this  congress,  therefore,  that 
Catholic  education  should  be  steadfastly  upheld  according  to  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  of  Baltimore  and  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See  thereon.  In 
the  elevating  and  directing  influence  of  Christian  higher  education  in  par¬ 
ticular  we  recognize  the  most  potent  agency  for  the  wise  solution  of  the 
great  social  problems  now  facing  mankind.  We  recognize  the  signal  wis¬ 
dom  of  our  Holy  Father,  Leo  XIII.,  and  of  the  American  hierarchy  in  found¬ 
ing  an  institution  of  highest  Christian  learning  in  our  national  capital.  And 
with  confidence  in  their  wisdom  so  to  direct  it  that  it  shall  be  fully  ade 
quate  to  the  needs  of  our  age  and  of  our  country,  we  cordially  pledge  to 
them  our  active  co-operative  in  making  it  one  of  the  chief  glories  of  the 
Catholic  Church  and  of  the  American  Republic.  We  appeal  to  our  fellow- 


COLUMBIAN  CATHOLIC  CONGRESS. 


897 


citizens  of  all  religious  denominations  to  teach  the  rising  generation  to 
love,  honor,  and  fear  our  common  Creator  and  to  instill  into  their  hearts 
sound  principles  of  morality,  without  which  our  glorious  political  liberty 
can  not  continue.  Profoundly  appreciating  the  love  for  education  shown 
by  the  sovereign  pontiff  and  our  bishops,  we  repeat  what  has  been  said  in 
congress,  that  “It  is  only  the  school  bell  and  the  church  bell  which  can 
prolong  the  echo  of  the  liberty  bell.” 

12.  We  desire  to  encourage  the  Catholic  Summer  School  of  America, 
recently  established  on  Lake  Champlain,  as  a  means  of  promoting  educa¬ 
tion  on  university  extension  lines,  and  we  also  commend  the  forming  of 
Catholic  reading  circles  as  an  aid  to  the  summer  school  and  an  adjunct  to 
higher  education  in  general. 

13.  We  recognize  in  the  Catholic  Truth  Society  of  America  one  of  the 
results  of  the  first  American  Catholic  Congress  of  Baltimore  and,  believing 
it  to  be  admirably  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  times,  we  earnestly  recom¬ 
mend  it  to  the  Catholic  laity  as  offering  them  an  excellent  means  of 
co-operating  with  holy  church  in  her.  glorious  work  of  disseminating 
Catholic  truth. 

14.  As  immoral  literature  is  one  of  the  chief  agencies  in  this  country 
and  in  Europe  for  the  ruin  of  faith  and  morality,  we  recommend  a  union 
of  Catholics  and  non-Catholics  for  the  suppression  of  this  evil,  whether  in 
the^  form  of  bad  books,  sensational  newspapers,  or  obscene  pictorial  repre¬ 
sentations. 

15.  We  have  no  sympathy  with  any  effort  made  to  secularize  the  Sun¬ 
day.  We  urge  upon  our  fellow-citizens  to  join  in  every  effort  to  preserve 
that  day  as  sacred,  in  accordance  with  the  precepts  and  traditions  of  the 
church. 

16.  We  heartily  approve  of  the  principle  of  arbitration  in  the  settlement 
of  international  disputes.  We  rejoice  in  the  happy  results  that  have  already 
attended  the  application  of  this  ancient  principle  of  our  holy  mother,  the 
church,  and  we  earnestly  hope  that  it  may  be  extended  and  that  thereby 
the  evils  of  war  between  nations  may  be  gradually  lessened  and  finally 
prevented. 

Finally,  as  true  and  loyal  citizens,  we  declare  our  love  and  veneration 
for  our  glorious  Republic,  and  we  emphatically  deny  that  any  antagonism 
can  exist  between  our  duty  to  our  church  and  our  duty  to  the  state.  In  the 
language  of  the  apostolic  delegate,  let  our  watchword  be:  “  Forward!  in  one 
hand  the  gospel  of  Christ  and  in  the  other  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.”  “Let  us  keep  on  in  the  path  of  virtue  and  religion,  that  the  bless¬ 
ings  of  our  national  liberties,  born  of  the  stern  energy  and  morality  of  our 
forefathers,  may  be  preserved  for  all  time  as  a  sacred  heritage. 

Cardinal  Gibbons  closed  the  congress  with  an  eloquent 
address,  in  which  he  said  his  fondest  anticipations  had  been 
more  than  realized.  The  voice  that  had  gone  forth  from 
Columbus  Hall  uttered  no  uncertain  sound.  There  had  been 
no  confusion,  no  conflict,  no  dissension;  but  there  had  been 
peace  and  concord  and  unanimity  from  beginning  to  end.  The 
congress  had  removed  many  prejudices  and  misunderstandings. 
It  had  helped  to  tear  off  the  mask  that  the  enemies  of  the 
Catholic  Church  would  put  upon  her  fair  visage,  it  had  torn 
those  repulsive  garments  with  which  her  enemies  would  clothe 
her,  and  it  presented  her  to  the  world  in  all  her  heavenly 


898 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


beauty,  bright  as  the  sun,  fair  as  the  moon,  with  the  beauty  of 
heaven  shining  upon  her  countenance.  It  had  shown  that  the 
Catholic  Church,  properly  understood,  is  the  light  of  the  world, 
and  the  refuge  of  suffering  humanity.  These  sentiments  were 
received  with  ringing  cheers. 


OTHER  CATHOLIC  CONGRESSES. 

Running  along  with  the  Columbian  Catholic  Congress  were 
a  number  of  minor  meetings  connected  with  Catholic  societies. 
The  colored  Catholics  held  an  intererting  congress,  extending 
over  several  days.  Before  the  adjournment  a  permanent  organ¬ 
ization,  to  be  known  as  the  St.  Peter  Claver  Catholic  Union, 
was  formed.  This  union  will  hold  biennial  conventions,  each 
society  entitled  to  representation  being  allowed  one  delegate  for 
every  fifty  members.  The  affairs  of  the  organization  are  to  be 
conducted  by  an  executive  committee  with  headquarters  at 
Washington. 

The  Catholic  Young  Men’s  Union  held  several  meetings  and 
passed  resolutions  tendering  to  Pope  Leo  the  assurances  of 
their  love  and  devotion,  urging  each  society  to  make  a  special 
effort  to  lend  itself  to  literary  work,  commending  the  work  of 
the  Bishops’  Memorial  Hall,  conducted  by  Professor  Edwards  of 
Notre  Dame  University,  and  of  the  American  Catholic  Historian 
Society  of  Philadelphia,  and  congratulating  the  young  ladies 
of  many  sections  of  the  country  upon  the  successful  establish¬ 
ment  of  reading  circles.  The  election  of  officers  resulted  in 
the  choice  of  the  following: 

President,  Rev.  Francis  Maguire,  Albany,  N.  Y. ;  First 
Vice-President,  Rev.  James  Jennings,  Chicago;  Second  Vice- 
President,  Terrence  F.  Dorris,  Newark,  N.  J. ;  Secretary  and 
Treasurer,  Charles  A.  Waebber,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Interesting  meetings  were  held  by  the  Society  of  St.  Vincent 
de  Paul,  at  which  topics  relating  to  its  work  were  considered  by 
a  number  of  leading  prelates,  priests,  and  laymen. 

Another  interesting  congress  during  this  week  was  that  of 


CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH  CONGRESS. 


899 


the  Catholic  Press  of  the  World.  Before  its  adjournment  it 

adopted  the  following  resolutions: 

Whereas,  Tiie  holy  father  has  on  various  occasions  expressed  his  deep 
interest  in  the  prosperity  and  progress  of  the  American  Catholic  press,  and 

Whereas,  His  accredited  delegate.  Archbishop  Satolli,  has  re-echoed  in 
eloquent  words  the  same  sentiment;  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  American  Catholic  editors,  in  convention  assembled, 
pledge  their  heart-whole  loyalty  to  the  great  pontiff  and  their  unswerving 
devotion  to  the  person  and  mission  of  the  apostolic  delegate,  and  also  to  the 
prelates  and  clergy  of  the  church. 

Whereas,  Much  confusion  in  the  past  has  existed  in  the  American 
mind  regarding  the  attitude  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  toward  the 
Catholic  schools,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  this  convention  expresses  its  great  pleasure  at  the  lucid 
explanation  of  the  subject  as  given  by  His  Holiness,  Pope  Leo  XIII.,  and 
his  accredited  delegate.  Archbishop  Satolli. 

Whereas,  The  entire  Catholic  world  has  been  scandalized  by  a  series 
of  anonymous  attacks  upon  exalted  persons,  which  appeared  in  certain 
secular  papers,  and 

Whereas,  The  Catholic  people  of  the  United  States  have  also  been 
scandalized  by  similar  attacks,  which  have  from  time  to  time  appeared  in 
papers  under  professedly  Catholic  control;  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  this  convention  of  Catholic  editors  condemns  the  action 
of  those  papers  which  have  allowed  the  publication  of  said  anonymous 
attacks;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  convention  of  Catholic  editors  that 
no  communication  of  an  anonymous  character  or  nature  which,  in  a  deroga¬ 
tory  manner,  touches  the  personality  of  any  individual  should  be  admitted 
into  the  columns  of  any  Catholic  paper  in  this  country. 

Officers  for  the  year  were  elected  as  follows: 

President,  Dr.  W.  D.  Lofton,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Vice-President,  A.  J.  Bell,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Secretary,  Frederick  L.  McGhee,  St.  Paul,  Minn. 

Treasurer,  James  A.  Spencer,  Charleston,  S.  C. 

Directors,  C.  H.  Butler,  Washington,  D.  C.;  L.  C.  Valle,  Chicago;  D.  A. 
Rudd,  Cincinnati;  William  E.  Easton,  Galveston,  Texas 

In  addition  to  the  above  named,  there  w^ere  meetings  of  the 
German  Catholic  Young  Men’s  Guilds,  Catholic  Benevolent 
Legion,  and  the  Young  Men’s  Societies,  all  of  which  were 
largely  attended.  Most  of  the  matters  discussed  at  these  sub- 
meetings  were  treated  at  some  length  in  the  Columbian  Catholic 
Congress.  Mass  meetings  were  held  every  night  during  the 
week,  at  which  leading  orators  of  the  church  delivered  addresses 
on  popular  topics. 


CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH  CONGRESS. 

Occurring  on  the  day  before  the  formal  opening  of  the  Par¬ 
liament  of  Religions  the  Congregational  Church  Congress 


900 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


aroused  deep  interest.  The  first  sessions  were  held  in  the  Hall 
of  Columbus,  and  the  Congress  continued  for  four  days.  Dr. 
Willard  Scott  presided,  and  there  were  with  him  on  the  plat¬ 
form  Rev.  Simeon  Gilbert,  D.  D.,  Rev.  W.  E.  Hale,  Rev.  Wm. 
F.  Poole,  LL.D.,  Mrs.  Frances  B.  Little,  Mrs.  W.  B.  Wilcox, 
Rev.  J.  G.  Johnson,  D.  D.,  E.  W.  Blatchford,  Mrs.  Geo.  Sher¬ 
wood,  Mrs.  R.  B.  Prenszner,  Rev.  Geo.  Boynton,  D.  D,  As 
usual  C.  C.  Bonney  welcomed  the  delegates  in  fitting  words. 
He  remarked  that  it  was  appropriate  for  the  descendants  of  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  to  anticipate  this  meeting  of  the  world’s  first 
Parliament  of  Religions,  and  hail  it  with  words  of  cheer. 
Next  to  October  22,  1492,  on  the  scroll  of  the  world’s  glories 
December  21,  1620,  should  be  inscribed,  for  since  the  Santa 
Maria  brought  Christopher  Columbus  to  the  New  World  no 
more  important  voyage  has  been  made  by  any  ship  than  that  on 
which  the  Mayflower  bore  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  to  the  landing- 
place  of  Plymouth  Rock.  Wherever  throughout  the  great 
Republic  the  children  of  the  Pilgrim  and  the  Puritan  have 
gone,  flowers  of  the  highest  culture  have  sprung  up  in  their 
footsteps.  Wherever  they  have  made  their  homes,  cultivated 
farms,  or  builded  farms,  the  highest  domestic  virtues  have  been 
conspicuous,  piety,  peace,  and  good  order  have  flourished,  and 
education  both  for  the  people  and  in  its  higher  forms  has  been 
a  dominant  power.  The  Congregational  Church,  Mr.  Bonney 
said  in  conclusion,  occupies  a  peculiarly  exalted  and  influential 
place  in  American  history.  It  stands  on  Plymouth  Rock  a 
monument  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  more  glorious  than 
the  granite  shaft  which  on  Bunker  Hill  greets  the  sun  on  his 
coming.  Holding  fast  to  liberty  for  itself,  it  can  not  do  other¬ 
wise  than  insist  upon  the  same  freedom  for  every  other  relig¬ 
ious  body  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  con¬ 
science. 

Dr.  Scott  responded  to  the  address  of  welcome,  and  showed 
how  successive  stages  of  religious  thought  had  resulted  in  the 
establishment  of  Congregationalism.  He  pointed  out  that  the 
first  revelation  of  God’s  will  to  man  came  to  the  Oriental  mind. 


CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH  CONGRESS. 


901 


The  Oriental  mind  was  a  good  listener,  but  not  such  a  good 
thinker  It  was,  therefore,  left  to  the  European  to  discover 
man’s  nature  as  God  made  him.  He  began  by  looking  inward 
rather  than  outward,  and  this  state  of  the  constitution  of  man 
resulted  in  the  system  of  ethics  or  religious  philosophy.  The 
next  step  was  the  translating  of  this  philosophy  into  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  people.  And  in  America  there  is  yet  another 
step  in  the  religious  movement  peculiar  to  our  country  and 
institutions.  What  we  want  now  is  to  engraft  this  system  of 
religious  philosophy  into  human  behavior,  and  live  the  things 
we  have  heard  as  they  are  formally  stated.  The  Puritan  and 
Pilgrim  of  to-day  is  he  who  is  living  for  the  social  emancipation 
of  the  world. 

Following  this  address  came  a  regular  programme  of  papers, 
embracing  a  wide  range  of  subjects.  Miss  Mary  A.  Jordan  of 
Smith  College,  North  Hampton,  Mass.,  delivered  an  address  on 
“  The  Congregational  Idea,”  which  she  characterized  as  Chris¬ 
tian  democracy.  She  said  the  Congregational  idea  calls  for  all 
the  intellectual  vigor  and  enterprise  of  the  Puritans  without 
their  narrow-minded  insistence;  it  calls  for  a  patience  of  inves¬ 
tigation  and  ministry  beside  which  theirs  was  indeed  faulty. 
Church  fellowship  requires  the  constant  willingness  of  each  to 
put  the  best  he  has  at  the  disposal  of  all  for  counsel,  admoni¬ 
tion,  and  reproof,  for  good  report  and  for  evil  report;  not  in 
self-seeking,  but  for  the  advantage  of  the  great  congregation. 
And  these  are  the  ideals  of  a  Christian  democracy. 

Prof.  Williston  Walker  gave  a  scholarly  and  interesting 
address  on  ‘‘First  Things  in  Congregationalism.”  He  held 
that  Congregationalism  is  the  logical  outcome  of  the  reforma¬ 
tion,  traced  the  development  of  the  principle  in  Europe,  and 
reviewed  the  events  which  led  up  to  the  settlement  of  New 
England  by  both  Puritans  and  Separatists.  After  reciting  the 
early  history  of  the  church.  Professor  Walker  said  the  past  of 
Congregationalism,  worthy  as  it  is,  is  not  its  best.  Much  as  it 
did  in  the  colonial  days,  for  which  we  all  have  reason  to  be 
thankful,  it  failed  fully  to  realize  its  own  ideal.  Its  short- 


002 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


comings  were  the  fault  of  departure  from  its  own  best  concep¬ 
tions,  not  of  the  system  itself.  It  needed  two  centuries  of  dis¬ 
cipline  for  Congregationalism  to  outgrow  its  dependence  on  the 
state,  its  intolerance,  and  its  adoption  of  half-way  covenant 
membership.  But  with  all  the  limitations  of  this  period  of 
growth  it  stood  distinctly  for  the  conception  of  the  church  as  a 
body  of  believers  united  to  Christ,  and  one  to  another  by  a 
voluntary  covenant,  a  body  choosing  its  own  ministry  and 
ordering  its  own  affairs,  and  owning  no  ultimate  authority  but 
the  Word  of  God.  It  held  positively  to  the  equally  important 
truth  that  these  churches  have  duties  of  fellowship,  one  to 
another,  and  are  bound  by  ties  of  fraternal  responsibility.  It 
is  because  the  Congregationalism  of  the  17th  and  18th  cent¬ 
uries  held  fast  to  these  great  principles,  in  spite  of  any  minor 
departures  from  the  truths  which  it  should  have  illustrated, 
that  its  growth  in  our  own  century  has  been  possible,  and  that 
it  has  profoundly  modified  other  denominations  with  which  it 
has  been  brought  in  contact,  so  that  it  deserves  to  be  called  the 
formative  polity  of  America. 

Henry  A.  Stimson  of  New  York  City  submitted  a  paper  on 
“Congregationalism  of  To-day.”  He  held  that  Congregational¬ 
ism  is  not  an  organization  but  an  organism.  Its  record  is  not 
to  be  read  in  creeds  that  it  has  put  forth  but  in  councils  that 
it  has  convened.  Nothing  was  more  remote  from  the  minds  of 
the  fathers  than  the  creation  of  a  new  ecclesiastical  machine,  or 
even  the  readjustment  of  an  old  one.  Their  breasts  were  filled 
with  the  thought  of  a  present  Christ.  Their  thought  was  upon 
the  life  that  was  in  them.  That  was  a  gift  from  God  and  was 
life.  It  possessed  all  essential  elements.  It  could  rec^reate,  it 
could  grow,  it  could  satisfy.  That  is  the  central  fact,  a  distin¬ 
guished  feature  of  Congregationalism.  A  second  distinct  part 
of  Congregationalism  is  that  it  has  always  found  its  center  out¬ 
side  itself.  The  life  it  possesses  is  the  life  of  an  indwelling 
Christ.  It  has  never  made  the  mistake  of  thinking  that  life 
centered  in  itself.  For  himself,  the  Congregationalist  feels  the 
need  of  effort,  and  study  and  growth.  The  duty  of  opening 


*  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH  CONGRESS.  903 

the  way  for  all  men  to  come  to  Christ  is  fundamental  to  the 
Congregationalist.  The  Pilgrim  Fathers  offered  themselves  as  a 
stepping-stone  unto  others.  They  have  been  much  maligned 
for  their  exclusiveness;  but  whatever  the  narrowness  of  their 
possessions  or  the  scantiness  of  their  foothold  in  the  edge  of 
the  great  wilderness,  there  was  no  narrowness  in  their  concep¬ 
tion  of  their  calling.  Their  one  desire  was  to  extend  the 
kingdom  of  Christ.  .  A  third  important  fact  in  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  Congregationalism  has  been  its  denominational  disin¬ 
terestedness.  It  has  founded  colleges  and  academies  for  all 
the  land  without  a  thought  of  self-aggrandizement.  These 
institutions  extend  across  the  continent  from  Bowdoin  in  Maine 
to  Pomona  in  California.  They  are  open  to  all,  and  are  never 
Congregational  in  a  restricted  or  sectarian  sense,  but  Congre¬ 
gational  in  parentage  and  dependence  for  their  daily  support. 
In  conclusion  Mr.  Stimson  said:  “We  believe  that  the  church 
is  the  body  of  Christ.  We  need  no  priest,  no  clergy,  no  bishop, 
no  eldership  to  mediate  or  to  secure  for  us  access  to  the  Lord. 
Therefore,  it  is  permitted  to  us  also  to  claim  that,  as  a  denomi¬ 
nation  we  have  exalted  the  work  of  our  laymen  and  have  laid 
exceptional  emphasis  upon  the  duty  of  special  culture  on  the 
part  of  laymen  to  meet  their  tasks.” 

The  above  excerpts  give  a  fair  idea  of  the  spirit  in  which 
Congregationalism  was  discussed  at  the  several  sessions  of 
this  congress.  Among  those  who  took  a  leading  part  in  the 
exercises  were,  in  addition  to  those  already  named:  Rev. 
Hugh  Pedley,  Winnipeg,  Manitoba;  Rev.  Alexander  McKenzie, 
D.  D.,  Cambridge,  Mass.;  Rev.  A.  F.  Sherrill,  D.  D.,  Atlanta, 
Ga.;  Rev.  Judson  Smith,  D.  D.,  Boston,  Mass.;  Mrs.  E.  W. 
Blatchford,  Chicago;  Mrs.  Chas.  Henrotin;  Rev.  Augusta 
Chapin;  Mrs.  L.  P.  Rowland,  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.;  Rev.  Mrs. 
Annis  F.  Eastman,  West  Bloomfield,  N.  Y. ;  Mrs.  A.  E.  Arnold, 
Plano.  Ill.:  Mrs.  Jane  Gibson  Johnson,  Chicago;  Mrs.*  Moses 
Smith,  Glencoe,  Ill.;  Miss  Helen  Buckley,  Chicago;  Mrs.  Jane 
G.  Austin,  Roxbury,  Mass.;  Rev.  Miss  Juanita  Brecken- 
ridge,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. ;  Mrs.  Ethan  Curtis,  Syracuse,  N.  Y. ; 


904  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS.  ♦ 

Mrs.  Elvira  B.  Cobleigh,  Walla  Walla,  Wash.;  Miss  Emily  Gil¬ 
more  Alden,  Godfrey,  Ill.;  Mrs.  Sarah  B.  Cooper,  San  Fran¬ 
cisco,  Cal.;  Kev.  Miss  Louise  S.  Baker,  Nantucket,  Mass. ;  Mrs. 
Elizabeth  Emerson  Humphrey,  Oak  Park,  Ill.;  Mrs.  Ella 
Beecher  Gittings,  Colorado  Springs,  Colo.;  Mrs.  W.  E.  Brooks, 
Mrs.  E.  H.  Merrill,  Bipon,  Wis. ;  Mrs.  Joseph  Ward,  Yankton, 
S.  D.;  Miss  Jane  Addams,  Hull  House,  Chicago;  Kev.  Miss 
Mary  L.  Moreland,  Wyanet,  Ill.;  Mrs.  George  H.  Ide,  Milwau¬ 
kee,  Wis.;  Mrs.  Julia  Holmes  Boynton,  Boston,  Mass.;  Mrs. 
Louise  J.  Bevan,  Melbourne,  Australia;  Miss  Harriet  A. 
Farrand;  Mrs.  Koxana  Beecher  Preuszner,  Chicago;  Mrs.  M. 
Porter  Cole,  Detroit,  Mich.;  Mrs.  Gertrude  H.  Wiley,  Summer- 
dale,  Ill.;  Miss  Mary  C.  Collins,  Fort  Yates,  N.  D.;  Miss 
Alice  W.  Bacon,  Hampton,  Va. ;  Miss  Ella  Gilbert  Ives,  Dor¬ 
chester,  Mass.;  Mrs.  Kebecca  H.  Cheetham,  Canning  Town, 
East  London,  England;  Miss  Millie  A.  Hand,  Elkhorn,  Wis.; 
Miss  Harriett  N.  Haskell,  Godfrey,  Ill.;  Kev.  Miss  Jeannette 
Olmstead,  Gustavus,  Ohio;  Mrs.  G.  W.  Moore,  Nashville, 
Tenn;  Mrs.  Kate  Upson  Clark,  New  York  City;  Mrs.  C.  H. 
Taintor,  Chicago;  Mrs.  Ella  S.  Armitage,  Bradford,  England; 
Mrs.  M.  B.  Norton,  Shoreham,  Vt.;  Mrs.  A.  A.  F.  Johnson, 
Oberlin,  Ohio;  Mrs.  Sarah  S.  C.  Angell,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich. ; 
Mrs.  Martha  J.  Bradley,  Jacksonville,  Ill. 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  PRESENTATION, 

Three  sessions  were  held  by  the  Catholics  in  Washington 
Hall  on  Tuesday,  September  12th.  Bishop  Keane  of  Washing¬ 
ton  was  the  chairman,  and  the  attendance  was  large.  Kev.  W. 
Byrne  of  Boston  presented  the  Catholic  idea  of  dogmatic 
truth,  and  answered  some  of  the  Protestant  objections  thereto. 
He  declared  that  dogmas  in  the  Catholic  religion  are  truths 
revealed  by  scripture,  and  given  official  sanction  by  the  church. 
A  truth  taught  by  the  clergy  must  be  indorsed  by  the  church 
to  become  a  dogma,  consequently  the  church  could  take  up 
doctrines  and  create  new  dogmas.  A  knowledge  of  certain 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  PRESENTATION. 


905 


dogmas  was  aosolutely  necessary  in  the  Catholic  religion,  while 
others  regarded  as  valuable  were  not  compulsory.  The  teach¬ 
ing  of  dogma  was  required  to  preserve  the  unity  of  Catholic 
religion,  so  that  truth  should  be^ maintained  in  pure  language, 
and  errors  discountenanced.  Dr.  Byrne  claimed  infallibility 
for  the  church,  which  authenticates  the  scriptures  and  thus 
avoids  false  teachings  by  those  disposed  to  maintain  individual 
opinion  contrary  to  accepted  articles  of  faith. 

Rev.  Dr.  O’Gorman  of  the  Catholic  University  of  America 
presented  an  essay  on  the  Catholic  Idea  of  Worship  and 
Grace.”  He  said  grace  is  God’s  outgoing  to  man,  and  worship 
is  man’s  part  in  forming  a  union  with  Divinity  which  is  a 
necessity  for  religious  truth. 

Bishop  Keane  addressed  the  congress  on  “  Jesus  Christ  the 
Foundation  of  Truth,  Grace,  and  Holiness.”  The  bishop 
declared  that  religion  is  essentially  a  quality,  bringing  into 
relation  the  Creator  and  the  creature.  The  Catholic  Church 
teaches  that  man  is  to  receive  the  divine  through  the  incarna¬ 
tion.  Men  and  women  as  teachers  of  the  young  interceded 
between  humanity  and  Christ,  the  only  mediator  between  man¬ 
kind  and  God.  That  was  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

Bishop  Watterson  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  followed  up  this 
theme,  indicating  the  means  by  which  the  church  is  the  organ 
of  the  Savior  in  the  dispensation  of  truth,  grace,  and  holiness. 

Rev.  Thos.  E.  Sherman  of  St.  Louis  delivered  an  eloquent 
address  on  “  The  Catholic  Idea  of  Holiness  and  Perfection,” 
which  is  given  herewith: 

Since  all  human  action  is  but  a  means  to  an  end,  and  man’s  end  is  his 
Maker’s  glory,  no  action  is,  strictly  speaking,  worthy  of  praise  that  is  not 
in  some  way  directed  to  the  glory  of  God.  Thus,  the  primary  canon  of 
right  conduct  and  the  sum  of  Christian  perfection  agree.  The  traveler  is 
only  acting  reasonably  when  he  can  say  to  himself  that  he  is  making  for 
his  goal;  the  soldier’s  march  is  effective  then  only  when  each  day  brings 
him  nearer  to  final  victory.  Human  conduct  is  truly  reasonable  and  manly 
when  it  squares  with  the  end  of  all  conduct,  the  aim  of  our  Maker  in  creat¬ 
ing  us.  That  aim  could  have  been  none  other  than  His  own  glory.  To  be 
known  and  loved  by  a  creature  capable  of  knowing  and  loving  Him  is  the 
only  sufficient  motive  for  God’s  bringing  into  existence  such  a  being.  This 
we  affirm  as  His  end  in  creating  us,  not  because  we  can  pretend  to  fathom 
the  divine  plans,  but  because  we  can  sufficiently  sound  the  depths  of  our 
own  nature  to  know  with  certainty  that  while  there  is  no  other  assignable 


90G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


reason  for  our  being  what  we  are,  this  reason  is  amply  worthy  both  of  Him  and 
of  us.  It  is  because  we  know  ourselves  that  we  know  God’s  plan  for  our 
race.  He  gave  us  being  and  life  that  He  might  draw  us  back  to  the  home 
of  all  spiritual  existence,  even  His  own  bosom,  for  creation  was  and  is  an 
act  of  love.  Love  seeks  union,  and  finds  its  content  only  in  union.  There¬ 
fore  is  the  human  heart  restless  \flth  infinite  restlessness  till  it  begins  to 
seek  its  home  in  the  heart  of  God. 

A  human  act  is  good,  therefore,  when  its  aim  is  the  divine  glory.  But 
just  as  a  father  need  not  with  every  breath  sigh  for  his  family  that  his  love 
may  be  the  inspiring  motive  of  his  activity,  and  yet  must  be  able  to  say, 
when  asked  why  he  toils  so  hard,  “  I  am  working  for  those  I  love,”  to  be 
worthy  the  name  of  father,  so  in  order  that  an  intelligent  being  may  be 
worthy  of  his  nature,  may  preserve  his  dependent  relation  to  his  Maker, 
there  must  be,  if  not  an  actual  wish,  at  least  an  undercurrent  of  thought 
and  desire  referring  all  his  actions  to  God’s  good  pleasure,  in  order  that 
his  conduct  may  be  up  to  the  mark  of  human  endeavor,  worthy  of  us  and 
of  Him.  Thus  the  first  word  of  an  enlightened  conscience  and  the  last 
word  of  Christian  asceticism  agree:  “Whether  you  eat  or  drink,  or  what¬ 
ever  you  do,  do  all  for  the  glory  of  God.”  The  highest  perfection  of  man  is 
but  obedience  to  this  dictate  of  common  sense. 

Here  the  Catholic  religion,  echoing  and  explaining  the  moral  axioms  of 
Christ,  is  the  light  on  the  path,  cheering  and  encouraging  us  with  the  sub¬ 
lime  doctrine  of  intention.  The  aim  or  intention,  though  not  the  only 
element  of  sanctity,  is  the  eye  of  the  human  act.  The  bent  of  the  will,  after 
all,  is  the  great  moral  element  of  conduct.  Now  that  bent  is  proper  only 
when  the  good  deliberately  sought  by  us  is  consistent  with  universal  good, 
the  end  sought  by  our  Maker.  Our  plans  are  to  be  adopted,  our  desires 
acted  on,  just  so  far  as  conscience  sees  them  to  agree  with  right  order. 
Right  order  is  found  where  all  inferior  ends  are  made  to  bend  to  the  will 
of  God.  Our  will  is  good,  then,  our  intention  is  right,  when  our  aim  is  one 
with  His;  the  arrow  shoots  true  when  it  tends  to  reach  the  archer’s  mark. 
The  target  at  which  the  will  is  morally  at  liberty  to  aim  is  not  any  good 
proposed  by  fancy,  appetite,  or  caprice,  but  some  rational  benefit,  some¬ 
thing  noble  and  up  to  a  human  standard  when  regarded  in  itself,  still  more 
BO  when  conceived  by  reason  as  directed  to  a  higher  ultimate  good.  To 
that  ultimate  good,  which  is  our  last  end  and  final  destiny,  an  object  capable 
of  rendering  us  completely  happy,  right  reason  is  ever  directing  the  will. 
That  object  is  God  Himself.  The  precept,  “  Son,  give  Me  thy  heart,”  is 
not  merely  the  first  of  commands;  it  is  promise  of  present  bliss.  The  Infi¬ 
nite  is  the  only  object  at  once  worthy  of  highest  human  endeavor,  and 
capable  of  entirely  satisfying  the  soul’s  desire. 

Nothing  less  than  God  completely  satiates  the  rational  appetite,  and 
till  satiated,  the  will  is  but  a  feverish  thirst  to  torment  us.  Vanity  of  van¬ 
ities!  cry  all  who  seek  their  rest  in  things  created.  But  the  man  who 
strives  to  love  God,  a  personal  God,  friend,  father,  guide,  comrade,  law¬ 
giver,  judge,  reward,  finds  his  being  ever  expanding  with  marvelous  sweet¬ 
ness;  he  enjoys  a  love  that  is  firm,  constant,  and  true;  a  love  buoyant, 
elastic,  pliant  to  his  best  interests;  a  love  tender,  devoted,  prudent,  watch¬ 
ful;  a  love  that  multiplies  benefits  of  body  and  spirit  till  he  is  in  ecstasy  with 
the  perpetual  feast  spread  for  his  heart,  his  head,  his  whole  nature.  He  finds 
all  other  affections  and  sentiments  ranging  themselves  in  order  and  expand¬ 
ing  his  powers  in  many  ways,  since  all  lesser  loves  are  purified  and  elevated 
by  the  sacred  fire  of  this  most  vital  affection;  he  is  conscious  that  the 
Beloved  can  not  die,  or  fail,  or  be  taken  from  him;  that  his  love  can  and 
should  go  on  ever  expanding  and  intensifying,  and  that  there  is  no  ending 
to  his  bliss  in  time  or  in  eternity. 

Such  is  the  first  obvious  effect  of  a  pure  intent  of  doing  our  Maker’s  will. 
Uniting  us  in  mind  and  heart  to  Him  who  is  our  bliss,  it  makes  us  happy. 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  PRESENTATION. 


907 


At  the  same  time  it  gives  immense  honor  to  God.  His  glory  is  in  our  hap¬ 
piness,  our  happiness  is  His  true  honor.  The  human  aim  being  to  please 
Him  by  doing  the  divine  will  as  best  we  may,  the  human  act,  however  trivial 
its  immediate  object,  however  feeble  the  outward  performance  becomes  a 
noble  thing,  from  the  motive  with  which  it  is  performed.  The  cry  of  the 
crusading  force,  “  God  wills  it,”  is  no  more  exalted  than  the  simple,  “  Thy 
will  be  done,”  which  accompanies  each  Christian  effort.  Whether  a  man 
blow  bubbles  to  amuse  children,  or  command  a  superb  fleet,  is  a  trival 
matter  in  the  sight  of  God’s  angels,  compared  to  the  reason  why  he  does 
the  one  or  the  other.  Weighed  in  the  scales  of  the  sanctuary  it  may  well  be 
that  he  who  is  but  amusing  children  stands  higher,  and  is  meriting  vastly 
greater  rewards  than  your  doughty  admiral.  On  the  other  hand,  whoever 
fails  to  seek  out  and  perform  God’s  will  is  an  infinite  failure,  even  though 
he  fill  the  world  with  the  praise  of  splendid  achievement. 

Such  is  the  plain  teaching  of  Christ.  “  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  thy  whole  heart,  with  thy  whole  soul,  with  all  thy  mind  and  with 
all  thy  strength.”  “Seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  His  justice.” 

God  is  your  destiny.  You  seek  happiness  because  you  can  not  help  yearn¬ 
ing  for  it.  Seek  God  and  you  will  find  happiness.  To  be  happy,  you  must  be 
ever  turned  toward  Him.  Each  act,  if  a  worthy  human  act,  is  also  in  some 
sense  an  act  of  worship.  Religion  is  not  merely  the  crown  of  virtues,  it  is  the 
foundation,  formative  element,  and  sum  of  virtues.  Without  religion  there 
is  no  true  virtue. 

This  simple  statement  meets  the  common  objection  against  the  Chris¬ 
tian  system  of  ethics,  that  its  Author’s  teaching  is  mainly  negative.  What 
is  more  positive  than  a  command  involving  every  act,  a  law  leading  to  the 
surrender  of  one’s  whole  being,  a  precept  making  life  a  continual  holocaust, 
by  converting  the  will  into  a  torch  burning  with  divine  fire? 

More  specious  is  the  objection  which  makes  man’s  perfection  consist 
entirely  in  the  faithful  observance  of  his  relations  to  his  fellowmen.  Virtue 
is  virtue,  we  are  told,  whatever  the  motive.  To  be  kind,  gentle,  prudent, 
just,  these  are  the  chief  points  of  human  perfection.  Cardinal  points  they 
are,  no  doubt,  but  do  points  inclose  a  space?  Will  straight  lines  give  us 
solid  volume?  Is  a  city  perfect  because  it  has  streets  laid  out  at  right 
angles?  Is  not  something  omitted  in  this  division?  Virtues  are  good 
habits  inclining  us  to  act  in  ways  becoming  man.  He  who  seeks  a  false 
end,  or  neglects  to  fulfill  his  true  destiny,  distorts  his  whole  field  of  action 
by  failing  to  direct  his  life  to  its  one  true  aim.  As  Midas  turns  all  to  gold 
by  his  touch,  so  the  miser  taints  his  every  thought  by  avarice.  Love  tran& 
forms  us  into  the  object  loved;  seeking  only  metal,  the  miser’s  heart 
becomes  debased  to  like  condition.  As  he  who  has  embarked  for  a  port  in 
the  tropics  is  laughed  at  for  his  pains,  however  bravely  be  breasts  the 
Northern  seas  in  steering  toward  the  pole,  so  the  star  of  our  destiny  mocks 
at  us,  save  when  we  sail  toward  God,  who  is  our  home,  aiming  to  find  our 
happiness  in  love  of  Him  and  in  His  fatherly  approval  of  our  conduct. 
Aside  from  the  initial  defect  of  failing  to  supply  adequate  motives  to  com¬ 
bat  selfishness  and  crush  passion,  the  humanitarian  doctrine  that  kindness 
and  justice  are  the  main  elements  of  human  perfection  ignores  the  question 
of  questions,  that  of  man’s  ultimate  destiny;  holds  him  excused  from  the 
first  and  most  important  of  all  duties,  that  of  worshiping  and  serving  his 
Maker;  dethrones  Almighty  God;  destroys  His  absolute  supremacy  over  the 
creature  of  His  hand,  and  ultimately  makes  moral  science  a  mere  question 
of  the  exxjedient  or  the  agreeable. 

On  the  other  hand,  to  recognize  the  obvious  truth  that  our  Maker’s 
glory  is  our  happiness,  the  fulfillment  of  His  will  the  canon  of  perfection, 
conformity  to  His  decrees  the  measure  of  virtue,  and  union  with  Him  in 
loving  service  our  contentment  here  and  pledge  of  heaven  hereafter,  is 
to  place  man,  as  son  of  God,  at  the  head  of  the  visible  universe,  and 


908 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


invest  human  conduct  with  a  divine  and  eternal  significance,  thus  making 
life  a  continual  march  of  partial  victory,  sweeping  on  to  triumphant  eternal 
peace. 

The  Catholic  religion  teaches  man  to  act  as  son  of  God,  comrade  of 
Jesus  Christ,  spouse  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  mirror  of  the  Trinity,  passing 
through  a  probation  intended  to  make  perfect  in  him  the  divine  image 
through  imitation  of  and  communion  with  the  God-Man.  Anything  less 
than  this  is  nothing  in  the  eye  of  the  Catholic.  Given  a  man,  whose  great 
natural  talents  have  been  re-enforced  by  careful  training,  let  him  be  polished 
“ad  unguem,”  suppose  him  to  possess  a  heart  expansive,  tender,  sym¬ 
pathetic,  add  all  that  you  choose  by  way  of  natural  attraction;  if  such  a 
man  have  no  thought  of  the  Author  of  all  good,  no  love  for  the  unseen,  no 
reaching  after  things  divine,  no  fear  of  an  Infinite  J udge,  in  the  sight  of  the 
angels  he  is  merely  a  painted  creature,  a  mockery  of  what  man  should  be. 
The  brutes  are  capable  of  kindness  and  gentleness  in  a  way;  they  have 
shadows  of  our  virtues;  we  hear  much  in  our  day  of  their  “moral ”  nature, 
but  this  does  not  make  them  human,  neither  has  that  man  true  virtue  who 
is  without  God  in  the  world.  He  is  a  soul  without  life,  an  abortion,  a 
shadow;  the  shell  without  the  meat,  the  bark  without  pith  or  fiber.  His 
actions  are  dead.  Give  him  religion,  all  his  virtues  are  animated,  all  tipjjed 
with  gold.  Now  the  arrows  are  winged  indeed.  Just  as  stone,  mortar,  and 
rafters  do  not  make  a  house,  so  virtuous  habits  do  not  make  a  holy  life, 
without  the  composing,  combining,  ordering  force  of  religion.  It  is  the 
inner  link  between  the  soul  and  its  Maker  which  makes  a  man  worthy  of 
his  nature.  A  harp  is  vocal  only  under  a  musician’s  touch.  Our  soul 
yields  but  discordant  notes  till  touched  by  the  hand  divine,  which  contrived 
this  cunning  instrument  to  sing  its  eternal  praises.  One  alone  can  extract 
from  it  the  sweet  music  of  perpetual,  loving  sacrifice;  One  alone  can  make 
it  vibrate  and  quiver  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  myriad  hearts  it  is 
intended  to  sympathize  with,  drawing  ever  forth  the  notes  it  best  may 
render,  waking  fresh  bursts  of  rapture  every  instant  in  angelic  minds  at 
sight  of  the  hidden  powers  of  common  clay. 

The  Divine  Musician,  murmuring  through  the  quiet  depths  of  conscience, 
whispers  to  us:  “  Live  with  your  end  always  in  view,  and  act  up  to  the 
measure  of  your  being.”  The  soul  answers:  “  Thou  alone  art  my  end;  for 
Thee  alone  must  I  act.  Thou  couldst  have  made  me  for  nothing  less  than 
Thyself,  since  nothing  else  could  move  Thee,  infinite  that  Thou  art,  to  call 
me  into  being.” 

Conscious  that  he  exists  to  praise  and  serve  his  Maker,  that  God  alone 
is  His  true  destiny,  and  that  all  creatures  are  but  means  to  assist  him  in 
getting  to  God,  man  asks  hims-'lf:  “What  is  God’s  will  in  my  regard 
with  reference  to  all  the  beings  that  surround  me?  How  must  I  act  so 
as  to  fulfill  His  will  and  attain  my  d  '^■‘^^iny  ?  ”  This  question  is  answered  by 
explaining  the  second  equally  esaentu .  element  of  moral  goodness,  derived 
from  the  immediate  object  of  the  human  act.  As  an  act  is  intrinsically 
good  or  evil,  in  so  far  as  it  is  in  conformity  or  not  with  right  order,  so  it  is 
j)leasing  or  displeasing  to  the  Author  of  the  universe  in  the  same  proportion 
as  it  conforms  to  this  rational  form  of  goodness.  To  say  that  the  intention 
alone  renders  an  act  praiseworthy  or  the  opposite  is  to  hold  that  the  end 
justifies  the  means,  a  notion  abhorrent  alike  to  Christian  doctrine  and  to 
common  sense. 

John  Brown’s  raid  and  Abraham  Lincoln’s  proclamation  had  the  same 
motive — the  freedom  of  the  negro  race.  Brown  died  a  criminal’s  death 
because  his  acts  were  disorderly;  Lincoln’s  proclamation,  as  a  war  measure, 
is  held  by  the  world  to  have  been  “  in  order,”  and  therefore  right.  The  ♦ 
difference  between  crime  and  virtue  is  found  primarily  in  their  relation  to 
order;  and  secondarily  to  law,  the  expression  of  the  will  of  a  superior, 
commanding  the  preservation  of  order.  To  break  a  law  is  wrong  both 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  PRESENTATION. 


909 


because  the  law  is  the  expression  of  right  reason,  and  also  because  the 
infraction  is  an  offense  against  the  law-maker.  In  the  case  of  moral  evil, 
or  sin,  these  two  elements  can  not  be  separated.  The  order  which  He  has 
constituted,  God  wishes  to  maintain,  and  He  can  not  but  be  offended  at 
any  breach  of  the  essential  relations  arising  out  of  the  very  nature  of  the 
beings  He  has  created.  Given  the  creative  act,  and  the  moral  order 
becomes  necessary,  absolute,  and  immutable,  and  moral  evil  the  most 
awful  abomination  conceivable;  for  to  say  that  an  act  is  intrinsically  evil 
when  not  in  conformity  with  reason  implies  not  only  that  such  an  act 
can  never,  under  any  circumstances,  be  right  but  also  that  it  must  be 
obnoxious  to  the  divine  ordainer  of  all  things,  a  personal  offense  to  Him; 
in  other  words,  whatever  is  deliberately  irrational  is  necessarily  immoral, 
and  whatever  is  immoral  is  sinful.  There  is  no  sin  against  reason  that  is 
not  sin  against  God.  The  whole  code  of  Christian  ethics,  the  entire  system 
of  national  asceticism,  rests  upon  and  springs  from  the  recognition  of  the 
double  element  of  evil  in  immoral  actions  and  the  corresponding  elements 
of  good  in  right  conduct.  It  is  the  king’s  peace  that  is  broken  by  the 
highwayman  on  the  “king’s  highway.”  The  robber  can  not  violate  the 
law  without  transgressing  the  command  of  the  law-maker,  and  his  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  malice  of  his  action  implies  a  setting  up  of  his  will  against 
the  majesty  of  the  ruler.  If  in  a  fit  of  anger  I  slay  my  enemy,  the  warrant 
for  my  arrest  is  issued  by  the  State’s  authority,  and  my  offense  is  against 
the  State  of  Illinois.  In  vain  would  I  pleao  at  the  bar  of  justice  my 
ignorance  of  the  fact  that  I  was  standing  within  the  limits  of  this  State. 
There  are  some  things  we  are  hound  to  know,  and  first  of  all  the  extent  of 
our  own  accountability  and  the  dreadful  eternal  consequences  of  our 
deliberate  choice  of  good  or  evil.  Heaven  and  hell  are  the  only  realities,, 
the  rest  is  a  passing  pageant,  a  world’s  fair,  a  mimic  scene,  a  lesson,  a 
dream,  a  preparation,  a  journey.  Are  we  reading  the  lesson  aright?  are  we 
walking  in  the  jiath  of  rectitude?  These  are  the  questions  wisdom  asks 
every  hour.  What  are  we  doing  and  why?  At  the  dreadful  bar  of  eternal 
justice  no  man  will  be  able  to  plead  that  he  did  not  know  the  existence  of 
the  law  or  its  nature,  for  that  law  is  written  within  us,  sounds  in  our  con¬ 
science,  is  promulgated  in  the  mind,  and  even  if  there  were  no  eternal 
priesthood  to  guide  our  steps,  no  church  to  voice  the  words  of  Christ,  con¬ 
science  would  both  warn  us  here  and  confirm  our  judgment  hereafter. 
Man  is  his  own  judge;  the  law  which  governs  him  is  eternal  and  immut¬ 
able — the  law  of  nature.  Conscience  is  the  mind  pronouncing  judgment  on 
our  acts.  Christian  asceticism  is  largely  concerned  in  framing  rules  for 
the  enlightenment  and  direction  of  conscience.  Of  these  the  chief  are  that 
we  are  bound  to  follow  a  sure  conscience,  that  it  is  never  permitted  to  act 
with  a  practical  doubt  unsolved,  and  that  in  case  of  doubt  certainty  can 
nearly  always  be  obtained  by  recurrence  to  the  principle  that  a  doubtful 
law  does  not  bind.  The  study  of  these  laws  rescues  us  from  the  subtle 
dangers  of  subjectivism. 

It  is  in  and  through  conscience,  using  the  term  in  the  broader  sense  of 
the  moral  faculty  or  power  of  perceiving  right  and  wrong,  that  God  rules 
the  universe.  Here  the  soul  touches  most  intimately  the  unseen  object  of 
her  worship.  Since  this,  like  other  jjowers,  is  cajjable  of  culture  and 
development,  we  increase  His  influence  over  us,  we  establish  His  reign  more 
perfectly,  and  secure  our  own  happiness  more  effectually  by  frequent 
examination  of  conscience,  and  by  a  familiar  knowledge  of  the  asceticism 
of  the  casuist. 

Knowing  that  there  is  a  God,  I  know  that  He  must  will  the  existence  of 
order.  Free  to  create,  He  is  not  free  to  create  beings  in  His  own  image, 
destined  to  union  with  Himself,  and  then  remain  indifferent  to  their 
actions.  He  can  not  help  willing  with  infinite  desire  that  they  should  prove 
themselves  worthy  of  their  origin  by  conducting  themselves  as  kings  of 


910 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

creation.  At  the  same  time  He  so  respects  His  own  gift  of  free  will  that 
He  does  not  rudely  prevent  its  abuse,  but  uses  moral  suasion  to  influence 
a  moral  being.  Thus,  He  shows  us  a  divine  model,  whispers  quiet  warnings, 
clothes  the  soul  with  grace,  spreads  a  network  of  subtle  attractions  and 
holy  influences  to  draw  us  sweetly  upward  to  heavenly  things.  But  if  we 
prefer  what  is  lower  and,  therefore,  unworthy  of  our  divine  sonship, 
He  does  not  rudely  wrench  the* will  from  its  lower  loves  and  force  it  to  its 
true  destiny.  The  spirit  of  God  wooes,  but  does  not  assault;  it  attracts,  but 
does  not  fascinate;  it  wins,  but  does  not  conquer  by  force. 

The  Catholic  system  of  ascetics,  then,  teaches  the  identity  of  the  sure 
dictates  of  conscience  with  what  is  right  in  itself  and  in  conformity  with 
the  will  of  God.  While  insisting  on  the  supreme  authority  of  conscience 
as  the  court  of  last  resort  in  all  cases  of  doubt,  the  church  claims  the 
right  to  direct  and  guide  conscience  by  proposing  for  its  acceptance  the 
perfect  law  as  given  by  Christ.  The  Catholic  obeys  the  church  as  he 
accepts  Christ,  because,  with  regard  to  both,  conscience  says:  “A  divine 
messenger  speaks  to  you;  hear  and  heed;  refuse  at  your  peril.”  There  is 
no  more  contradiction  in  asserting  that  conscience  is  supreme,  though 
guided  by  an  infallible  church,  than  in  saying  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  the  highest  law,  but  I  must  admit  the  interpretation  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  though  a  fallible  interpretation.  In  both  cases  I  obey 
the  law  as  made  known  to  me  by  the  best  accredited  and  most  competent 
voice  of  the  law.  The  difflculties  in  either  instance  are  the  same.  Ulti¬ 
mately  it  is  the  law  as  proposed  to  me  by  conscience  which  I  obey,  and, 
therefore,  Newman  is  quite  right  in  putting  conscience  first  and  the  Pope 
second.  Just  ac  I  obey  any  constituted  authority,  so  I  obey  the  Pope, 
because  conscience  commands  that  obedience.  “You  must  obey  Christ's 
Vicar.”  In  submitting  to  the  dictates  of  conscience  we  obey  a  divinely 
constituted  interpreter  of  the  law  of  nature.  The  law  of  nature  is  simply 
right  reason  commanding  us  to  act  according  to  the  divine  plan.  It  is  the 
copy  in  man  of  God’s  will  for  man’s  welfare.  It  is,  therefore,  one  wdth  the 
eternal  law  by  which  God,  in  decreeing  creation,  also  decreed  that  all 
beings  should  act  according  to  their  essential  relations  to  one  another  and 
to  Himself.  He  necessarily  willed  that  we  should  praise,  adore,  and  serve 
Him;  should  treat  one  another  as  brothers;  should  eagerly  search  for  His 
revelations,  and  having  found  them  should  make  His  communications  our 
light  and  guide.  He  further  fully  decreed  that  after  our  race  had  gone 
astray  His  Son  should  come  in  the  flesh  to  redeem  us;  to  be  model  and 
friend,  food  and  drink  to  us;  so  that,  having  in  Him  all  our  desires  realized, 
and  being  through  Him  lifted  up  and  restored  to  our  original  divine  herit¬ 
age,  we  should  first  of  all  learn  from  Him  the  perfection  of  the  divine  law; 
then  see  in  His  absolute  obedience  to  that  law  the  true  image  of  virtue; 
be  led  to  imitate  Him  at  every  step;  to  offer  all  our  prayers  and  acts  of 
adoration  in  union  with  Him;  to  be  incorporated  into  Christ  through  the 
mystical  union  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and,  in  fine,  be  transformed  into 
other  Christs  by  yielding  our  minds  and  hearts  to  the  continued  guidance 
of  His  Holy  Spirit. 

The  incarnation  plays  so  important  a  part  in  Christian  asceticism  that 
no  essay  on  conduct  would  be  complete  which  did  not  at  least  touch  on 
some  of  the  obvious  additions  to  rational  ethics  made  by  the  supernatural 
influence  of  Christ.  As  He  lifted  the  race  from  idolatry  and  paganism  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  one  true  God,  so  He  lifts  the  individual  soul  by  the 
powerful  force  of  example  and  heavenly  doctrine  above  the  control  of  the 
passions  and  appetites,  restoring  man  to  the  full  dignity  of  a  nature 
governed  by  reason. 

The  first  step  in  our  Savior’s  work  for  the  soul  is  called  conversion. 
Matthew,  looking  up  for  a  moment  from  his  money  bags,  sees  the  Divine 
Man  gazing  down  into  his  eyes.  What  eager  yearning  is  depicted  on  that 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  PRESENTATION. 


911 


sweet  face;  what  commanding  power  is  seated  on  His  noble  brow.  The 
publican  feels  a  soft  breath  on  his  cheek,  the  breath  that  called  the  world 
into  being.  Two  words  are  whisijered  in  his  startled  ear:  “  Follow  Me.” 
It  is  an  invitation  from  the  Prince  of  Peace,  sweet,  strong,  and  transform¬ 
ing.  The  money-changer  heeds;  his  old  life  ceases,  and  a  new  one  begins. 
He  has  had  a  brief  glimpse  of  heaven,  and  earth  has  faded  to  a  mere 
phantom.  Whoever  listens  and  heeds  as  Matthew  did  may  be  transformed 
in  like  manner;  whoever  has  his  conscience  open  to  the  divine  call  will 
be  certain  at  some  time  to  hear  the  voice  of  Christ.  The  eye  that  is 
simple  can  not  fail  to  see  the  light  that  enlightens  every  man  that  cometh 
into  this  world.  Whether  the  Master  find  each  of  us,  as  He  did  Matthew, 
amid  the  commonplace  avocations  of  life,  or  steeped  in  evil,  like  Mag¬ 
dalene,  borne  into  the  valley  of  doubt  and  discouragement,  or  struggling 
bravely  upward  with  the  saints,  that  wondrous  face  of  His,  on  which 
gleam  divine  pity,  forbearance,  purity,  and  strength,  seems  to  be  ever 
haunting  the  fancy  of  our  race,  and  inviting  man  to  turn  to  things 
divine.  Whether  we  hear  it  in  song  or  story,  in  sermon  or  prayer,  or  in 
the  simple  word  of  the  gospel,  the  voice  which  once  woke  sweet  echoes 
amid  the  hills  of  Galilee  still  sounds  with  celestial  force  in  the  depths  of 
the  human  soul.  His  touch,  light  as  a  mother’s,  cools  the  passionate  throb 
of  the  fevered  brow,  and  His  Spirit  whispers:  “I  am  the  way,  the  truth, 
and  the  life;  I  am  the  light  of  the  world.  Taste  and  see  how  sweet  the 
Lord  is.”  By  bringing  God  close  to  man  the  incarnation  has  drawn  man 
by  the  cords  of  Adam  back  to  God.  To  gaze  on  that  winning  face  where 
gleams  the  express  image  of  all  perfections,  human  and  divine,  is  to  be 
weaned  from  excessive  love  for  creatures  and  turned  toward  our  Creator. 
That  thirst  for  truth  and  beauty,  which  nature  has  planted  deep  in  the 
human  soul,  has  ever  led  the  pure  of  heart  to  find  in  the  contemplation  of 
the  divine  countenance  the  nearest  thing  to  heaven  they  hope  to  know  on 
earth. 

The  soul,  once  thoroughly  converted,  must  undergo  transformation;  a 
fresh  existence,  a  new  life  of  grace  is  to  be  begun  and  continued.  To  effect 
this  transformation,  Christ  invented  a  system  of  sacraments  or  outward 
signs  of  grace,  nicely  adjusted  to  meet  the  manifold  wants  of  the  soul,  and 
brought  within  easy  reach  of  all  by  the  priesthood.  As  physician  of  the 
mind.  He  provided  the  tribunal  of  penance,  to  cleanse  the  soul  from  stains 
of  sin,  to  afford  her  solace  and  advice,  to  pour  oil  upon  her  wounds,  and  to 
preserve  His  inward  empire  even  over  the  realm  of  thought  and  desire, 
whence  action  springs.  Without  some  such  method  of  assuring  us  of  God’s 
direct  pardon  and  of  our  friendly  relations  to  Him,  our  Savior’s  work  as 
redeemer  would  have  been  incomplete.  Certain  that  my  sins  are  forgiven 
by  the  power  of  Christ — “  Whose  sins  you  shall  forgive  they  are  forgiven  ” 
— I  go  forward  with  firm  step  and  cheery  heart,  for  naught  is  between  my 
soul  and  her  destiny,  and  heaven’s  gate  is  ever  open. 

But  since  the  soul  needs  food  as  well  as  pardon,  by  a  supreme  invention 
of  love,  our  amiable  Lord  has  contrived  so  to  stretch  omnipotence  as  to 
give  us  Himself  in  communion.  “Unless  you  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
Man  and  drink  His  blood  you  shall  not  have  life  in  you.”  “  He  that  eateth 
My  fiesh  and  drinketh  My  blood  abideth  in  Me  and  I  in  Him.”  “My  flesh 
is  meat  indeed  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.”  (Jno.  vi.,  53,  56.) 

It  is  evident  that  the  proper  use  of  two  such  powerful  means  of  sancti¬ 
fication  is  at  once  the  highest  privilege,  the  most  effectual  armor,  and  the 
most  stringent  duty  of  a  Christian.  Hence,  among  Catholics,  confession 
and  communion  are  spoken  of  as  “our  duties”  par  excellence,  and  a  man’s 
fervor  is  gauged  by  his  frequentation  of  these  sacraments.  We  regard 
them  as  an  arsenal  whence  we  can  draw  at  will  powerful  helps  to  ward  off 
manifold  evil;  as  fountains  to  quench  the  soul’s  thirst;  as  the  path  lead¬ 
ing  to  a  sunlit  eminence  of  peace;  as  a  pledge  that,  weak  as  we  are,  ulti¬ 
mate  spiritual  victory  is  within  the  reach  of  all. 


912 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


These  sacraments  entitle  the  soul  to  many  gifts  and  graces.  They  lead 
sweetly  to  close  friendship  and  easy  intercourse  with  Christ,  familiarity 
with  divine  things,  a  love  of  prayer  and  meditation,  burning  zeal  for  the 
salvation  of  souls,  supreme  reverence  for  Holy  Writ  as  God’s  Word,  enthu¬ 
siastic  loyalty  to  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  admiration  for  the  saints  and  a  study 
of  their  lives,  contempt  for  transitory  things  in  comparison  with  eternity, 
love  of  the  poor,  sympathy  wdth  distress  and  sorrow,  active  work  for  our 
neighbor,  and  many  more  virtues  which  are  but  the  natural  fruit  of  com¬ 
munion  with  the  all-loving  heart  of  our  God. 

Walking  with  Christ,  seeing  Christ,  putting  on  Christ,  these  are  but 
fine  phrases  unless  you  can  supjjly  the  soul  with  such  life-giving  streams 
of  grace  and  so  transform  the  heart  of  man  that  no  love  will  be  acceptable 
which  is  not  orderly  and .  agreeable  to  God;  no  affection  sweet  unless 
wholesome;  no  conduct  worthy  of  admiration  which  is  not  in  imitation  of 
the  model  shown  us  on  the  mount.  The  Catholic  religion  gives  us  Christ 
Himself,  a  real,  living,  present  God  and  Savior  to  be  our  food  and  comfort; 
therefore,  it  can  in  all  directness  and  simj  licity  bid  us  to  put  on  Christ. 
No  distant  hero,  no  far-off  ideal,  no  beautiful  vision  serves  to  still  the 
waves  of  passion,  feed  the  starving  soul,  expel  the  demon  throng;  but  an 
ever-present  divine  Friend  can  and  does  continue  among  us  to-day  the  work 
He  began  in  Palestine  nineteen  centuries  ago. 

To  make  Him  better  known,  more  warmly  loved,  and  to  serve  Him 
faithfully,  cheerfully,  with  enthusiastic  energy,  and  life-long  perseverance, 
is  the  only  thing  on  earth  worth  living  for. 

Transformed  by  the  grace  of  God  from  the  natural  to  the  supernatural, 
man’s  life  becomes  one  long  struggle  to  conform  his  actions,  thoughts,  and 
desires  to  those  of  his  divine  model.  This  secret  conformation  of  the  soul 
is  the  work  of  the  third  person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity,  who  is  ever  building 
up  a  spiritual  edifice  in  each  Christian  breast.  “Follow  Me,”  says  the 
Master,  in  meekness  and  lowliness,  in  obedience  and  self-denial,  in  constant 
prayer,  even  in  virginity  and  poverty,  if  you  feel  the  strength  to  do  so, 
“  Follow  Me.”  Putting  God  first  in  every  action,  looking  ever  to  His  glory, 
subduing  all  pride  and  passion,  bearing  patiently  all  manner  of  adversity, 
“  Follow  Me.”  Literal  acceptance  of  this  invitation,  an  exalted  view  of  the 
supernatural,  systematic  effort  to  scale  the  heights  of  Calvary,  are  noted 
marks  of  Catholic  ascetical  doctrine.  The  great  theologian,  Suarez,  tells 
us  that  he  values  one  “Hail,  Mary!”  pronounced  in  the  state  of  grace, 
beyond  the  natural  learning  contained  in  twenty  folios,  which  had  cost  him 
the  work  of  a  lifetime.  A  child’s  prayer  we  are  taught  to  esteem  as  a 
nobler  thing  than  the  city  of  Chicago.  The  prayer  is  a  gem  in  a  crown 
eternal;  the  metropolis  is  transitory  like  yonder  Venice  by  the  lake,  which, 
lovely  though  it  seems,  is  but  the  pride  of  a  day.  As  in  valuing  things 
divine,  so  in  mortifying  the  human  spirit,  the  Catholic  system  excels.  To 
die  daily  to  self  is  the  ideal.  To  be  able  to  say:  “  I  live  no  longer  I  but 
Christ  lives  in  me,”  this  is  the  high  perfection  we  are  urged  to  aspire  to. 
What  abnegation  in  the  Trappist,  the  Carmelite,  the  poor  Clare,  who  are 
willing  to  make  a  perpetual  holocaust  even  of  the  gift  of  sfieech,  reserving 
it  only  for  divine  praise,  and  rebuking  by  their  total  abstinence  our 
thoughtless  abuse  of  so  excellent  an  endowment.  The  Carmelite  sits  like 
Mary  at  our  Savior’s  feet,  doing  what  He  said  was  best,  binding  the  earth 
in  chains  of  prayer  about  the  feet  of  God,  while  lolling  on  his  downy 
couch  the  worldling  whiffs  away  this  noblest  ideal  of  sanctity  with  his, 
“I  don’t  see  the  use  of  so  much  prayer.”  Prayer  is  union  with  God. 
Union  with  God  is  the  end  of  our  existence.  Who  does  not  secretly  envy 
the  peace  purchased  by  so  holy  an  existence? 

Who  fails  to  see  the  reflex  of  heaven  written  on  the  countenance  of  the 
perfect  contemplative? 

The  Carmelite  is  practicing  the  art  of  arts,  cultivating  the  highest  of 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  PRESENTATION. 


913 


sciences,  and  our  inability  to  appreciate  her  place  on  the  mountain  top  is 
simply  a  proof  that  we  do  not  understand  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ,  who 
spent  nine-tenths  of  an  infinitely  valuable  life  in  quiet  contemplation. 

The  well-known  active  orders  of  the  church,  such  as  the  Sisters  of 
Charity,  the  Little  Sisters  of  the  Poor,  the  Good  Shepherd,  and  the  teach¬ 
ing  congregations,  all  practice  contemplation  as  far  as  it  is  consistent  with 
their  other  duties.  All  are  taught  that  prayer  is  the  most  important  work  of 
life,  that  from  it  they  are  to  derive  their  strength  and  solace,  that  it  is  our 
shield  in  temptation,  a  living  link  with  heaven,  a  key  to  open  the  heart  of 
God,  and  a  sure  road  to  sanctity.  In  both  lives,  the  active  and  contemxjla- 
tive,  that  moderation  in  which  true  virtue  consists  is  secured  by  the  law  of 
obedience,  which  converts  the  soul  into  an  altar  whereon  the  will  of  man  is 
oliered  as  a  continual  victim  in  union  with  the  will  of  Christ.  Total  self¬ 
surrender  into  the  hands  of  those  who,  being  properly  appointed,  are  God’s 
own  representatives,  at  once  secures  permanent  peace  of  soul  in  the  assur¬ 
ance  of  carrying  out  His  wishes  in  our  regard,  and  leads  to  self-abnegation 
and  humility,  the  most  graceful  and  most  difficult  of  virtues.  Virginity,  so 
conspicuous  a  perfection  in  Christ,  in  His  mother,  and  in  His  chosen  dis¬ 
ciple,  is  guarded  with  the  utmost  delicacy  and  held  in  loftiest  esteem,  being 
preferred  even  to  the  noble  state  of  marriage.  The  vows  of  poverty, 
chastity,  and  obedience  pronounced  by  all  religious  orders  strike  at  the  very 
root  of  the  great  evils  of  the  human  soul,  avarice,  sensuality,  and  pride, 
marking  the  Catholic  Church  forever  as  the  true  spouse  of  Christ,  indif¬ 
ferent  as  she  is  to  all  creatures,  and  wrapped  forever  in  the  joyous  contem¬ 
plation  of  her  God. 

To  reform  that  which  was  deformed  by  sin;  converting  fallen  man  to 
the  worship  of  the  one  true  God  and  the  diligent  search  for  heaven;  to 
transform  the  reformed  by  His  powerful  sacraments,  by  the  force  of  His 
example,  and  by  the  watchful  care  of  His  church;  to  conform  the  trans¬ 
formed  to  His  own  likeness  by  leading  them  from  virtue  to  virtue,  such  is 
in  brief  the  work  of  the  God-man.  Freely  to  correspond  with  this  divine 
plan,  to  study  His  actions,  meditate  His  life  and  character,  master  His 
doctrines,  follow  even  at  a  distance  in  His  sacred  footsteps,  this  is  the 
perfection  at  which  all  Christians  aim.  The  means  to  acquire  that  per¬ 
fection  are  found  in  their  integrity  only  in  the  arsenal  where  Christ  Him¬ 
self  has  stored  them,  and,  therefore,  only  the  church  of  Christ  can  show 
forth  models  of  sanctity  worthy  of  the  veneration  of  mankind.  She  says 
to  the  world:  You  can  make  soldiers,  lawyers,  artists;  you  can  form  poets, 
orators,  statesmen;  you  can  train  heroic  sailors,  nurses,  guardians  of  the 
public  weal;  all  this  is  natural  and  within  your  sphere.  But  you  can  not 
make  man  or  woman  love  God  above  all  things;  you  can  not  give  the 
strength  to  resist  grave  temptations;  you  can  not  supply  adequate  motives 
for  abnegation  and  humility;  you  can  not  enable  weak  fiesh  to  live  for  the 
unseen  and  the  spiritual;  you  can  not  point  to  a  host  of  weak  men  and 
women,  boys  and  girls  of  every  age  and  nation,  practicing  the  virtues  of 
faith,  hope,  and  charity  in  an  heroic  degree.  “  By  their  fruits  you  shall 
know  them.” 

It  is  in  her  clear  grasp  of  the  supernatural  system  of  divine  grace,  her 
insistence  on  its  superlative  excellence,  her  ample  supply  of  effectual 
means  to  make  real  and  delightful  a  spiritual  existence,  her  close  contact 
with  her  chief  and  our  model,  her  successful  union  of  the  subjective  and 
objective  elements  of  conduct,  her  claim  of  infallibility,  her  ample  arsenal 
of  varied  spiritual  appliances,  her  intimate  knowledge  of  human  weakness 
and  cheery  assurance  of  her  strength  to  work  with  weakest  instruments; 
her  adaptability,  versatility,  ingenious  search  for  all  that  is  good  even  in 
fallen  nature;  her  forbearance,  patience,  long-suffering,  kindliness,  com¬ 
bined  with  rigid  guard  over  the  sanctity  of  the  altar  and  the  confessional; 
the  influence  she  has  wielded  on  the  legislation  of  the  nations  in  all  matters 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


\)U 

that  concevn  man’s,  sacred  rights  of  liberty,  property,  marriage,  educa¬ 
tion;  her  ample  charity  for  rich  and  poor  alike;  the  fact  that  opposite 
objections  are  urged  against  her  at  the  same  time;  her  power  to  saturate 
the  individual  soul  with  a  thousand  divine  influences;  her  close  study  of 
the  heart  of  God,  the  literal  acceptance  of  His  teachings  and  commands; 
her  power  to  weave  round  tha  restless  heart  of  man  a  thousand  golden 
cords  of  divine  love,  her  regard  for  little  children,  and  exaltation  of  the 
weaker  sex;  her  success  in  failure  and  her  triumphant  attitude  in  defeat; 
in  a  word  her  reproduction  of  the  perfections  of  Christ,  that  we  recognize 
in  the  Catholic  Church  the  true  guide  to  holiness  of  life.  It  is  because  we 
find  in  her  a  heaven  on  earth  that  we  believe  her  to  be  the  vestibule  of  our 
heavenly  home;  because  she  gives  us  the  Son,  that  we  feel  assured  she  will 
enable  us  to  see  the  Father  also. 

Union  with  God  through  Christ  is  our  supernatural  destiny.  To 
see  in  all  created  objects  the  handiwork  of  a  loving  Father,  in  our  fellow- 
men  brothers  in  Christ,  in  the  church  the  spouse  of  the  spirit  of  God,  this 
is  to  begin  “  to  put  on  Christ.”  To  unite  mind  and  will  with  the  mind  and 
will  of  the  God-Man  in  seeking  constantly  the  kingdom  of  God,  this  is  the 
beginning  of  “  the  imitation  of  Christ;  ”  to  find  in  His  face  the  ideal  tyjje  of 
beauty  and  in  His  heart  the  focus  of  all  moral  perfection,  the  supreme 
object  of  delightful  contemplation,  this  is  to  “  see  Christ.”  The  patient 
endeavor  to  fathom  the  depths  of  that  beautiful  nature  and  to  copy  in  a  faint 
way  some  of  the  virtues  of  that  heart,  as  manifested  in  the  life,  words,  and 
acts  of  our  Lord,  is  the  main  duty  of  the  Christian  life.  To  stand  at  dawn 
upon  the  shores'of  Galilee,  watching  for  His  footfall,  to  rest  at  noon  beside 
the  well  of  Jacob,  to  linger  at  evening  on  the  porch  of  Lazarus,  to  drag  the 
net  by  night  with  Peter,  to  moan  over  our  infirmities  under  the  arches  of 
Bethesda,  waiting  for  the  moving  of  the  waters,  from  every  recorded  word  of 
His  to  draw  the  honey  of  personal  intercourse  with  our  dearest  friend,  this 
is  to  taste  something  of  heaven’s  sweetness  here  below.  Going  still  deeper 
into  the  mystery  of  His  life,  lingering  in  the  cave  of  Bethlehem,  journeying 
into  the  depths  of  Egypt,  toiling  across  the  desert  sands,  obeying  Joseph 
in  the  commonplace  pursuits  of  the  carpenter-shop,  finally  standing  at  the 
foot  of  the  cross.  If  we  have  not  the  courage  to  be  crucified  we  begin  to 
realize  in  ourselves  the  fruit  of  entire  self-abnegation  and  self-immolation 
in  imitation  of  that  of  our  chieftain  and  our  God.  This  heroic  self-sacrifice 
which,  stripping  man  of  all  things  created,  nails  him  with  Christ  upon  the 
cross,  clad  only  in  a  robe  of  loving  humility,  deaf  to  the  strife  of  passions 
in  the  crowd  below,  constitutes  the  creature’s  true  crown  of  glory,  the  sum 
of  holiness,  and  the  acme  of  perfection. 

Other  addresses  on  kindred  subjects  were  delivered  by 
Most  Rev.  P.  L.  Chapelle,  Archbishop  of  Santa  Fd,  Most  Rev. 
John  Ireland,  Archbishop  of  St.  Paul,  and  Archbishop  Red¬ 
wood  of  New  Zealand. 

After  the  adjournment  an  inquiry  room  was  established  by 
the  Catholics,  where  Bishop  Keane,  Mgr.  Seton,  and  other 
prominent  priests  answered  questions  in  regard  to  doctrine  and 
faith  as  held  by  the  Catholic  Church. 


UNIVERSALIST  CONGRESS. 


915 


UNIVERSALIST  CONGRESS. 

The  Congress  of  the  Universalists  began  on  Monday,  Sep¬ 
tember  11th,  and  continued  until  Friday,  September  15th. 
Dr.  A.  J.  Canfield  was  the  presiding  officer,  and  the  initiatory 
exercises  included  an  eloquent  address  by  Rev.  Dr.  Augusta 
Chapin,  and  responses  from  prominent  people  in  connection 
with  this  denomination.  The  deepest  interest  was  taken  in  the 
sessions.  On  the  second  day  Rev.  Dr.  John  Coleman  Adams 
of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  spoke  on  “  Universal  Holiness  and  Happi¬ 
ness,  the  Final  Result  of  God’s  Government.”  He  held  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  Church  is  that  the  victory  of 
the  good  must  mean  nothing  less  than  the  complete  destruction 
of  the  evil  and  sin  that  exhibit  themselves  in  character.  The 
divine  fatheihood  demands  a  doctrine  of  human  destiny  which 
sees  a  human  race  developing  toward  peace  and  harmony,  and 
looking  toward  a  great  day  of  reconciliation  unclouded  by  the 
rebellion  of  a  single  human  being.  To  state  and  defend  this 
doctrine  is  the  mission  of  the  Universalist  Church. 

Another  interesting  paper  submitted  during  the  congress 
was  by  Rev.  Chas.  H.  Eaton  of  New  York  City  on  “  Christ 
and  the  Nature  of  Salvation.”  Mr.  Eaton  held  that  the 
modern  conception  of  salvation  does  not  emphasize  locality  but 
character;  that  hell  is  a  spiritual  and  personal  fact,  but  it  has 
no  objective  existence.  .According  to  his  doctrine,  heaven  is  a 
state  rather  than  a  locality;  soul  is  organized  for  truth  and 
love,  and  this  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  salvation.  One  of 
the  best  days  for  humanity,  said  he,  was  when  Eve  plucked 
and  ate  the  apple  from  the  tree  of  knowledge,  for  that  act 
maihed  the  beginning  of  virtue,  and  virtue  was  certainly  better 

than  innocence.  In  a  verv  true  sense  the  fall  of  Adam  was  a 

«/ 

fall  upward.  It  was  a  birthday  of  civilization.  The  Uni¬ 
versalist  emphatically  denies  the  total  depravity  of  the  soul. 
Humanity  may  be  in  ruins,  but  the  ruins  are  noble  and  still 
retain  the  lines  of  strength  and  beauty,  and  the  possibility  of 
reconstruction.  The  humblest  and  most  exalted  have  dis¬ 
covered  that  in  Christ  they  find  the  necessary  guidance  for 


916 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


inspiration.  For  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men,  the  Son  of 
God  and  the  Son  of  Man  has  undoubted  sympathy.  Now,  as 
in  ancient  times,  he  is  moved  by  an  irresistible  impulse  to 
teach  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  to  the  poor,  to  heal  the  broken¬ 
hearted,  to  bring  deliverance  to  the  captive  and  recovery  of 
sight  to  the  blind.  This  love  of  Christ  floods  the  soul.  It  is 
confined  to  no  favored  people.  It  seeks  the  worshiper  at  the 
altar  of  Buddha,  as  well  as  the  one  who  bows  before  the  throne 
of  Jehovah.  It  expresses  itself  in  the  lofty  hymn  of  the 
Vedas.  It  wings  with  love  the  maxims  of  Confucius.  It  burns 
in  the  high  places  of  Schiraz  and  Mecca,  and  adds  fire  to  the 
moralities  of  Solomon  and  Aurelius.  Salvation  in  the  Uni- 
versalist  view  is  character  based  upon  the  eternal  principles  of 
right.  Penitence  is  its  perfection,  its  goal.  It  can  be  alone 
realized  when  it  is  universal.  In  the  far-off  but  coming  time 
the  divine  love  will  touch  into  light  and  love  every  created 
being. 

Other  addresses  dealing  with  almost  every  form  of  Christian 
ethics,  from  the  problem  of  natural  evil  and  sin  to  the  attitude 
of  science  toward  religion,  as  well  as  the  presentation  of  uni- 
versalism  as  a  doctrine  of  the  scriptures  and  its  contribution  to 
the  faith  of  the  world,  were  delivered  at  the  various  sessions. 
The  leading  speakers  were:  Rev.  Dr.  Everett  Levi  Rexford, 
Boston,  Mass.;  Pres.  Elmer  H.  Capen,  D.  D.,  Massachusetts; 
Rev.  Dr.  J.  Smith  Dodge,  Stamford,  Conn.;  Rev.  Dr.  Edwin  C. 
Sweetser,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  Rev.  Edgar  Leavitt,  Santa  Cruz, 
Cal. ;  Rev.  Dr.  George  H.  Emerson,  Boston,  Mass. ;  Rev.  Mas- 
sena  Goodrich,  Pawtucket,  R.  I.;  Rev.  Dr.  Charles  Fluhrer, 
Grand  Rapids,  Mich.;  Pres.  Isaac  M.  Atwood,  D.  D.,  Canton, 
N.  Y.;  Rev.  Dr.  Henry  Blanchford,  Portland,  Maine;  Rev. 
Olympia  Brown  Willis,  Racine,  Wis.;  Rev.  A.  N.  Alcott, 
Elgin,  Ill.;  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  J.  Sawyer,  College  Hill,  Mass.; 
Rev.  N.  White,  Ph.  D.,  Galesburg,  Ill.;  Rev.  Dr.  George  L. 
Peril!,  Tokio,  Japan;  Mrs.  M.  R.  M.  Wallace,  Chicago,  Ill.; 
Mrs.  Cordelia  A.  Quinby,  Augusta,  Maine;  Lee  E.  Joslyn,  Bay 
City,  Mich.;  Rev.  Dr.  Alonzo  Ames  Miner,  LL.D.,  Boston, 


CONGRESS  OF  DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


Mass.;  Rev.  Dr.  John  Wesley  Hanson>  Chicago;  Rev.  Dr. 
Stephen  Crane,  Earlville,  Ill.;  Rev.  Dr.  Edward  C.  Bolles,  New 
York  City;  Rev.  Dr.  C.  Ellwood  Nash,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. ;  Rev. 
Di’.  James  M.  Pullman,  Lynn,  Mass. 


CONGRESS  OF  DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 

An  interesting  congress  of  this  denomination  began  on 
Wednesday,  September  13th,  and  continued  until  Thursday  eve¬ 
ning.  The  presiding  officer  was  T.  P.  Haley  of  Kansas  City. 
Some  excitement  was  caused  by  an  address  of  Regent  H.  W. 
Everest  of  Carbondale,  Ill.,  on  “The  Church  of  Christ  in  the 
First  Century.”  Mr.  Everest  remarked  that  the  1st  Christian 
century  was  the  culmination  of  all  that  had  gone  before  in  the 
history  of  redemption.  The  miraculous  presence  and  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  were  peculiar  to  the  apostolic  age,  and  it  is 
beyond  controversy  that  no  miraculous  endowments  are  now  in 
possession  of  the  church.  He  claimed  that  episcopacy  and 
papacy  are  unsupported  pretensions,  and  that  councils,  whether 
ecumenical  or  otherwise,  and  assemblies,  whether  general  or 
provincial,  are  without  legislative  authority.  “  Every  man,”  said 
he,  “has  free  access  to  the  word  of  God  and  every  man  must 
interpret  the  word  for  himself.  Every  institution  of  the 
church  has  been  changed  and  marred  by  unholy  hands.  All 
the  streams  of  religious  teachings  have  been  polluted  by  theo¬ 
logical  speculations  and  priestly  abuses.  All  the  officers  and 
organizations  of  the  church  have  been  prostituted  to  worldly 
gain.  Could  we  but  reproduce  the  church  of  the  1st  century 
in  its  spirit  and  power  with  our  millions  of  money  and  millions 
of  men,  and  with  our  peaceable  access  to  all  tribes  and  nations 
of  the  earth,  all  the  kingdoms  of  tnis  world  would  soon 
become  the  one  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ.” 

S.  B.  Power  of  Washington  spoke  on  “  Christian  Union,” 
and  the  “  Church  of  the  Future”  was  described,  by  Rev.  W.  T. 
Moore  as  being  undoubtedly  Episcopalian  because  it  would  be 
governed  by  bishops  or  overseers,  Presbyterian  because  it 


{)18 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


would  be  governed  by  presbyters  or  elders,  and  Congregational 
because  the  whole  assembly  would  be  the  final  source  of  appeal 
with  respect  to  all  matters  of  governmental  authority. 

During  the  rest  of  the  congresses  the  presiding  officers  were: 
VV.  F.  Black,  Pastor  of  the  Central  Church  of  Christ,  Chicago; 
lion.  T.  W.  Phillips  of  Pennsylvania;  J.  C.  Keith,  President 
of  Irvington  College,  California,  and  W.  B.  Craig  of  Den¬ 
ver,  Colo.  Prepared  papers  were  read  as  follows:  “The 
Higher  Criticism,”  by  A.  Proctor  of  Independence,  Mo.; 
“  Biblical  Anthropology,”  by  J.  H.  Garrison,  St.  Louis,  Mo.; 
“  Christian!^  the  Only  Solution  of  the  Problems  of  the  Age,” 
by  B.  J.  Radford,  LL.D.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  “The  Creed  That 
Needs  no  Revision,”  by  E.  V.  Zollars,  President  Hiram  College, 
Ohio;  “  The  Promise  of  Christian  Union  in  the  Signs  of  the 
Times,”  by  B.  B.  Tyler  of  New  York  City. 

An  interesting  paper  was  read  by  Hon.  W.  D.  Owen  of 
Washington,  D.  C.  It  sets  forth  that  religion  is  a  necessity  of 
the  times.  ‘  “  One  of  the  charges  made  against  Socrates,” 
said  Mr.  Owen,  “  was  that  he  corrupted  the  Athenian  youth 
by  teaching  them  disrespect  for  the  gods.”  Continuing,  Mr. 
Owen  said: 

But  he  did  not  teach  them  a  disrespect  for  virtue  or  truth  or  religion, 
and  he  was  the  greatest  blessing  Athens  ever  had,  till  Paul  got  to  Mars 
Hill  to  tell  the  best  of  them  that  they  were  too  suxjerstitious.  Athens  was 
not  suffering  from  infidelity  but  from  too  much  religion.  Superstition  is 
religion  gone  mad,  and  Paul  believed  Christianity  could  give  to  this  throne 
of  the  intellectual  world  a  philosophy  and  a  faith,  and  hence  a  salvation  it 
had  never  apprehended.  Athens  was  the  best  that  was  ever  left  over  from 
the  era  of  the  wise  men.  He  continued: 

Man  does  not  appear  to  be  satisfied  in  an  associated  community  these 
days  without  a  dispenser  of  religious  rights.  Even  Hume,  the  infidel,  said: 
“  Look  out  for  a  people  entirely  void  of  religion,  and  if  you  find  them  at  all 
be  assured  they  are  but  a  few  degrees  removed  from  the  brutes.'’  Many 
people  crowd  to  hear  Ingersoll  read  ribald,  blasphemous  jests,  but  he 
uttered  the  pain  in  his  heart  and  the  real  sentiments  of  the  masses,  when  a 
friend,  pointing  to  his  infidel  library,  asked  him  what  it  cost,  and  he  said : 
“The governorship  of  Illinois.”  No  well-known  infidel  can  be  elected  Pres¬ 
ident  of  the  United  States.  The  foundation  upon  which  humanity  stand's 
is  revealed  in  every  nation  by  the  relations  between  church  and  state. 
Even  in  America,  where  there  is  no  legislative  union  of  church  and  state, 
the  weakness  of  the  state  is  sustained  by  an  unwritten  alliance  with  the 
church.  What  made  New  England  great  and  enabled  her  to  dominate  for 
100  years  the  literature,  politics,  and  policies  of  America  was  not  wealth, 
nor  soil,  ncr  seaboard,  lor  had  not  Virginia  and  Carolina  those  in  a  surpris 
ing  .icgree? 


T.  W.  PALMER, 
President  World’s  Columbian 


Commission 


/ 


T"  r  j  ?r 

I  ..  V  f  ■  ■  J-,  J 

jl  *  ‘  f;  i” 


‘i- .  • 


NEW  JERUSALEM  CHURCH  CONGRESS.  919 

It  was  because  the  church  influenced  the  character  of  tae  people,  pre¬ 
served  their  virtue,  modified  their  laws,  elevated  their  literature,  and  gave 
direction  to  the  current  of  their  thought.  And  while  we  sometimes  flout 
at  Plymouth  Rock  and  Puritanical  ideas,  the  Puritanism  of  New  England  is 
the  seed  from  which  the  Republic  sprang,  and  is  the  glory  of  the  nation. 
The  primary  influence  of  the  Bible  is  its  fund  of  historical  fact.  It  holds  a 
scepter  over  all  other  books,  because  of  the  breadth  of  its  information. 
Across  the  waste  of  forgotten  centuries  it  comes  to  us  bearing  the  burden 
of  a  great  history,  with  all  its  pages  signed  by  the  hand  of  God.  This  book 
begins  in  the  darkness  of  the  world’s  morning  before  the  day  has  begun  to 
dawn  and  moves  with  the  ever-widening  stream  of  human  existence  for 
forty  centuries  down  to  the  cross. 


NEW  JERUSALEM  CHURCH  CONGRESS. 

This  congress  began  on  Wednesday,  September  13th,  and 
continued  until  Saturday,  September  16th.  The  subjects  dis¬ 
cussed  covered  a  wide  range,  including  a  review  of  the  position 
and  prospects  of  the  church  in  various  parts  of  the  United 
States,  Europe,  Africa,  Australasia,  and  India.  The  speakers 
were:  Rev.  Frank  Sewell,  A.  M.,  Washington;  Rev.  G.  N. 
Smith,  Michigan;  Rev.  James  Reed,  Massachusetts;  Rev.  L.  H. 
Tafel,  A.  M.,  Ohio;  Rev.  Thomas  A.  King,  Illinois;  Rev.  John 
Goddard,  Ohio;  Rev.  John  Presland,  London,  England;  Rev. 
S.  S.  Seward,  New  York;  Rev.  John  Worcester,  Massachusetts; 
Rev.  Adolph  Roeder,  New  Jersey;  Rev.  C.  J.  N.  Manby,  Got- 
tenburg,  Sweden;  James  Speirs,  England;  Rev.  Fedor  Gor- 
witz,  Switzerland;  Rev.  W.  H.  Hinkley,  Massachusetts;  Rev. 
J.  J.  Thornton;  Rev.  G.  L.  Allbutt,  Canada;  Rev.  A.  F.  Frost, 
Michigan;  Rev.  J.  K.  Smith,  Massachusetts;  Rev.  J.  C.  Ager, 
New  York;  Rev.  Thomas  Child,  England;  Rev.  S.  C.  Eby, 
Illinois;  Rev.  P.  B.  Cabell,  Delaware;  Rev.  T.  F.  Wright, 
Ph.  D.,  Massachusetts;  Signor  Loreto  Scocia,  Italy;  Rev.  C. 
H.  Mann,  New  York;  Miss  Angeline  Brooks,  New  York;  Mrs. 
J.  R.  Hibbard,  Philadelphia;  Miss  Rowe,  London,  England; 
Miss  Mary  L.  Barton,  Washington,  D.  C.;  Mrs.  S.  S.  Seward, 
New  York;  Mrs.  A.  H.  Putnam;  Mrs.  T.  F.  Houts,  Indiana; 
Miss  Selma  Paine,  Maine;  Miss  Edna  C.  Silver,  Massachusetts; 
Miss  Mary  A.  Lathbury,  New  York;  Rev.  J.  K.  Smyth, 
Massachusetts. 


020 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Rev.  L.  P.  Mercer,  who  was  the  chairman  of  the  initial 
meeting,  replied  to  an  address  of  welcome  by  C.  C.  Bonney, 
and  set  forth  the  attitude  of  this  cliurch  as  follows:  “  There 
are  abundant  reasons  why  the  New  Church  should  enter  cor¬ 
dially  and  actively  into  preparations  for  a  world’s  congress  of 
religions.  The  youngest  of  the  historic  faiths,  it  reaches  back 
to  embrace  the  oldest  and  to  complete  and  crown  them  all  with 
the  final  revelation  which  restored  their  pristine  wisdom  and 
divine  sanctions.  The  Lord  always  makes  use  of  men  as  His 
instruments  on  earth  for  the  revelation  of  His  truth  to  man¬ 
kind.  The  whole  course  of  His  providence  in  this  respect  has 
been  to  reveal,  through  suitable  men,  the  truth  needed  for  the 
institution  of  a  new  era  of  the  church.  And  we  believe  that, 
even  as  Christ  promised  to  come  again  to  men.  He  has  accom¬ 
plished  His  second  advent  in  the  opening  of  the  spiritual  sense 
and  divine  meaning  of  the  wu’itten  word  through  the  human 
instrumentality  of  Emanuel  Swedenborg.  The  New  Church, 
therefore,  stands  for  a  new  revelation  from  the  Lord,  not  in  the 
new  sacred  scripture,  but  in  the  opening  of  the  spiritual  sense 
and  genuine  meaning  of  the  word  given  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  The  New  Church  is  as  wide  as  human  need  and 
as  universal  and  impartial  as  divine  love.  It  transcends  sect 
and  nation,  and  extends  by  invisible  chains  of  influx  from 
society  to  society,  binding  all  who  love  the  Lord  and  work 
righteousness  into  one  grand  man,  of  which  the  divine  man  is 
the  transforming  soul.” 

ReVo  J.  K.  Smyth  of  Roxbury,  Mass.,  spoke  ably  on  “The 
Mission  of  the  New  Church  to  the  Christian  World.”  This 
mission,  he  said,  was  to  bear  unanimous  and  unfaltering  witness 
to  the  divine  character  of  the  written  word  and  of  Jesus  Christ, 
in  whom  its  revelations  are  forever  embodied  and  verified. 

Speaking  on  “  The  New  Church  Doctrine  of  Salvation  as  a 
Basis  of  Universal  Faith,”  Rev.  S.  S.  Seward  of  New  York 
explained  the  position  of  the  church  as  follows:  “Redemption 
is  one  thing,  salvation  is  another.  Redemption  is  the  divine 
work  wrought  in  the  world  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whereby 


SEVENTH-DAY  BAPTIST  CONGRESS. 


921 


He  delivered  men  from  the  infestation  and  dominion  of  hell  and 
made  them  free  to  choose  good  or  evil,  a  freedom  which  is 
essential  to  salvation.  This  was  done  without  man’s  knowledge 
or  consent.  Salvation  is  a  divine  work  operated  in  the 
soul  by  the  Lord  with  the  co-operation  of  man.  It  is  an 
actual,  and  not  merely  a  legal,  salvation.  It  is  the  deliverance 
of  man,  not  merely  from  the  penalty  of  sin  but  from  the  sin 
itself  and  from  its  power.  It  is  a  present,  and  not  merely  a 
future,  salvation.  It  will  not  so  change  man’s  being  as  to 
render  him  incapable  of  thinking  or  committing  sin,  but  it 
endows  him  with  power  under  God  to  resist  it  and  gradually  by 
orderly  processes  to  rise  above  and  overcome  them.  Its  effect 
is  not  only  to  save  men  from  the  outer  and  grosser  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  evil  but  from  the  secret  and  impure  lusts  and  desires 
from  which  they  spring.  The  way  of  salvation  is  to  look  to  the 
Lord  and  shun  evil  as  sin.” 


SEVENTH-DAY  BAPTIST  CONGRESS. 

The  Seventh-Day  Baptist  Congress  was  held  the  16th  and 
17th  of  September.  Their  radical  views  upon  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  attracted  unusual  attention,  for  they  are  so  nearly  in 
unison  with  the  Baptist  denomination  on  all  other  points  that 
there  could  be  no  excuse  for  their  remaining  a  separate  people, 
save  only  that  they  hold  to  the  original  Sabbath,  the  seventh  or 
last  day  of  the  week,  instead  of  Sunday,  the  first  day.  This 
view  is  set  forth  by  Dr.  A.  H.  Lewis,  editor  of  Evangel  and 
Sahbath  Outlooh,  as  follows: 

We  are  Seventh-Day  Baptists:  Because  we  believe  that  the  Bible 
is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  for  Christians.  Because  we  believe 
that  the  laws  contained  in  the  Decalogue  are  universal  as  to  applica¬ 
tion,  and  eternal  as  to  obligation,  although,  like  all  the  Bible,  they  were 
given  to  the  world  through  the  Hebrew  nation.  We  believe  that  Christ 
“fulfilled,”  enlarged,  and  pruned  these  laws,  thus  Christianizing  them.  His 
precepts  and  example  did  this  for  the  Sabbath  and  the  Fourth  Command¬ 
ment.  He  took  them  out  of  their  Jewish  setting,  fitted  them  for  the  new 
dispensation,  and  declared  that  the  Sabbath,  thus  enlarged  and  Christian¬ 
ized,  “  was  made  for  man.”  We  do  not  believe  that  any  man  has  the  power 
or  liberty  to  abrogate  or  disregard  what  Christ  thus  established;  and  we 
know  that  Paul,  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  held  this  view  when  he 
said:  “  Do  we,  then,  make  the  law  of  none  effect  through  faith?  God  for¬ 
bid!  nay,  we  establish  the  law.”  (Rom.  iii.,  31.)  We  believe  as  Christ  and 
Paul  both  teach,  that  there  can  be  no  sin  where  there  is  no  law,  and  hence 


922 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


that  the  gospel  of  salvation  from  sin  through  Christ  is  a  mockery,  unless 
the  Decalogue  remains  in  force  for  all  times  and  for  all  people.  Our  faith 
is  made  doubly  “  evangelical  ”  by  such  a  conception  of  the  universal  reg- 
nancy  of  law,  and  we  escape  the  ruin  which  “  No  Lawism  ”  always  brings, 
however  its  advocates  may  attempt  to  patch  up  its  incompleteness  by 
compromises. 

We  reject  the  claims  of  Sunday,  because  they  do  not  rest  upon  the 
Word  of  God,  and  because  no  amount  of  obligation  to  regard  Sunday,  if  it 
existed,  could  remove  the  obligation  to  obey  God  and  follow  the  example 
of  Christ  in  keeping  the  Sabbath.  The  first  day  of  the  week  is  mentioned 
in  the  Bible  but  eight  times,  and  five  of  these  references  are  to  one  and 
the  same  day — the  day  on  which  Christ’s  resurrection  was  made  known  to 
His  disciples.  The  Bible  does  not  state  that  Christ  rose  from  the  grave  on 
Sunday.  It  never  connects  the  observance  of  any  day  with  His  resurrec¬ 
tion.  It  never  draws  any  comparison  between  the  “  work  of  creation  and 
the  work  of  redemption”  nor  attempts  the  impossible  task  of  saying  which 
of  two  infinite  works  is  “  the  greater.”  All  these  assumptions  have  been 
made  by  men,  to  support  a  practice  which  has  no  foundation  in  the  New 
Testament  nor  in  the  example  of  Christ.  With  these  and  many  similar 
facts  before  us,  as  “Bible  Christians”  we  are  compelled  to  reject  the  claims 
of  Sunday. 

The  earliest  period  of  the  history  of  Seventh-Day  Baptists  is  contempo¬ 
raneous  with  Christianity.  No  well-informed  man  denies  that  Christ,  His 
apostles,  and  the  earliest  Christians  kept  the  Sabbath.  There  is  no  definite 
trace  of  regard  for  Sunday,  on  the  part  of  Christians,  in  post  New  Testa¬ 
ment  times,  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  2d  century,  when  it  came  in 
as  a  part  of  the  paganizing  influence  of  that  and  subsequent  centuries. 
Historians  all  agree  that  the  Sabbath  continued  and  was  observed  after 
the  Sunday  began  to  be  regarded,  down  to  the  4th  or  5th  century. 

After  Christianity  was  made  the  religion  of  the  Roman  Empire,  in  the 
4th  century,  and  Sunday  legislation  began  under  Constantine,  Sabbath¬ 
keeping  and  all  else,  doctrinal  and  practical,  which  was  not  in  accord  with 
the  prevailing  Greek  philosophies  and  the  Roman  state-church  theories, 
rapidly  disappeared.  The  antecedent  influences  which  culminated  in  the 
organization  of  the  Seventh- Day  Baptists  began  at  that  time.  Many  Chris¬ 
tians  then  dissented  from  the  popular  errors  which  gave  birth  to  the  papal 
power.  For  several  centuries  these  dissenters  were  numerous  and  active 
in  the  mountains  between  Italy  and  Prance,  and,  broken  as  their  history 
is,  and  bloody  with  persecution,  we  know  that  many  of  them  were  Sabbath¬ 
keeping  Baptists.  When  the  light  of  the  Reformation  began  to  dawn, 
scattered  Seventh-Day  Baptists  appeared  on  the  continent  of  Europe, 
especially  in  Bohemia  and  Transylvania.  When  the  wave  of  reformation 
reached  England,  English-speaking  Seventh-Day  Baptists  became  a  promi¬ 
nent  and  influential  factor  in  the  entire  field  of  reform.  The  “  Puritan 
Sabbath  ”  theory  of  the  change  of  the  day,  and  the  transfer  of  the  Fourth 
Commandment  to  Sunday,  was  a  compromise  between  the  views  of  the 
Seventh-Day  Baptists  and  the  “ecclesiastical  theory”  held  by  the  Roman¬ 
ists  and  the  Church  of  England.  It  was  the  attempt  of  the  Puritans 
(Nicholas  Bound,  1595  A.  D.)  to  raise  a  flag  of  truce  between  the  Bible  and 
the  pagan  state-church  theories. 

The  Seventh-Day  Baptists  were  organized  in  America  (Newport,  R.  I., 
Philadelphia,  Pa.),  h^om  1671  A.  D.,  forward.  Their  mission  has  been  to 
preserve  and  exalt  the  doctrine  of  complete  obedience  to  the  Bible,  as 
against  the  semi-biblical  and  semi-traditional  theories  which  Protestants 
inherited  from  the  Romish  Church,  and  which  have  remained  peculiarly 
strong,  so  far  as  Sunday  observance  is  concerned.  The  rapid  and  ruinous 
reaction  toward  Sabbathlessness  in  the  United  States  and  in  Europe,  and 
the  collapse  of  the  “  civil  Sunday  ”  theories,  indicate  that  th  e  “  hearing, 


beventh-day  baptist  congress. 


923 


which  the  Seventh-Day  Baptists  have  so  long  demanded  for  God’s  Word 
and  His  Sabbath  is  near  at  hand,  and  that  the  real  seventh  day,  “  Satur¬ 
day,”  will  play  a  prominent  part  in  the  near  future  of  the  Sabbath 
question. 

The  opening  address  was  by  the  Chairman,  Prof.  William  A. 
Rogers,  Ph.  D.,  LL.D.  of  Waterville,  Maine,  whose  topic  was 

“The  Limitations  of  Christian  Fellowship.”  He  said  in  part: 

Diversity  of  opinion  is  so  common  in  the  world  it  must  be  the  result  in 
part  of  the  natural  organization  of  the  human  mind.  It  is  natural  for 
'  those  who  think  alike  in  religious  matters  to  organize  into  one  body.  It  is 
no  proscription  of  any  to  restrict  the  organization  to  those  of  like  faith,  yet 
Christian  comity  should  and  may  prevail  among  tliDse  of  different  yet  pos¬ 
itive  convictions.  The  proper  aim  of  a  religious  organization  is  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  gospel  to  our  daily  life. 
Seventh-Day  Baptists  can  do  more  good  in  the  world  by  remaining  a 
separate  organization  than  if  they  were  submerged  in  the  regular  Baptist 
denomination.  We  believe  there  are  excellent  Christians  in  all  evangelical 
denominations.  We  ought  not  to  make  the  mistake  of  believing  that  a 
strict  adherence  to  a  single  commandment  regardless  of  moral  conduct  will 
make  us  any  the  more  accepted  of  God  or  respected  of  men. 

Rev.  O.  U.  Wliitford,  D.  D.,  General  Secretary  of  the 
Seventli-Day  Baptist  Missionary  Society,  presented  a  “Review 
of  Our  Mission  Work”  at  their  missionary  session,  showing  that 
mission  work  has  engaged  the  attention  of  the  denomination 
through  all  their  history.  At  the  present  time  they  are  prose¬ 
cuting  the  home-work  in  about  twenty-five  different  States, 
enlarging  that  work  year  by  year.  The  Sabbath -reform  work 
of  the  American  Sabbath  Tract  Society  is  closely  associated 
with  home  missions,  and  new  fields  are  opened  by  that  work 
faster  than  the  missionary  society  can  fill  them.  The  foreign 
W’ork  at  Shanghai,  China,  was  begun  about  fifty  years  ago.  It 
is  now  in  a  very  flourishing  condition.  It  is  carried  on  under 
three  departments,  “general  evangelization,”  “educational,’’ 
and  “medical.”  The  first  includes  work  in  both  city  and 
country,  preaching,  Bible  reading,  tract  distribution,  etc,  the 
second  includes  both  day  schools  and  boarding  schools  for  boys 
and  for  girls;  the  third  includes  private  practice  and  extensive 
dispensary  and  hospital  departments.  The  “missionary  ses¬ 
sion,”  as  a  whole,  especially  the  various  details  given  in  Secre¬ 
tary  Whitford’s  paper,  impressed  the  listener  with  the  fact  that, 
according  to  their  numbers  and  through  a  history  of  more  than 
two  centuries  in  America,  the  Seventh-Day  Baptists  have  been 


924 


THE  EARLIAMEET  OE  RELIGIONS. 


and  now  are  among  the  foremost  in  the  work  of  evangelical 
missions. 

Rev.  L.  E.  Livermore,  editor  of  the  Sahhath  Recovder.^ 
Alfred  Centre,  N.  Y.,  presented  a  “  Review  of  t)iir  Tract  Work,” 
in  which  he  gave  a  history  of  the  publishing  interests  of  the 
Seventh -Day  Baptists.  This  showed  that  special  publications 
upon  the  Sabbath  question  were  issued  by  them  during  the 
latter  half  of  the  last  century,  and  that  definite  steps  toward 
permanent  publishing  interests  were  taken  as  early  as  1819. 
Their  publishing  house,  under  the  management  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Sabbath  Tract  Society,  is  located  at  Alfred  Centre,  N.  Y., 
from  which  various  periodicals  and  numerous  ‘‘tracts”  are 
issued.  These  deal  with  all  the  phases  of  denominational  work, 
with  the  “  Sabbath  question  ”  in  its  various  phases,  and  with 
evangelical  Christianity.  Mr.  Livermore  made  special  mention 
of  the  Sabbath  Outlook.^  formerly  a  quarterly  and  monthly, 
now  a  weekly — Evangel  and  Sabbath  Outlook — winch  has  pur¬ 
sued  the  work  of  original  investigation  concerning  the  history 
of  Saturday  and  Sunday  over  a  wide  field.  Many  readers  of  tliis 
book  will  recognize  this  paper,  which  has  reached  the  clergy¬ 
men  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  most  of  the  time  for  ten 
years  past.  Many  who  have  not  accepted  all  of  the  conclusions  of 
the  Seventh -Day  Baptists  bear  testimony  to  the  able  and  liberal 
manner  in  which  these  conclusions  have  been  set  forth. 

The  presentation  session  of  the  Seventh -Day  Baptists  was 
held  in  the  Hall  of  Washington  on  Sunday  morning,  September 
17th.  A  paper  by  W.  C.  Whitford,  D.  D.,  president  of  Milton 
College,  on  “The  Growth  of  Our  Churches  in  America,”  showed 
that  the  denomination  now  has  100  churches,  110  active  min¬ 
isters,  and  about  10,000  church  members,  and  that  it  has  had  a 

history  of  222  years  in  this  country.  He  said: 

Our  churches  do  not  lose  heart  in  the  prolonged  and  unequal  struggle 
of  Sabbath  reform.  We  are  persuaded  that  it  is  not  alone  our  cause,  but 
belongs  to  our  Master,  and  the  final  acceptance  of  His  revealed  truth  by 
His  followers  and  the  gainsaying  world.  We  believe  that  as  nature  in  any 
of  its  operations  seems  to  care  less  for  the  quantities  than  the  intensity  of 
the  forces  brought  into  requisition,  so  God  in  the  prosecution  of  this  Sab¬ 
bath  work  does  not  so  much  count  on  the  multitude  of  men  as  He  does  on 
the  quality  of  their  spirit  and  their  endeavors,  the  sincerity,  consecration, 


SEVENTH-DAY  BAPTIST  CONGRESS. 


925 


and  intelligent  service  of  those  who  gain  admission  into  His  presence  and 
desire  to  be  obedient  to  His  will. 

Edwin  H.  Lewis,  Ph.  D.,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  on 
“  Our  Work  for  Education,”  said: 

There  are  three  colleges  controlled  by  Seventh-Day  Baptists — Alfred  Uni¬ 
versity,  at  Alfred  Centre,  Allegany  Co.,  N.  Y.;  Milton  College,  at  Milton, 
Rock  Co.,  Wis.,  and  Salem  College,  at  Salem,  Harrison  <Co.,  W.  Va.  These 
institutions  are  notable,  (a)  for  the  enthusiasm  with  which  they  are  regarded 
by  students  of  other  denominations.  This  is  partly  due  to  the  tolerance  of 
Seventh-Day  Baptists,  who  have  not  made  the  Puritan  mistake  of  insisting 
on  their  own  rights  of  religious  liberty  while  calmly  disregarding  those  of 
others,  (b)  These  institutions  are  further  notable  for  the  number  of  their 
alumni  who  are  teachers,  'i  hese  are  to  be  found  in  colleges  of  the  rank  of 
Harvard,  Yale,  the  Johns  Hopkins,  Chicago,  Colby,  the  Universities  of 
Wisconsin,  Nebraska,  Kansas,  and  the  State  of  New  York  (Secretary  of  the 
Regents).  These  schools  have  produced  their  ratio  of  able  public  men,  who 
have  held  places  in  the  President’s  Cabinet  and  on  the  supreme  bench 
of  various  States.  These  colleges  have  placed  character  before  intellect; 
have  kept  “  men  thinking  ”  from  degenerating  into  pedants;  have  been  hot¬ 
beds  of  generous  emotion  and  noble  action ;  have  inspired  lasting  love  for 
the  intellectual  life  and  enthusiasm  for  mental  labor;  have  taken  early  part 
in  every  important  moral  reform;  have  always  admitted  women  on  equal 
terms  with  men.  The  influence  of  such  men  as  Kenyon,  Allen,  and  Whit- 
ford  upon  the  students  of  these  colleges  has  been  widespread,  lasting,  and 
in  the  highest  sense  potent  for  good. 

The  last  paper  was  by  the  Rev.  A.  H.  Lewis,  D.  D.,  of 
Plainfield,  N.  J.,  upon  ‘‘Our  Attitude  on  the  Sabbath  Ques¬ 
tion.”  He  said: 

The  closing  decade  of  this  century  marks  an  important  epoch  of  transi¬ 
tion  touching  the  Sabbath  question.  Two  prominent  streams  of  influence 
have  aided  in  hastening  the  epoch:  One,  the  widespread  advocacy  of  the 
claims  of  the  Sabbath  (Saturday),  as  against  the  claims  of  Sunday;  the 
other,  the  rapid  decline  of  regard  for  Sunday  and  the  inability  of  Sunday 
legislation— municipal,  state,  or  national — to  check  this  growing  disregard. 
We  oppose  the  whole  system  of  Sunday  legislation,  because  it  is  forbidden 
by  the  nature  and  purjjoses  of  Christ’s  kingdom,  as  enunciated  by  Him. 
It  had  no  existence  in  earlier  Christianity,  apostolic  or  sub-apostolic.  It 
was  the  product  of  pagan  influence.  The  first  Sunday  law,  321  A.  D.,  had 
not  the  slightest  trace  of  Christianity,  in  word  or  in  spirit.  It  was  issued 
by  the  emperor  as  high-priest  ex  officio  of  an  empire,  in  which  all  religious 
laws  and  ceremonies  were  state  regulations.  It  spoke  only  of  the  “  Vener¬ 
able  Day  of  the  Sun.”  It  was  in  all  respects  at  one  with  the  prevailing 
legislation  concerning  other  pagan  festivals. 

If  it  be  granted,  for  sake  of  illustration,  that  Sunday  is  sacred  under 
the  Fourth  Commandment  and  ought  to  be  kept  in  place  of  the  Sabbath, 
the  reasons  for  rejecting  Sunday  laws  are  much  intensified.  The  history 
of  Sunday  laws  proves  this,  without  exception.  The  civil  power  from  the 
time  of  Cromwell’s  Parliament  to  the  United  States  Congress  of  1892  has 
struggled  in  vain  to  save  the  failing  fortunes  of  this  Sunday  engendered  by 
Puritan  and  Roman  Catholic  compromise.  We  mourn  over  the  growing 
Sabbat hlessness  in  the  church  and  in  the  world.  We  deplore  the  errors 
which  have  produced  it  and  the  evils  which  attend  it.  But  we  can  not  shut 
our  eyes  to  the  fact  that,  in  attempting  to  avoid  the  claims  of  the  Sabbath, 
Christian  men  have  created  the  influences  which  have  so  nearly  destroyed 
Sunday.  When  the  church  compromises  with  the  law  of  God  until  it  is 


926 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


rendered  nugatory,  and  appeals  to  the  civil  law  to  support  its  errors,  such 
results  as  are  at  hand  can  not  be  avoided.  We  appeal  to  Christians  and 
ask  that  the  Sabbath  question  be  wholly  relegated  to  the  realm  of  religion 
and  conscience,  and  to  the  arbitrament  of  the  Bible.  Settle  it  in  God’s 
court,  not  Caesar’s. 


*  CONGRESS  OF  THEOSOPHISTS. 

A  very  large  congregation  assembled  in  Hall  7,  September 
14th,  to  assist  in  the  Congress  of  the  Theosophists.  The 
audience  included  Catholics,  Episcopalians,  Lutherans,  Con- 
gregationalists,  Methodists,  and  members  of  other  denomina¬ 
tions.  George  E.  Wright  of  Chicago  was  the  presiding 
officer. 

Prof.  G.  U.  Gyanendra  H.  Chakravarti  of  Allahabad,  India, 
delivered  a  learned  address  on  the  “  Theosophical  Doctrine 

of  Unity.”  In  the  course  of  his  exposition,  he  said: 

Theosophy  in  its  highest  aspects  is  transcendental  in  the  extreme.  It 
is,  in  fact,  unrepresentable  and  ineffable.  These  higher  aspects  are  to  be 
attained  only  by  long  series  of  discipline  and  contemplation  according  to 
the  scriptures  of  the  East.  Since  it  was  useless  to  attempt  any  exposition 
of  that  which  could  not  be  spoken,  the  attempt  of  modern  Theosophy  is 
to  bring  some  part  of  the  truth  to  the  plane  of  intellectual  demonstration, 
so  that  it  may  be  appreciated  by  the  mass  of  the  people.  If  it  does  noth¬ 
ing  better  than  to  teach  the  divine  truth  of  brotherhood,  it  will  be  the 
grandest  of  religions  and  entitled  to  the  reverence  of  the  whole  world.  Its 
doctrine  of  brotherhood  is  based  upon  scientific  demonstration,  and  is  the 
only  essential  doctrine  imposed  upon  those  who  accept  the  system.  Aside 
from  this.  Theosophy  aims  to  give  some  method  of  tearing  aside  the  deep 
veil  of  mystery  which  has  ever  surrounded  the  eternal  light  of  Deity.  In 
addition,  it  shows  the  fundamental  truth  of  all  the  religion  of  the  world. 
It  shows  also,  in  defense  of  its  doctrine  of  universal  brotherhood,  that  all 
creatures  sprung  from  the  same  source  and  are  destined  to  undergo  the 
same  processes  of  evolution  and  ultimately  to  return  to  the  same  sources 
from  which  they  came.  It  involves  everything  from  the  lowest  protoplasm 
to  the  highest  organism.  It  regards  all  animals  as  waiting  their  time  to 
reach  man’s  estate,  and  it  represents  each  as  a  candidate  for  those  higher 
and  diviner  states  of  existence  toward  which  man  is  tending,  but  which  he 
does  not  now  dream  of.  God  pervades  the  whole  universe,  and  dwells  in  all 
things,  and  all  things  are  one  with  God. 

H.  Dharmapala  of  Ceylon  spoke  of  Theosophy  as  the  under¬ 
lying  truth  of  all  the  world’s  scriptures,  and  Mrs.  Annie  Besant 
of  London  discussed  Theosophy  as  the  system  of  truths  dis¬ 
coverable  and  easily  verified  by  perfected  man.  These  truths, 
she  held,  are  preserved  in  their  purity  by  the  great  brotherhood 
of  initiates  and  the  masters  of  wisdom,  who  promulgate  them 
more  and  more  fully  as  the  evolution  of  man  permits.  She 


CONGRESS  OF  THEOSOPHISTS. 


927 


contended  that  Mahatmas  are  a  reasonable  product  in  the 
course  of  evolution,  but  intimated  that  those  who  do  not  wish  to 
believe  in  their  existences  might,  under  the  rules  of  the  society, 
freely  reject  the  theory. 

Miss  F.  Henrietta  Muller  of  London  read  a  paper  on  Theos¬ 
ophy  as  found  in  the  Hebrew  books  and  in  the  New  Testament. 
She  maintained  that  all  scriptures  are  true  at  the  bottom,  and 
that  all  the  saviors  of  the  world  were  Christs,  though  known 
by  different  names. 

At  one  of  the  meetings  William  Q.  Judge  of  New  York 
offered  an  apology  for  not  opening  the  exercises  with  prayer. 
He  said  Tlieosophists  believed  in  Christ’s  direction  to  pray  in 
secret,  and  consequently  did  not  address  the  throne  of  grace  in 
market-places  or  in  the  streets,  as  their  Christian  brothers  did 
and  as  the  ancient  Pharisees  used  to  do. 

Claude  F.  Wright,  in  speaking  of  the  organization,  auton¬ 
omy,  and  methods  of  the  Theosophical  Society,  condemned 
England  for  endeavoring  to  force  the  English  established 
religion  upon  India.  Owing  to  this  effort  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain,  the  Tlieosophists  of  India  have  espoused  the  cause  of 
the  Buddhists  and  succeeded  in  establishing  more  than  sixty 
Buddhist  schools  in  Ceylon. 

Dr.  Jerome  A.  Anderson  of  San  Francisco  spoke  of  the 
incarixation  of  the  law  of  nature,  holding  that  there  is  no  prob¬ 
lem  which  does  not  yield  before  the  doctrine  of  reincarnation 
and  the  law  of  Karma. 

“  Theosophy  and  Modern  Social  Problems  ”  was  ably  dis¬ 
cussed  by  Mrs.  Annie  Besant  of  London,  at  one  of  the  sessions, 
in  her  usual  clear-cut  and  forceful  style.  In  the  course  of  her 
remarks,  she  said: 

We  have  laws  enough,  a  mass  of  enactment,  which,  carried  out,  would 
make  the  frightful  poverty  of  to-day  impossible,  and  our  present  misery 
only  a  nightmare  of  the  past.  This  mass  of  law  is  the  outcome  of  the 
thought  of  a  few  enlightened  men,  which  originated  in  the  minds  of  a 
thoughtful  few,  and,  passing  through  the  astral  light,  became  embodied  in 
our  statutes  and  in  our  laws.  As  to  the  law  on  sweating,  there  are  enough 
enactments  to  make  it  impossible  if  they  were  carried  out,  but  the  law  is 
evaded,  and  sweating  goes  on  as  if  there  were  no  law.  Those  who  are 
oppressed  by  it  are  themselves  accomijlices  to  the  evasion.  Every  man  who 
is  willing  to  take  more  than  he  gives,  and  who  grasps  more  than  he 


928 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


deserves,  who  lives  on  his  neighbor  without  making  any  compensation,  who 
preys  with  his  strength  upon  the  weakness  of  others,  who  wears  clothing 
which  he  knows  has  cost  the  life-blood  of  thousands  of  poor  innocent 
women,  is  a  sweater  at  heart,  and  sets  up  causes  which  effectually  prevent 
the  operation  of  the  law.  Su'^h  is  the  effect  of  thought  upon  our  social 
condition.  It  is  valueless  to  denounce  the  sweater  when  a  man  in  his  heart 
desires  the  continuation  of  sweating.  We  should  give  up  selfish  competi¬ 
tion  in  the  schools.  We  should  abolish  competition  for  prizes  merely  for 
the  sake  of  gaining  the  advantage  of  another.  Such  competitions  distort 
the  dwelling  of  the  soul,  which  education  is  designed  to  expand.  It  makes 
a  child  rejoice  in  those  things  which  causes  another  to  stumble,  and  warps 
and  distorts  the  whole  spiritual  nature  of  the  child.  The  faculties  of  mind 
are  given  to  us  for  help  and  not  for  domination. 

All  the  sessions  of  this  congress,  which  continued  three  days, 
were  equally  interesting.  Every  phase  of  Theosophy  was  dis¬ 
cussed  and  the  position  combated  that  theosophy  is  hostile  to 
science.  Among  the  leading  persons  who  aided  in  the  delib¬ 
erations  were  Nasarvanji  Billmoria,  F.  T.  S.;  Dr.  J.  D.  Buck, 
Mrs.  Marcie  M.  Thirde  of  Chicago,  and  Mrs.  Isabel  Cooper- 
Oakley  of  London. 


UNITARIAN  CHURCH  CONGRESS. 

Every  phase  of  the  Unitarian  Church  movement  was  con¬ 
sidered  at  a  congress  which  began  September  16th  and  con¬ 
tinued  to  September  23d.  Each  session  drew  together  a  large 
and  responsive  audience,  and  the  various  addresses  were 
received  with  earnest  attention.  At  the  initial  session,  Bev. 
Theo.  Williams  of  New  York  discussed  the  representative  men 
of  the  Unitarian  movement.  The  Bev.  M.  St.  C.  Wright  of  New 
York  read  an  interesting  paper  on  the  “Theological  Method  of 
the  Movement”  and  Bev.  Anna  Garlin  Spencer  of  Providence, 
B.  I.,  grew  eloquent  upon  “  The  Church  of  the  Spirit.”  Other 
essayists  were  Bev.  Augustus  M.  Lord,  Bev.  F.  G.  Peabody  of 
Cambridge,  Mass.,  and  Bev.  Horatio  Stebbins  of  San  Francisco. 
S.  B.  Calthrop  of  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  spoke  on  “Problems  of  Evil.’’ 

Mrs.  Laura  Ormiston  Chant  of  England  was  called  upon 
for  an  address  and  spoke  in  her  customary  entertaining  and 

catholic  spirit.  She  said:  .  • 

There  are  three  steps  to  religion.  The  first  is  soap  and  water,  the 
second  is  plenty  to  eat  and  good  cooking,  and  the  third  stage  is  good  clothes. 
One  of  the  greatest  helps  toward  religion  is  smiles  and  laughter.  Let  all 


REV.  DR.  W.  F.  BLACK,  LL.  D 
Chairman  Foreign  Committee. 


Z'il 


0 


-  i 


!> 


\ 


» 


•  i* 


<£-•» 


.  ^ 


UNITARIAN  CHURCH  CONGRESS. 


929 


the  sunshine  come  into  our  lives  as  much  as  possible.  The  world  was  a 
very  pleasant  place  to  live  in  in  the  olden  days,  and  is  very  pleasant  even 
now,  if  we  keep  in  the  sunshine  as  much  as  possible  and  take  the  rain  good- 
naturedly.  We  should  not  sigh  for  the  days  that  are  gone  by.  There  is  no 
returning  over  the  path  of  life.  The  dark  bridge  that  spans  the  stream  of 
time  falls  down  with  every  step,  and  we  look  back  into  chaotic  darkness 
and  at  our  feet  lies  a  gulf  whose  bottom  we  can  not  see,  so  deep  is  it.  There 
is  no  turning  back — we  must  push  forward,  and  it  behooves  us  to  push  for¬ 
ward  bravely  and  merrily,  and  not  sit  by  the  roadside  sulking  and  longing 
for  opportunities  while  opportunities  are  slipping  by.  We  miss  a  great 
deal  of  the  happiness  of  to-day  by  dreaming  of  the  happiness  that  is  gone. 

Speaking  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions,  Mrs.  Chant  said 
that  it  has  marked  a  milestone  on  the  road  to  progress,  and  that 
in  the  years  that  are  to  come  the  people  of  the  next  generation 
will  look  back  upon  this  time  with  wonder,  and  it  shall  be 
remembered  as  the  settlement  of  all  the  differences  existing 
between  the  kindred  religions. 

At  a  subsequent  session  a  paper  was  read  by  Rev.  T.  R. 
Sheer  of  Buffalo  giving  the  history  of  Unitarianism,  “  Prom 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  the  Nicine  Creed.”  The  reverend 
gentleman  contended  that  the  thought  of  the  trinity  in  God 
was  unknown  until  near  the  beginning  of  the  3d  century.  He 
said: 

The  absolute  being  of  God  remained  untouched  through  the  growing 
centuries  by  the  growing  claims  of  Christ.  No  father  of  the  church,  for 
three  centuries  after  Christ,  lost  sight  of  the  subordination  of  Christ  to 
God,  or  claimed  Him  to  be  otherwise  than  a  representative  of  the  Father. 
The  rank  growth  of  dogma  began  in  the  3d  century.  The  Holy  Ghost  was 
not  given  a  place  as  the  Third  Person  of  God  until  the  8th  century.  The 
true,  original  Unitarians  were  the  Jews  of  the  1st  century,  but  those  now 
known  as  early  Unitarians  were  those  who  sought  to  revive  the  simple 
primitive  faith  in  the  unity  of  God  of  the  early  Christians. 

The  history  of  the  Liberal  Movement  in  Prance  was  briefly 
sketched  by  Professor  Bonet-Maury  of  Paris.  He  called  the 
roll  of  the  Prenchmen  whose  inborn  love  of  liberty  in  thought 
had  added  to  history  and  letters  much  of  value. 

Rev.  P.  W.  N.  Hugenholtz  reported  for  Unitarianism  in  the 
Netherlands.  He  said  there  is  by  name  no  such  thing  as  a 
Unitarian  Church  in  the  Netherlands,  but  there  exists  a  strong, 
healthy  movement  toward  the  breadth  of  modern  thought,  for 
which  the  Unitarian  Church  has  come  to  stand,  as  against 
dogmatic,  creed-bound  methods .  He  paid  a  grateful  tribute  to 
Keremen  and  other  teachers,  who  have  shown  how  much  nearer 


930 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


to  faith  is  honest  doubt  than  the  most  elaborate  confession  of 
faith. 

At  the  evening  session  Prof.  Carl  von  Bergen  of  Stockholm 
spoke  of  the  work  in  Scandinavia,  and  papers  were  read  cover¬ 
ing  the  history  of  American  Unitarianism  before  and  during 
the  transcendental  period,  written  respectively  by  Kevs.  J.  H. 
Allen  and  George  H.  Batchelor.  Kev.  John  0.  Learned  of  St. 
Louis  discussed  the  “  Post-Transcendental  Period  of  Unitari¬ 
anism.”  He  began  by  asserting  that  there  was  no  such  pe'^iod 

in  Unitarianism  history.  Continuing,  Mr.  Learned  said: 

The  impulse  given  by  Paulsen  and  Emerson  to  our  churches  has  been 
pushing  toward  some  such  culmination  as  this  Parliament  of  Religions,  a 
noble  sympathy  of  faith  and  fellowship,  though  it  will  be  a  long  time  before 
the  music  of  this  divine  classic  will  seem  sweet  to  ecclesiastical  ears. 
This  impetus  was  largely  heightened,  first  by  the  publication  of  several 
books  which  formed  an  epoch  in  theological  thought— Darwin’s  “  Origin 
of  Species,”  and  Renan’s  “  Life  of  Jesus,”  and  others — and  the  outcome  of 
the  war  for  abolition  of  slavery  brought  limitless  possibilities  of  material 
and  spiritual  advancement.  The  Unitarian  denomination  shared  in  the 
new  hopdl,  invoked  the  spirit  of  organization,  and  the  growth  in  breadth 
and  depth  goes  on  steadily  and  rapidly. 

Among  other  addresses,  the  following  were  notable.  On 
the  Theological  Emancipation  of  Women,”  by  Miss  Mary 
Cohen  of  Philadelphia;  Miss  Jane  Patterson  of  Boston;  Miss 
Marion  Murdock  of  Cleveland,  and  Miss  Edna  D.  Cheney  of 
Boston. 

The  congress  was  brought  to  a  close  with  addresses  by 
Rabbi  Hirsch  of  Chicago,  Rev.  Dr.  Canfield,  and  Nagarkar  of 
India,  all  of  whom  were  in  full  sympathy  with  the  work  under 
review 


ADVENT  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

Members  and  friends  of  this  church  met  in  congress  on  Sep¬ 
tember  14th,  in  one  of  the  small  halls.  Three  sessions  were  held. 
Rev.  D.  R.  Mansfield  delivered  an  eloquent  introductory  address, 
and  papers  were  read  by  the  following:  “  On  the  Basis  of  Faith,” 
by  Rev.  W.  Hobbs  of  Minneapolis;  “The  Kingdom  of  God,” 
by  Rev.  J.  W.  Davis,  Bridgeport,  Conn.;  “Immortality  Condi¬ 
tional,”  by  Rev.  Miles  Grant  of  Boston;  “The  Resurrection,’’ 
by  A.  W.  Sibley  of  Haverhill,  Mass.;  “The  Extinction  of 


UNITED  BRETHREN  CHURCH. 


931 


Evil,”  by  Eev.  William  Sheldon  of  Broadhead,  Wis.;  “Resti¬ 
tution,”  by  Mrs.  E.  S.  Mansfield  of  Chicago,  and  “  Proximity,” 
by  Rev.  A.  J.  Wheeler,  editor  Gliristian  Recorder,  Concord, 
N.  H.  A  feature  of  this  congress  was  the  excellent  musical  exer¬ 
cises  conducted  by  Rev.  H.  Pollard,  editor  of  Our  Hope,  Men- 
dota.  Ill.,  Prof.  A.  A.  Stoddard  officiating  at  the  organ 


UNITED  BRETHREN  CHURCH, 

This  congress  completed  its  labors  in  one  session,  September 
14th.  J.  Weaver,  D.  D.,  Senior  Bishop  of  the  Church,  pre¬ 
sided,  and  it  was  decided  to  present  the  following  subject  to  the 
Parliament  of  Religions:  “The  origin  of  the  United  Breth¬ 
ren  Church,”  by  Prof.  A.  W.  Drury;  “  Its  Polity;  ”  by  Prof. 
J.  S.  Mills,  D.  D.,  Ph.  D.;  “Its  Doctrine,”  by  Rev.  J.  W. 
Etter,  D.  D.;  “  Its  Educational  Work,”  by  Pres.^T.  J. 
Sanders,  Ph.  D.;  “Its  Missionary  Work,”  by  Rev.  Wm.  McKee ; 
“Its  Sabbath-School  Work,”  by  Pres.  J.  A.  Weller,  D.  D.; 
“  Its  Attitude  Toward  Questions  of  Moral  Reform,”  by  Rev. 
I  L.  Kephart,  D.  D. 


REFORMED  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

On  September  14th  there  was  a  large  attendance  in  Wash¬ 
ington  Hall  to  listen  to  the  presentation  of  the  Reformed  Epis¬ 
copal  Church.  Rt.  Rev.  Charles  Edward  Cheney  presided,  and 
papers  were  presented  as  follows:  “  The  Historical  Position  of 
the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,”  by  Mr.  Charles  D.  Kellogg 
of  New  York;  “  The  Distinctive  Principles  of  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church,”  by  Rev.  Benjamin  T.  Noakes,  D.  D.,  Cleve¬ 
land,  Ohio;  “  Minor  Problems  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church,”  by  Mrs.  Lucie  Brotherson  Tyng  of  Peoria,  Ill.; 
“The  Outlook  and  Opportunities  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church,”  by  Rt.  Rev.  Samuel  Fallows,  D.  D. 


932 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

A  presentation  of  this  church  took  place  on  Sunday,  Sep¬ 
tember  17th.  Three  sessions  were  held  in  the  Hall  of  Washing¬ 
ton,  each  meeting  being  largely  attended.  Hev.  Dr.  Withrow 

of  Chicago  presided.  In  his  opening  remarks  he  said: 

Presbyterians  do  not  have  to  sign  any  creed,  as  the  church  is  not  partic¬ 
ular  about  putting  its  members  through  queries  about  a  creed.  A  minister 
of  the  faith  might  even  go  out  of  the  way  so  far  as  to  indicate  that  he 
would  not  find  his  way  back  before  the  dogs  would  be  sent  after  him.  But 
if  the  church  took  action  in  such  a  case  the  action  would  be  positive  and 
emphatic. 

Professor  Zenus  of  McCormick’s  Theological  Seminary 

spoke  on  “Presbyterian  History.”  He  said: 

In  its  conception  and  in  its  growth  Presbyterianism  has  shown  great 
vigor.  It  has  required  but  two  conditions  for  its  successful  propagation. 
These  are  the  careful  study  of  the  scriptures  and  liberty  for  its  adherents 
to  organize  under  its  provisions  and  set  it  working.  It  has  flourished  even 
in  spite  of  the  absence  of  these  conditions.  It  was  from  the  first  a  plant  of 
vigorous  life,  evincing  its  vigor  and  at  the  same  time  increasing  it  by  the 
very  effort  to  overcome  the  power  of  unfavorable  conditions.  In  Switzer¬ 
land  its  career  has  been  one  of  uninterrupted  success.  In  France  its  course 
has  been  characterized  by  true  heroic  endurance  and  resistance,  which,  if 
not  crowned  with  success,  have  been  the  source  and  occasion  of  stimulated 
spiritual  life  elsewhere.  In  Holland  its  no  less  heroic  struggle  was  better 
rewarded,  and  the  reformed  church  of  that  country,  having  learned  from 
their  own  sufferings  to  sympathize  with  those  who  struggled  against 
oppression,  offered  their  land  as  an  asylum  of  refuge  to  the  brethren  of  our 
countries.  After  briefly  reviewing  the  early  history  of  Presbyterianism  in 
England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland  during  the  16th  and  17th  centuries. 
Professor  Zenus  told  of  its  transplantation  into  this  country  in  the 
colonial  days.  Its  local  centers  were  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
and  the  Carolinas.  The  young  church  was  for  years  affiliated  with  the 
mother  church  in  Holland,  Germany,  France,  Scotland,  and  England.  He 
claimed  that  the  Presbyterian  church  is  especially  adapted  to  American 
soil,  and  that  its  main  principles  are  the  same  as  those  of  the  American 
constitution.  Professor  Zenus  was  followed  by  Prof.  Timothy  Darling 
of  Auburn  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  who  rehearsed  some  of  the 
distinctive  doctrines  of  Presbyterianism. 

Rev.  W.  Shaft,  Jacksonville,  Ill.,  spoke  on  “  Presbyterianism 
and  Education.” 

In  the  early  church  the  alliance  between  education  and  religion  was 
illustrated  by  St.  Paul.  In  the  middle  ages  the  monastery  was  the  center 
of  education.  Presbyterianism  has  magnified  the  sermon  as  an  instructive 
discourse  and  a  minister  is  a  teacher.  Presbyterianism  has  insisted  upon 
the  activity  of  the  laity  in  the  administration  of  the  church,  hence  the 
necessity  for  popular  education.  It  has  further  emphasized  the  importance 
of  personal  acquaintance  with  the  scriptures.  The  authority  of  the  Bible 
is  lodged  in  itself,  by  which  the  individual  must  decide  his  eternal  destiny 
for  himself.  John  Calvin  appointed  in  Geneva  teachers  of  national  science 
and  the  languages,  as  well  as  the  doctrines.  Knox  established  in  Scotland 
schools  in  every  parish.  For  seventy  years,  from  1560,  education  was 
entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  church.  In  America  the  free-school  system, 


FRIENDS  CONGRESS. 


933 


which  had  its  origin  in  1662  in  Massachusetts  Colony,  was  declared  by 
Bancroft  to  have  Calvin  for  its  founder.  Presbyterianism  has  always 
favored  education  by  the  state.  Education  should  not  be  eoctarian,  but 
respectful  to  religion.  Even  the  reading  of  the  scriptures  should  be  aban¬ 
doned  when  it  is  necessary  to  the  interests  of  peace  among  citizens,  of 
common  rights.  The  church  must  influence  teachers  and  the  young 
through  personal  contact  and  mission  work. 


FRIENDS  CONGRESS. 

This  congress  was  held  ir  the  Hall  of  Washington,  September 
19th,  and  continued  three  days.  Three  sessions  were  held  and  a 
great  deal  of  interest  was  taken  in  the  proceedings.  Jonathan 
W.  Plummer  of  Chicago  presided,  and  an  eloquent  ‘‘State¬ 
ment  of  the  Faith  of  Friends”  was  given  by  Howard  M. 
Jenkins  of  Philadelphia.  Papers  were  submitted  as  follows: 
“Mission  Work  in  Behalf  of  Arbitration,”  by  Joseph  J.  Janney, 
Baltimore;  “Position  of  Women  and  the  Society  of  Friends,” 
by  Elizabeth  Powell  Bond  of  Swarthmore,  Pa.;  “Our  liistitu- 
tions  of  Learning,”  by  Edward  H.  Magill  of  Swarthmore,  Pa.; 
“Our  Thought  as  to  Co-operation  of  Distinct  Faiths  in  Labor 
against  jointly  Recognized  Evils,”  by  Robert  S.  Habiland, 
Chappaqua,  N.  Y. ;  “  The  Duty  of  the  Society  in  Guiding  Young 
Members  to  a  Conception  of  Their  Responsibilities  in  Mature 
Years  ”  was  discussed  by  Edgar  M.  Zavitz,  Coldstream,  Ontario, 
and  Isaac  Roberts  of  Conshohocken,  Pa.;  Anna  A.  M.  Star, 
Richmond,  Ind.,  and  William  M.  Jackson  of  New  York  dwelt 
with  the  relation  of  spiritual  culture  and  devotion  to  moral 
progress. 

Inquiry  meetings  were  held  after  each  session  and  the  con¬ 
gress  closed  with  a  meeting  of  “spiritual  seeking  and  consecra¬ 
tion  in  the  hope  that  many  hearts  can  feel  the  inflow  of  the 
divine  wisdom  and  power  and  the  outflow  of  divine  love  toward 
the  brotherhood  of  man.” 


FREE  RELIGIOUS  ASSOCIATION. 

Two  interesting  sessions  were  held  by  the  Free  Religious 
Association  of  America  on  Wednesday,  September  20th. 


934 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Among  those  who  took  part  in  the  proceedings  were  Col. 
Thomas  Wentworth  Higginson,  first  vice-president  of  the  asso¬ 
ciation;  President  William  J.  Potter;  Francis  Ellingwood 
Abbot;  Mrs.  Anna  Garlin  Spencer;  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones;  Minot 
J.  Savage,  and  Pabbi  Hirsch.  President  Potter  gave  an 
account  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  association,  and  the 
other  topics  discussed  were:  ‘‘The  Scientific  Method  in  the 
Study  of  Religion,”  “  The  Free  Religious  Association  as  the 
Expounder  of  the  Natural  History  of  Religion,”  and  “  Unity 
in  Religion.” 


CHRISTIAN  SCIENTISTS. 

On  the  same  day  the  Christian  Scientists  held  a  congress, 
presided  over  by  Dr.  E.  J.  Foster  Eddy  of  Boston,  who  opened 
the  proceedings  with  an  address  reviewing  the  work  and  aims 
of  the  National  Christian  Scientists’  Association.  Dr.  Eddy 
said 

The  ages  have  had  their  prophets  who  foresaw  and  foretold.  The  world 
has  had  its  revelators  and  discoverers.  These  gleams  of  light  have  extended 
and  broadened  and  entered  the  dark  places  of  earth.  Hope  that  has  been 
trembling  and  well-nigh  overcome  by  long-deferred  expectations  has  been 
strengthened.  The  heart  that  has  become  cold  with  feeble  beating  has 
been  warmed  into  new  life  and  activity.  Ignorance  so  dense  as  to  be  felt 
has  yielded  to  intelligence,  and  the  downcast,  the  down -trodden,  and  the 
oppressed  have  been  bidden  to  arise  and  go  forth  from  the  thralldom  of 
man,  country,  priest,  or  king,  and  to  the  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God. 

Dr.  Eddy  went  on  to  say  that  this  400th  anniversary  of  the 
discovery  of  America  showed  wonderful  progress,  and,  after 
recounting  some  of  the  characteristics  of  this  progress,  claimed 
that  one  of  the  most  important  movements  of  the  time  is 
Christian  Science,  affirming  that  it  represents  in  actual  practice 
the  doctrine  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the-  Brotherhood  of 
Man. 

Rev.  B.  A.  Eastman  of  Boston  spoke  on  “The  Resurrection.” 
He  expounded  at  length  the  meaning  of  the  resurrection  as 
believed  by  the  Christian  Scientists.  It  was  not ,  the  mere 
raising  of  a  physical  body  from  a  material  grave.  Other 
instances  of  physical  resurrection  were  given  in  the  Bible,  but 


AFRICAN  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


935 


not  on©  of  these  was  to  be  compared  with  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  The  meaning  of  the  resurrection  doctrine  lay  at  the 
very  foundation  of  the  Christian  religion.  Mr.  Eastman  cited 
the  effect  of  the  resurrection  upon  some  of  the  apostles, 
notably  upon  Peter  and  John,  who  became  changed  men  in 
their  lives  after  they  came  to  realize  the  full  significance  of 
this  event.  The  conclusion  reached  by  the  speaker  was  that, 
if  Christian  science  was  generally  accepted,  death  would  be 
greatly  minimized  and  bodily  sickness  would  be  almost  entirely 
abolished. 

The  other  speakers  were:  Rev.  Augusta  E.  Stetson,  New 
York,  on  “The  Trinity”;  Mrs.  Ruth  B.  Ewing,  Chicago,  on 
“Spirit  and  Matter”;  Gen.  Erastus  M.  Bates,  Cleveland,  on 
“  God  Incorporeal  ”;  Mrs.  A.  H.  Knott,  Detroit,  on  “  Immortals 
and  Mortals”;  Rev.  J.  F.  Linscott,  Chicago,  on  “Scientific 
Theology”;  Edward  P.  Bates,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  on  “Prophetic 
Scriptures”;  Rev.  E.  M.  Buswell,  Beatrice,  Neb.,  on  “Healing 
the  Sick  ”;  Rev.  Isabella  M.  Stewart,  Toronto,  Canada,  on  “  The 
Scientific  Universe”;  Alfred  Farlow,  Kansas  City,  on  “The 
Brotherhood  of  Man,”  and  J.  S.  Hanna,  editor  of  the  Christian 
Science  Journal^  on  “  Mind,  Not  Matter.” 


AFRICAN  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

A  congress  of  this  body  began  on  Friday,  September  22d, 
and  continued  for  several  days.  The  meetings  were  attended 
by  representative  colored  people  from  various  parts  of  the 
country.  An  excellent  programme  had  been  provided  and 
among  the  eminent  people  present  were  the  venerable  orator 
Frederick  Douglas,  Bishop  Payne  of  Ohio,  Bishop  James  A. 
Handy  of  Kansas  City,  Bishop  H.  M.  Turner  of  Detroit, 
Bishop  W.  J.  Gaines  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  Bishop  B.  T. 
Tanna,  Bishop  A.  W.  Wayman,  Bishop  Daniel  A.  Payne, 
Bishop  B.  F.  Lee,  and  Bishop  Arnett.  Among  the  papers  read 
were:  “  Christian  Co-operation  Essential  to  Race  Elevation,” 
by  Prof.  H.  T.  Kealing,  president  of  Paul  Quinn  University, 


036 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Waco,  Texas;  ‘‘The  Genesis  of  the  Work  of  Christian  Educa¬ 
tion  by  the  African  M.  E.  Church,”  by  Eev.  Dr.  D.  Johnson; 
“The  Pioneer  Builders,”  by  Bishop  Grant;  “The  Normal 
School;  its  Relation  to  the  Future  Teacher,”  by  W.  H.  Council, 
principal  of  the  State  Normal  and  Industrial  School  of  Ala¬ 
bama;  “Our  Country’s  Defenders  in  Camp,  at  Sea,  in  the 
School,  and  in  Prison;  What  Can  We  Do  for  Them?”  by  Rev. 
W.  H.  Yeocum,  D.  D. ;  “  The  Necessity  for  Organizing  a  School 
for  Young  Women  in  Liberia,”  by  Rev.  W.  Mott  of  Africa; 
“The  Theological  Seminary;  Its  Place  in  the  Education  of 
the  Negro,”  by  Rev.  J.  G.  Mitchell  of  Payne  Theological 
Seminary. 

A  Missionary  Congress,  at  which  addresses  were  made  by 
prominent  members  of  the  church,  preceded  the  regular 
congress. 

FRIENDS  CHURCH  CONGRESS  (ORTHODOX). 

This  body  held  one  session  on  Friday,  September  22d,  at 
which  the  following  subjects  were  discussed:  “  Our  Church  and 
Its  Mission,”  by  James  Wood,  Mt.  Kisco,  N.  Y.;  “  Our  Origin 
and  History,”  by  Joseph  Bevan  Braithwaite,  London,  England; 
“  Church  Organization,”  by  Calvin  W.  Pritchard,  Kokomo, 
Ind. ;  “The  Position  of  Woman  Among  Friends,”  by  Anna  B. 
Thomas,  Baltimore,  Md.;  “Missions,  Home  and  Foreign,”  by 
Josephine  M.  Parker,  Carthage,  Ind.;  “The  Philosophy  of 
Quakerism,”  by  Thomas  Newlin,  Newberg,  Ore. 


KING’S  DAUGHTERS  AND  SONS. 

In  the  evening  occurred  the  presentation  of  the  King’s 
Daughters  and  Sons.  Mrs.  Mary  Lowe  Dickinson  made  the 
principal  address,  andMrs.  Howard  Ingham  spoke  of  the  work 
of  the  “  International  Board  of  Women’s  Christian  Associa¬ 
tions.”  Mrs.  Isabella  C.  Davis  read  an  interesting  paper  on 
“  The  Religious  Mission  of  the  Order  of  King’s  Daughters  and 
Sons,”  and  Miss  Clarence  Beebe  spoke  on  the  “  Bible-Class 
Work  of  Women’s  Christian  Associations.” 


GERMAN  EVANGELICAL  SYNOD  OF  NORTH  AMERICA,  937 


GERMAN  EVANGELICAL  SYNOD  OF  NORTH 

AMERICA. 

This  body  held  two  sessions  on  Sunday,  September  24th. 
Among  those  who  made  the  presentation  of  faith  and  delivered 
addresses  were  Rev.  J.  K.  Zimmerman,  Rev.  J.  Lueder,  Rev. 
D.  Irion,  Rev.  Paul  L.  Menzel,  Rev.  E.  Otto,  Rev.  H.  Wolf, 
Rev.  J.  Pister,  Rev.  F.  Holke.  At  another  session  on  the 
following  day,  Rev.  J.  K.  Zimmerman  of  Louisville  delivered 
an  address  on  “  The  Faith  and  Distinguishing  Characteris¬ 
tics  of  the  Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America.”  Rev.  J.  G. 
Kircher  of  Chicago  told  “  What  the  Evangelical  Church  Has 
Done  for  Mankind.”  Rev.  Julius  Lohr  of  Bisrampur,  India, 
addressed  the  body  on  “Our  Mission  in  India.” 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

During  the  week  beginning  September  25th  a  congress  was 
held  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Two  and  three 
sessions  were  held  daily,  and  every  phase  of  Methodist  work 
was  discussed  by  the  various  speakers.  Among  those  who  par¬ 
ticipated  were  Bishop  Merrill,  Rev.  Dr.  Ferdinand  C.  Iglehart, 
S.  L.  Baldwin,  Mrs.  Emily  Huntington  Miller,  Mrs.  R.  H. 
Rust,  J.  B.  Young  of  St.  Louis;  W.  F.  Whitlock  of  Delaware;' 
Charles  Parthurst  of  Boston;  D.  P.  Raymond  of  Middletown, 
Conn.;  Rev.  Frank  Crane  of  Omaha;  W.  I.  Haven  of  Boston. 

Miss  Francis  E.  Willard  was  on  the  programme  for  a  paper, 
but  her  illness  prevented  her  coming  to  this  country.  She 
sent  the  following  letter  to  Mrs.  Emily  Huntington  Miller, 

which  was  listened  to  with  deep  interest: 

Among  the  many  invitations  that  have  come  to  me  within  the  past  year 
in  connection  with  the  congresses  at  the  Columbian  Exposition,  none  has 
been  more  cherished  than  that  of  my  own  beloved  sisters  in  the  church  of 
my  choice.  I  felt  confident  that  I  should  have  the  pleasure  of  joining  in 
the  love  feast  appointed  for  September,  and  bear  my  testimony  in  the  gen¬ 
eral  class-meeting  of  our  world- wide  sisterhood,  but  the  “disciple”  (of 
physical  fatigue)  has  been  so  construed  as  to  rule  me  out  of  your  blessed 
general  conference,  although  you  had  me  chosen  a  delegate  in  due  form. 
Tuis  will,  however,  I  hope,  prove  to  me  to  be  a  means  of  grace,  and  I  shall  sing 
in  spirit  with  many  another  loyal-hearted  Methodist  woman,  who,  for  similar 
reasons,  is  debarred  from  giving  in  her  experience  on  that  occasion,  “  Come 
on,  my  partners  in  distress.”  and  close  my  musical  soliloquy  with  our  favor¬ 
ite,  “  Oh,  that  will  be  joyful  when  we  meet  to  part  no  more.” 


938 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


By  way  of  compensation  for  my  disappointment  in  mingling  heart  and 
voice  with  you  in  the  happy  assembly  of  Methodist  disciples,  I  was  privi¬ 
leged  to  enjoy  a  most  tender  and  beautiful  reception  at  the  City  Road 
Chapel,  London,  some  months  ago,  from  our  brothers  and  sisters  of  the 
Wesleyan  Church  in  the  dear  old  mother  country.  It  was  the  fulfillment 
of  many  a  dream  to  stand  in  John  Wesley’s  pulpit  and  speak  of  what  the 
Lord  had  donel\-r  my  soul  through  the  generous  and  helpful  ministry  of 
our  communion  and  fellowship,  and  I  have  never  stood  in  the  midst  of  an 
audience  more  sympathetic  and  responsive. 

Some  rare  relics  of  our  St.  Susannah,  mother  of  the  Wesleys,  were  pre¬ 
sented  to  me,  which  I  should  have  been  glad  to  bring  to  the  Methodist 
Women’s  Congress  in  Chicago.  I  have  also  visited,  as  I  had  the  privilege 
of  doing  for  the  first  time  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  in  the  Lincoln  Col¬ 
lege  in  Oxford,  the  room  in  which  the  “  holy  club  ”  was  organized.  A  pul¬ 
pit  is  in  this  college  from  which  Wesley  was  wont  to  improve  his  gift  from 
time  to  time  when  he  was  here  after  his  graduation.  Ascending  its  steps 
and  entering  its  hallowed  jjrecincts,  I  prophesied  in  true  Methodistic  fash¬ 
ion  to  a  small  audience,  consisting  of  Mrs.  Hannah  Whitall  Smith  and  her 
son,  to  the  effect  that  within  twenty-five  years  Methodist  women  would 
find  that  every  se^jarating  wall  has  fallen  flat  between  them  and  the  full 
privileges  and  powers  of  the  church  they  loved  and  which  they  have  helped 
to  make  what  it  is— the  greatest  denomination  in  the  greatest  of  republics. 

Artificial  barriers  are  everywhere  becoming  undermined ;  soul  is  assert¬ 
ing  itself  above  sex,  and  mental  and  spiritual  power  is  being  made  the  only 
final  criterion  of  value.  Let  everybody  do  that  for  which  he  or  she  feels 
called,  if  that  calling  is  to  do  good.  This  is  rapidly  becoming  the  dictum 
of  old  as  well  as  New  England,  the  keynote  of  which  was  struck,  as  I  am 
proud  and  grateful  to  remember,  in  what  was  once  called  the  far,  but  now 
the  forceful.  West 

May  the  blessing  of  God  be  upon  every  woman  who  casts  in  her  lot  with 
you  at  your  blessed  feast  of  tabernacles,  whether  she  is  a  foreign  mission¬ 
ary  woman,  a  home  missionary  woman,  a  white-ribbon  woman,  or  that 
greater  and  better  being  which  combines  all  three,  and  may  the  annoint- 
ing  power  come  upon  each  and  all  in  pentecostal  measure,  is  the  fervent 
wish  and  prayer  of  your  loyal  and  affectionate  sister, 

Frances  E.  Willard. 

It  was  shown,  during  the  progress  of  the  Congress,  that  the 
Methodist  Church  is  the  largest  Protestant  denomination  in 
America.  One  out  of  every  twelve  of  the  population  of  the 
United  States  is  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Church,  and,  as 
contended  by  Rev.  Dr.  Iglehart,  one  out  of  every  three  prefers 
it  to  any  other  church. 


REFORMED  CHURCH  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

This  church  held  a  congress  on  Thursday,  September  21st, 
which  was  quite  largely  attended.  Rev.  Ambrose  M.  Schmidt 
of  Pittsburg  was  the  chairman.  The  first  speaker  was  Rev.  Dr. 
Rupp  of  Pittsburg,  whose  subject  was  “The  Reform  Church 
and  Her  Creed.”  Mr.  Rupp  said  every  church  is  bound  to 


SWEDISH  EVANGELICAL  MISSION  COVENANT. 


939 


establish  a  theology  for  the  needs  of  its  denomination.  ‘‘We 
may,”  he  said,  “characterize  our  theology  as  educational.  Its 
general  type  is  reform.  We  have  been  accused  of  want  of 
denominational  spirit,  but  while  we  recognize  that  it  is  this 
spirit  that  keeps  religion  alive  and  active,  yet  it  is  fitting  that 
this  spirit  should  be  sunk  in  the  great  law  of  religious  unity. 
The  Holy  Catholic  Church  is  greater  than  any  denomination. 
Our  church  has  ever  stood  upon  this  principle,” 

The  other  speakers  were  Hev.  Joseph  H.  Dubbs  of  the  Frank¬ 
lin  and  Marshall  University,  who  spoke  on  “The  Progress  of 
the  Century;”  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Ruetenik,  president  of  Calvin  College, 
on  “The  Progress  of  Theology,”  and  Rev.  Dr.  Edward  R. 
Edenbach  of  Frederick,  Md.,  on  “  Practical  and  Benevolent 
Operation  of  the  Reform  Church.” 


SWEDISH  EVANGELICAL  MISSION  COVENANT, 

Several  hundred  persons  assembled  in  the  Hall  of  Washing¬ 
ton  on  Monday,  September  25th,  to  listen  to  the  presentation 
of  the  Swedish  Evangelical  Mission  Covenant,  or,  as  the  body  is 
better  known,  “  The  Swedish  Mission  Friends.”  Rev.  C.  A. 
Bjork,  president  of  the  Swedish  Evangelical  Mission  Covenant, 
presided.  The  first  paper  was  read  by  Rev.  N.  Frykman,  vice- 
president  of  the  Mission  Covenant,  on  “  The  History  of  the  Free 
Evangelical  Mission  Movement  in  Sweden  and  America.”  Other 
papers  were  read  by  Prof.  D.  Nyvall,  president  of  the 
Swedish  Evangelical  Mission  College  and  Seminary;  Rev. 
Otto  Hogfelvt,  secretary  of  the  Mission  Church,  and  Rev.  E. 
Skogsbergh  of  Minneapolis,  Minn. 


CHICAGO  TRACT  SOCIETY. 

The  annual  meeting  of  the  Chicago  Tract  Society  took  the 
form  of  a  presentation  in  Hall  6  of  the  x\.rt  Institute,  September 
24th.  Hon.  Homer  N.  Hibbard  presided.  After  brief  devo¬ 
tional  exercises,  the  secretary.  Rev.  Dr.  E.  M.  Wherry,  read  a 
paper  on  “  The  Origin  and  Present  Condition  of  the  Chicago 


940 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Tract  Society.”  This  was  followed  by  a  paper  giving  a  histor* 
ical  sketch  of  the  American  Tract  Society,  by  Rev.  N.  J.  Branch 
of  Rochester,  N.  Y.  Dr.  William  0.  Rice,  missionary  secre¬ 
tary  of  the  society,  read  a  paper  on  the  “  Place  of  the  Tract 
Society  in  the  World’s  Evangelization.”  Rev.  George  A. 
Ford,  missionary  to  Syria,  followed  with  a  brief  address. 


CUMBERLAND  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

The  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  held  a  presentation 
session  on  September  27th.  Rev.  D.  W.  Ferguson,  moderator 
of  the  General  Assembly,,  presided,  and  the  following  addresses 
were  delivered:  “The  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church,”  by  Hon.  John  Frizell,  LL.D.,  Nash¬ 
ville,  Tenn.;  “The  Genius  and  Doctrines  of  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church,”  by  Rev.  Alfred  Barnett  Miller,  D.  D., 
president  Waynesburg  College,  Pennsylvania;  “The  Educa¬ 
tional  Institutions  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church,”  by 
Rev.  William  Henry  Black,  D.  D.,  president  Missouri  Valley 
College,  Missouri;  “The  Mission  of  the  Cumberland  Pres¬ 
byterian  Church,”  by  Rev.  James  Madison  Hubbert,  D.  D., 
Lebanon,  Tenn. 

CONGRESS  OF  EVOLUTIONISTS. 

This  congress,  which  began  on  September  28th  and  closed 
on  the  evening  of  the  29th,  attracted  wide  attention.  The 
opening  address  was  delivered  by  Benjamin  F.  Underwood 
of  Illinois.  Its  title  was  “  The  Progress  of  Evolutionary 
Thought.” 

An  interesting  communication  was  presented  from  Herbert 
Spencer.  The  theme  of  the  great  philosopher  was  “  Social 

Evolution  and  Social  Duty,”  which  he  discussed  as  follows: 

At  a  congress  which  has  for  its  chief  purpose  to  advance  ethics  and 
politics  by  diffusing  evolutionary  ideas,  it  seems  especially  needful  to  dissi¬ 
pate  a  current  misconception  respecting  the  relation  in  which  we  stand 
individually  toward  the  process  of  social  evolution.  Errors  of  a  certain 
class  may  be  grouped  as  errors  of  the  uncultured,  but  there  are  errors  of 
another  class  which  characterize  the  cultured — implying,  as  they  do,  a 
^arge  amount  of  knowledge  with  a  good  deal  of  thought— but  yet  with 


CONGRESS  OF  EVOLUTIONISTS. 


941 


thought  not  commenGurate  with  the  knowledge.  The  errors  I  refer  to  are 
of  this  class. 

The  conception  of  evolution  at  large,  as  it  exists  in  those  who  are  aware 
that  evolution  includes  much  more  than  “  natural  selection,”  involves  the 
belief  that  from  beginning  to  end  it  goes  on  irresistibly  and  unconsciously. 
The  concentration  of  nebulae  into  stars  and  the  formation  of  solar  systems 
are  determined  entirely  by  certain  properties  of  the  matter  previously  dif¬ 
fused.  Planets  which  were  once  gaseous,  then  liquid,  and  linaliy  covered 
by  their  crusts,  gradually  undergo  geological  transformations  in  virtue  of 
mechanical  and  chemical  processes. 

Similarly,  too,  when  we  pass  to  organic  bodies — plant  and  animal. 
Enabled  to  develop  individually,  as  they  are,  by  environing  forces,  and 
enabled  to  develop  as  species  by  processes  which  continue  to  adapt  and 
readapt  them  to  their  changing  environments,  they  are  made  to  fit  them¬ 
selves  to  their  respiective  lives,  and,  along  certain  lines,  to  reach  higher 
lives,  purely  by  the  involved  play  of  forces  of  which  they  are  unconscious. 
The  conception  of  evolution  at  large,  thus  far  correct,  is  by  some  extended 
to  that  highest  form  of  evolution  exhibited  in  societies.  It  is  supposed 
that  societies,  too,  passively  evolve  apart  from  any  conscious  agency;  and 
the  inference  is  that,  according  to  the  evolutionary  doctrine,  it  is  needless 
for  individuals  to  have  any  care  about  progress,  since  progress  will  take 
care  of  itself.  Hence  the  assertion  that  “  evolution  erected  into  the  para¬ 
mount  law  of  man’s  moral  and  social  life  becomes  a  paralyzing  and 
immoral  fatalism.” 

Here  comes  the  error.  Everyone  may  see  that  throughout  the  lower 
forms  of  evolution  the  process  goes  on  only  because  the  various  units  con¬ 
cerned — ^molecules  of  matter  in  some  ca§es,  and  members  of  a  species  in 
another— respectively  manifest  their  natures.  It  would  be  absurd  to 
expect  that  inorganic  evolution  would  continue  if  molecules  ceased  to 
attract  or  combine,  and  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  organic  evolu¬ 
tion  would  continue  if  the  instincts  and  appetites  of  individuals  of  each 
species  were  wholly  or  even  partially  suspended. 

No  less  absurd  is  it  to  expect  that  social  evolution  will  go  on  apart  from 
the  normal  activities,  bodily  and  mental,  of  the  component  individuals — 
apart  from  their  desire  and  sentiments,  and  those  actions  which  they 
prompt.  It  is  true  that  much  social  evolution  is  achieved  without  any 
intention  on  the  part  of  citizens  to  achieve  it,  and  even  without  the  con¬ 
sciousness  that  they  are  achieving  it.  The  entire  industrial  organization, 
in  all  its  marvelous  complexity,  has  arisen  from  the  pursuit  by  each  person 
of  his  own  interests,  subject  to  certain  restraints  imposed  by  the  incorpo¬ 
rated  society;  and  by  this  same  spontaneous  action  have  arisen  also  the 
multitudinous  appliances  of  industry,  science,  and  art,  from  flint  knives  up 
to  automatic  printing  machines,  from  sledges  up  to  locomotives — a  fact 
which  might  teach  politicians  that  there  are  at  work  far  more  potent  social 
agencies  than  those  which  they  control. 

But  now  observe  that  just  as  these  astonishing  results  of  social  evolu¬ 
tion,  under  one  of  its  aspects,  could  never  have  arisen  if  men’s  egoistic 
activities  had  been  absent,  so  in  the  absence  of  their  altruistic  activities 
there  could  never  have  arisen  and  can  not  further  arise  certain  higher 
results  of  social  evolution.  Just  as  the  egoistic  feelings  are  the  needful 
factors  in  the  one  case  so  the  altruistic  feelings  are  the  needful  factors  in 
the  oth^er,  and  whoever  supposes  the  theory  of  evolution  to  imply  that 
advanced  forms  of  social  life  will  be  reached,  even  if  the  sympathetic 
promptings  of  individuals  cease  to  operate,  does  not  understand  what  the 
theory  is. 

A  simple  analogy  will  make  the  matter  clear.  All  admit  that  we  have 
certain  desires  which  insure  the  maintenance  of  the  race — that  the  instincts 
Ajvhich  prompt  to  the  marital  relation  and  afterward  subserve  the  parental 


942 


'tbe  parliament  of  religions. 


relation  make  it  certain  that,  without  any  injunction  or  compulsion,  each 
generation  will  produce  the  next.  Now  suppose  someone  argued  that  since, 
in  the  order  of  nature,  continuance  of  the  species  was  thus  provided  for,  no 
one  need  do  anything  toward  furthering  the  process  by  marrying.  What 
should  we  think  of  his  logic — what  should  we  think  of  his  expectation  that 
the  effect  would  be  produced  when  the  causes  of  it  were  suspended? 

Yet,  absurd  as  he  would  be,  he  could  not  be  more  absurd  than  the  one 
who  supposed  that  the  higher  phases  of  social  evolution  would  come  with¬ 
out  the  activity  of  those  sympathetic  feelings  in  men  which  are  the  factors 
of  them — or,  rather,  he  would  not  be  more  absurd  than  one  who  supposed 
that  this  is  implied  by  the  doctrine  of  evolution. 

The  error  results  from  failing  to  see  that  the  citizen  has  to  regard  him¬ 
self  at  once  subjectively  and  objectively — subjectively  as  possessing  sympa¬ 
thetic  sentiments  (which  are  themselves  the  products  of  evolution);  object¬ 
ively  as  one  among  many  social  units  having  like  sentiments,  by  the 
combined  operation  of  which  certain  social  effects  are  produced.  He  has  to 
look  on  himself  individually  as  a  being  moved  by  emotions  which  prompt 
philanthropic  actions,  while,  as  a  member  of  society,  he  has  to  look  on 
himself  as  an  agent  through  whom  these  emotions  workout  improvements  in 
social  life.  *So  far,  then,  is  the  theory  of  evolution  from  implying  a  “  para¬ 
lyzing  and  immor'al  fatalism,”  it  implies  that,  for  genesis  of  the  highest 
social  type  and  production  of  the  greatest  general  happiness,  altruistic 
activities  are  essential  as  well  as  egoistic  activities,  and  that  a  due  share 
in  them  is  obligatory  upon  each  citizen. 

Dr.  James  A.  Skilton  of  New  York  delivered  an  interesting 
address  on  the  “Future  Civilization.”  He  eulogized  Herbert 
Spencer,  speaking  of  him  as  the  Columbus  of  a  new  epoch, 
who  was  to  “show  men  the  way  of  obedience  to  cosmic  law, 
whereby  our  race  and  its  civilization  can  be  saved.”  The  doctor 
continued: 

Other  men,  some  of  them  high  in  the  councils  of  evolutionary  science 
and  sociology,  have  shown  their  lack  of  faith  in  the  cosmic  process.  Mr. 
Spencer,  however,  shows  his  faith  and  his  courage  by  founding  his  system 
thereon  and  declaring  that  that  process  may  be  so  controlled  and  directed 
by  intelligent  human  agency— one  of  its  products — as  to  assure  the  upward 
progress  of  the  race,  and  with  it  that  of  all  the  associated  life  and  activities 
of  the  entire  world.  The  principle  of  such  control  and  direction  to  which 
he  calls  our  attention,  ignoring  or  notwithstanding  the  seeming  paradox,  is 
the  modification  of  dominant  egoistic  action  by  an  intelligent  altruistic 
action. 

His  message  is:  A  too  eager  egoism  destroys;  an  intelligent  altruism 
saves.  This  message  comes  to  us  at  the  moment  when,  the  supply  of  new 
lands  having  been  exhausted,  we  are  driven  back  upon  the  old  but  new  and 
unexplored  continent  of  cosmic  supply  to  be  found  in  the  lands  already 
occupied  for  ages,  by  the  intelligent  management  and  improvement  of 
what  we  have  heretofore  recklessly  sought  to  exhaust  and  destroy,  according 
to  the  cosmic  plan  established  from  the  beginning  of  things. 

Hereafter,  if  we  are  to  find  the  solution  of  our  problems,  we  must  com¬ 
pletely  change  the  method  of  treating  the  whole  of  nature,  but  particularly 
land,  so  as  to  conform  to  evolutionary  cosmic  law  and  its  processes,  recog¬ 
nizing  that  the  further  evolution  and  survival  of  man  and  society  are  indis¬ 
solubly  bound  up  therewith. 

According  to  our  accepted  doctrines  early  society  grew  out  of  status, 
later  society  out  of  contract.  Contract  society  having  now,  according  to 


CONGRESS  OF  EVOLUTIONISTS. 


943 


the  evidences  cited,  reached  the  end  of  its  tether,  must  either  find  a  stronger 
soil  in  which  to  grow,  or  it  must  inevitably  retrograde.  Between  contract 
society  and  the  society  of  cosmic  status  a  deep  and  wide  gulf  seems  to  be 
fixed  that  no  bridge  has  ever  yet  spanned.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  any  liv¬ 
ing  engineer  will  ever  build  that  bridge  and  see  men  cross  over  by  it.  But 
it  can  be  honestly  said  that  whoever  does  build  it  must  use  the  material 
and  the  principles  provided  to  his  hand  by  the  philosophy  of  evolution. 

We  need  not  mourn,  however,  as  do  those  without  hope.  If  it  be  the 
fault  of  religion  and  the  teachers  of  religion,  that  the  world  is  still  in  so 
backward  a  condition,  what  may  we  not  hope  from  the  new  epoch  opened 
by  the  Parliament  of  Religions  just  closed,  that  has  for  the  first  time  in 
the  history  of  the  world  brought  together,  and  at  times  almost  united  the 
religious  teachers  of  all  races  and  all  faiths  on  the  very  spot  of  ground 
occupied  by  this  building,  a  temple  of  God,  man,  and  nature,  that,  it  is  to 
be  hoped,  will  hereafter  be  recognized  as  having  played  a  part  of  greater 
usefulness  than  any  other  the  world  has  ever  seen. 

Mary  Proctor  of  St.  Joseph,  Mo.,  gave  an  interesting  sketch 
of  the  life-work  of  her  father,  the  distinguished  astronomer, 
Pichard  A.  Proctor. 

Another  woman  who  contributed  vastly  to  the  interest  of 
the  congress  was  Gail  Hamilton.  She  was  not  present  in 
person,  but  sent  a  paper  on  the  “Beastliness  of  Civilization — 
Evolution  the  Only  Pemedy,”  which  was  read  by  Miss  Ida 
Lovejoy,  a  daughter  of  the  old-time  abolitionist  and  member  of 
Congress  from  Illinois,  Owen  Lovejoy.  Among  other  things 
Miss  Hamilton  wrote: 

Evolution  agrees  exactly  with  Augustine  and  Jonathan  Edwards  as  to 
the  wickedness  of  the  world.  The  difference  simply  is  that  the  Edwards 
men  come  down  from  a  saintly  plane,  and  the  evolutionists  go  up  from  a 
beastly  plane  to  explain  it.  But  in  the  beastl^ess  of  civilization — using 
the  word  beastliness  definitely  and  not  descriptively — lies  our  hope  of  the 
future.  Science  is  the  true  interpreter  of  salvation.  Modern  science  has 
reduced  the  Augustine  imagination  to  an  absurdity,  has  expressed  the  sweet 
juices  of  truth  from  the  Hebrew  drama,  and  has  organized  the  Greek 
imagination  into  a  demonstrable  probability.  Evolution  is  not  proved, 
may  never  be  proved,  but  it  fits  the  facts  as  no  other  theory  has  ever  done, 
and  is  infinite  in  encouragement  for  the  human  race. 

The  fall  of  man  in  the  evolution  hypothesis  and  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  is  the  rise  of  man  from  a  state  of  imperative  innocence  to  the 
higher  atmosphere  of  possible  sin.  The  lion,  the  tiger,  the  hyena  are  inno¬ 
cent.  They  lick  from  their  chops  the  blood  of  the  lamb  or  the  man  they 
have  slain  and  lie  down  to  sleep  without  a  qualm  of  conscience.  We  rise 
and  slay  them  without  the  slightest  moral  resentment,  without  the  least 
expectation  of  producing  in  them  a  change  of  heart  and  purpose — simply  to 
prevent  them  from  doing  further  harm.  That  man  falls  into  sin  is  an  individ¬ 
ual  incident.  That  he  is  capable  of  sin  is  a  race  elevation  above  the  beasts. 
This  earth  is  the  battle-ground  of  a  half-developed  moral  nature  struggling 
to  rise  into  its  destined  angel  nature,  but  constantly  held  down  by  the 
beast  nature  from  which  it  has  not  wholly,  perhaps  not  half,  emerged. 

The  shame  of  England  is  not  in  the  fighting  of  lords  and  commons  in 
the  House  of  Parliament.  The  hope  of  England  lies  in  that  bitter  brawl. 


944 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  shame  of  England  is  in  the  silence  of  Woking.  The  disgrace  of  Eng¬ 
land  is,  that  with  all  her  boasts  of  constitutional  government  and  free 
institutions  she  can  and  does,  in  defiance  of  law  and  justice,  use  the 
machinery  of  law  and  justice  to  hold  an  innocent  woman  in  a  thralldom  as 
profound  and  terrible  as  ever  held  an  Egyptian  slave.  This  is  not  merely 
beastliness,  but  wild  beastliness !  It  is  not  the  stupid,  undiscerning  beast¬ 
liness  of  the  domestic  pen,  but  the  fierce  and  watchful  beastliness  of  the 
jungle ! 

Other  papers  were  read  as  follows:  “  Constructive  Power  of 
Evolution,”  by  Franklin  H.  Head;  “The  Evolution  of  the 
Muscular  Fiber,”  by  Dr.  Martin  L.  Holbrook;  “The  Weiss- 
man’s  Theory  Keviewed,”  by  Edwin  Montgomery;  “  The  Marvel 
of  Heredity  and  Its  Meaning,”  by  Kev.  John  C.  Kimball  of 
Hartford,  Conn.;  “The  Relativity  of  Knowledge — Spencer’s 
Unknowable,”  by  Benjamin  F.  Underwood;  “Relations  of  the 
Feelings,”  by  Dr.  Herman  Gasser;  “  Constructive  Forms  of 
Intuition,”  by  Dr.  John  E.  Purdon  of  Dublin,  Ireland;  “  Psy¬ 
chology  in  Its  Relation  to  Ethics,”  by  Harvey  C.  Alvord  of 
South  Dakota;  “The  Evolution  of  the  Modern  Family,”  by 
Mrs.  Florence  G.  Buckstaff  of  Wisconsin;  “  Evolution  as 
Applied  to  Disease  in  the  Progress  of  Social  Development,” 
by  Bayard  Holmes,  M.  D.,  of  Illinois.  Rev.  A.  N.  Summers 
of  Indiana  also  read  a  paper. 

Dr.  Skilton  had  sent  a  circular  letter  to  a  number  of  eminent 

scientists  asking  them  to  reply  to  the  following  questions: 

1.  Does  the  doctrine  dp  evolution  in  its  sociological  aspects,  in  your 
opinion,  offer  wise  suggestion  for  the  solution  of  the  great  social  and  eco¬ 
nomic  problems  of  our  time? 

2.  What,  in  your  judgment,  in  accordance  with  such  suggestion,  should 
be  the  next  step  taken  in  our  own  country,  looking  toward  the  solution  of 
these  problems? 

Over  one  hundred  answers  were  received,  of  which  the  fol¬ 
lowing  are  a  fair  sample : 

William  Lawson,  Aspatria,  England — 1.  Yes.  2.  Abolish  the  custom¬ 
house. 

R.W.Shufeldt,  Washington,  D.C. — 1.  Yes.  2.  The  complete  expulsion 
of  the  negro  race  from  among  us.  The  absolute  prevention  of  the  immigra¬ 
tion  of  objectionable  classes  and  the  encouragement  of  the  coming  of  the 
most  advanced  peoples  from  all  parts  of  the  world.  Complete  and  radical 
changes  in  the  laws  of  sanitation  in  their  broadest  sense,  to  the  full  extent 
of  the  prevention  of  the  bringing  forth  of  unhealthy  children,  either  under 
the  cloak  of  marriage  or  otherwise.  The  taking  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
church  the  entire  matter  of  marriage  and  relegating  it  to  the  state,  with  a 
complete  reform  of  the  entire  institution  made  at  the  time  of  the  transac¬ 
tion,  based  upon  our  present  knowledge  of  physiology  and  social  req^uire- 
ments. 


ETHICAL  CONGRESS. 


945 


Prof.  John  Piske  of  Cambridge— 1.  Yes.  It  teaches  us,  however, 
not  to  expect  to  achieve  any  sudden  amelioration  in  the  affairs  of  men. 
The  material  we  have  to  work  with,  human  nature,  is  both  silly  and  base, 
and  can  be  reformed  but  slowly.  2.  Begin  by  correcting  the  errors  of  past 
legislation.  Amend  the  federal  constitution  so  as  to  deprive  Congress  of 
the  alleged  power  to  issue  inconvertible  notes  and  make  them  legal  tender; 
demonetize  silver  once  and  forever;  lower  the  tariff,  and  get  complete  free 
trade  as  soon  as  possible;  abolish  all  navigation  laws  infringing  upon  abso¬ 
lute  freedom  of  buying,  building,  or  handling  ships;  repeal  the  Crawford 
act  of  1820  and  make  tenure  of  office  secure  and  permanent  throughout  the 
civil  service. 

L.  R.  Klemm,  Washington,  D.  C. — 1.  Yes.  2.  To  secure  a  better  edu¬ 
cation  for  the  masses,  especially  in  the  natural  sciences. 

C.  C.  Hitchcock,  Ware,  Mass. — 1.  Yes,  undoubtedly.  2.  The  adoption 
by  the  employer  of  some  equitable  system  of  profit-sharing  with  employes 
would  in  my  opinion  be  one  desirable  step  in  the  line  of  evolutionary  prog¬ 
ress  in  the  industrial  world. 


ETHICAL  CONGRESS. 

The  Ethical  Congress  was  held  in  the  Hall  of  Washington  on 
September  29th.  Frank  Tobey,  chairman  of  the  Committee 
of  Organization,  presided,  and  introduced  President  Bonney, 
of  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary,  in  a  few  felicitous  words. 
Mr.  Bonney  welcomed  the  delegates  in  his  usual  graceful  style. 
He  referred  to  the  peculiarly  happy  coincidence  attending  the 
session,  that  it  should  follow  the  great  Parliament  of  Religions. 
He  said  it  was  a  peculiar  providence  of  ethical  science  to  select 
from  all  religions  that  which  is  true  and  good.  However  men 
may  differ  in  opinion,  however  their  creeds  may  disagree,  how¬ 
ever  doctrines  may  diverge,  there  is  a  common  standard  of 
conduct  which  is  everywhere  recognized,  and  for  the  highest 
maintenance  of  that  standard  this  Ethical  Congress  stood.  Not 
only  to  religion,  but  to  the  political  and  social  life  of  the  nation 
did  this  science  come  with  healing  on  its  wings. 

Prof.  Felix  Adler,  founder  of  the  Ethical  Movement,  read  a 
letter  from  his  eminent  co-laborer.  Professor  Foerster  of  Berlin, 
which  contained  a  hopeful  report  of  the  work  in  that  country 
and  outlined  a  programme  for  the  organization  of  an  interna¬ 
tional  body — a  society  which  should  recognize  no  national  lines 
indeed,  but  of  which  each  individual  society  was  to  be  simply 
a  branch.  Professor  Foerster  also  told  of  the  effort  that  was 
being  made  to  introduce  into  the  universities  a  department  of 
ethical  science.* 


916 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Dr.  Stanton  Coit,  of  the  West  End  Ethical  Society  of  Lon¬ 
don,  gave  an  interesting  report  of  the  work  as  carried  on  in 
that  metropolis.  As  conducted  in  England,  the  Ethical  Society 
was  a  much  more  democratic  institution  than  the  American. 
One  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  spread  of  ethical 
science  in  Great  Britain  was  the  spirit  of  compromise  which 
obtained,  and  which  led  agnostics  and  democrats  to  recognize 
in  the  church  a  sufficient  source  of  spiritual  supply  for  man’s 
needs.  Professor  Weston  of  Philadelphia  followed  with  a  brief 
address  upon  the  general  work  of  ethical  societies. 

S.  Burns  Weston  of  Philadelphia  read  a  report  of  the 
School  of  Applied  Ethics.  Prof.  Paul  Shorey  of  the  Univer¬ 
sity  of  Chicago  read  a  paper  on  “  Helps  to  Moral  Life  from 
Greek  and  Homan  Literature.”  Stanton  Coit  of  London,  spoke 
on  “The  Practical  Work  of  the  Neighborhood  Guild,”  and 
George  C.  Rosenblatt  of  New  York  spoke  on  the  work  done  by 
the  Workingman’s  School  of  that  city.  Joseph  W.  Earrnt 
of  Chicago  was  the  last  speaker,  his  remarks  being  mainly 
directed  toward  the  practical  work  of  the  bureau  of  justice. 


EVANGELICAL  ASSOCIATION  CONGRESS. 

The  Evangelical  Association  is  a  communion  of  Christians 
which  although  two-thirds  German  is  entirely  of  American 
origin.  It  was  founded  in  the  beginning  of  this  century  in 
Eastern  Pennsylvania  by  Jacob  Albright,  who  had  been  reared 
in  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  remained  up  to  advanced  manhood 
a  stranger  to  experimental  religion.  The  loss  of  several  chil¬ 
dren,  and  the  pious  admonitions  of  a  minister  of  the  Reformed 
Church  at  the  funeral  of  one  of  them,  led  him  to  consider  his 
ways  and  turn  to  God.  Through  study  of  the  Word  and  faith 
in  Christ,  he  made  the  blessed  experience  of  the  forgiveness  of 
his  sins  and  the  testimony  of  God’s  spirit  bearing  witness  with 
his  that  he  was  a  child  of  God. 

Finding  the  most  congenial  company  in  his  new  experience 
among  the  Methodists,  he  united  with  that  church  and  was  in 


EVANGELICAL  ASSOCIATION  CONGRESS. 


947 


due  time  licensed  as  an  exhorter.  Feeling  called  of  God  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  the  multitudes  of  spiritually  neglected 
German-Americans,  but  receiving  no  encouragement  from  his 
church,  he  began  timidly  without  human  authorization  to  make 
known  among  them  the  way  of  life  as  he  had  learned  it  from 
the  Bible  and  his  own  experience.  His  preaching  proved 
acceptable  to  many  who  were  led  by  him  to  the  same  Savior 
whom  he  had  found  so  precious.  But  the  Methodist  Church  still 
failed  to  recognize  an  open  field  for  work  in  this  country  in 
any  other  language  than  the  English,  wherefore,  without  com¬ 
plaint,  schism,  or  division  of  any  kind,  Mr.  Albright  proceeded 
at  his  own  charges  as  he  had  begun,  to  preach  the  gospel  of 
salvation  from  sin  to  the  German-speaking  people,  without 
intending  to  found  a  new  denomination,  until  his  followers 
demanded  it  as  the  only  way  to  secure  permanency  for  the 
hopeful  results  achieved.  These  chose  and  ordained  Mr. 
Albright  as  their  chief  minister,  and  he  in  turn  ordained  several 
of  his  ablest  assistants  before  his  death,  which  occurred  in 
1808.  He  had  been  requested  to  compile  a  book  of  discipline 
for  the  government  of  the  societies,  but  his  early  death  left  the 
work  to  be  carried  out  by  his  successors.  The  fact  that  he  had 
been  a  Methodist  and  well  satisfied  in  the  main  with  the 
doctrines  and  polity  of  that  church  will  account  for  the  similarity 
of  this  book  of  discipline,  which  was  executed  in  the  spirit  of 
the  founder  by  his  associates,  with  the  discipline  of  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopal  Church. 

The  form  of  government  is  a  modified  Episcopacy,  the  bishops 
being  elected  only  from  one  general  conference  to  another, 
which  convenes  every  four  years.  They  are,  however,  eligible  to 
re-election.  Conferences  are  held  annually,  whose  territory  is 
divided  into  districts,  presided  over  by  elders  elected  by  their 
respective  conferences.  The  pastoral  terms  are  limited  to 
three  years,  when  a  change  is  made  on  the  itinerant  plan. 

This  denomination  confined  itself  for  more  than  thirty  years 
almost  exclusively  to  the  German-speaking  population  of  East¬ 
ern  Pennsylvania  and  Western  Maryland.  Albright  felt  called 


948 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


to  do  for  his  German -speaking  fellow-countrymen  what  the 
Wesleyan  movement  was  doing  for  the  English-speaking  people. 
With  the  impetus  of  the  Westward  movement,  and  the  increase 
of  immigration,  the  work  later  extended  its  bounds,  and  as  the 
younger  portion  of  the  membership  began  to  prefer  the  English 
language  for  worship,  the  way  was  gradually  opened  also  in 
this  respect,  although  thousands  left  for  and  helped  to  build 
up  other  evangelical  folds  because  their  mother-church  did  not 
always  find  it  possible  to  provide  English  preaching  as  fast  as 
it  was  desired.  Perhaps  one- third  of  her  members  now  use  the 
English  language  in  worship.  But  the  pioneer  work  of  the 
church  has  mostly  been  done  in  German,  and  no  church  has 
achieved  more  in  bringing  German  immigrants  to  become  the 
best  of  Americanized  evangelical  Christians.  It  now  has 
twenty-five  conferences  extending  from  New  York  and  Canada, 
to  Texas  and  the  Pacific,  with  two  conferences  in  Europe  and 
one  in  Japan.  It  has  seven  institutions  of  learning,  the  lead¬ 
ing  one  being  Northwestern  College,  Naperville,  Ill.,  and  a 
flourishing  publishing  house  at  Cleveland,  Ohio.  In  the  field 
of  periodical  literature  this  branch  of  the  church  has  been  very 
successful.  The  Christliche  Botschafter^  its  German  weekly 
o^^gan,  is  the  oldest  and  most  widely  circulated  German  Protest¬ 
ant  weekly  in  America,  and  its  companion,  the  Evangelical 
Messenger.,  has  a  circulation  of  10,000. 

In  doctrine  the  Evangelical  Association  may  be  classed  as 
adhering  to  the  Arminian  system  of  theology,  but  it  has 
always  paid  more  attention  to  practical  religion  than  to  dogma. 
Its  book  of  doctrines  is  the  Bible  and  a  catechism  of  biblical 
instruction.  It  is  in  sympathy  with  evangelical  Christians  of 
whatever  name.  It  takes  advanced  position  on  the  great  moral 
questions  of  the  day,  such  as  temperance.  Sabbath,  and  the 
purity  of  the  family  and  church  life.  It  has  been  a  pioneer 
in  the  Sunday-school  work  among  the  Germans  of  America, 
and  is  active  in  missionary  work  at  home  and  abroad  and  in 
young  people’s  societies. 


EVANGELICAL  ASSOCIATION  CONGRESS. 


949 


The  points  indicated  above,  and  many  others,  were  brought 
out  in  an  emphatic  manner  at  the  largely  attended,  successful, 
and  enthusiastic  congress  held  by  this  denomination  Sep¬ 
tember  19-21,  1893.  Hon.  C.  C.  Bonney,  president  of  the 

World’s  Fair  Auxiliary,  opened  the  session  of  the  presentation 
¥ 

meeting  and  called  upon  Bev.  H.  J.  Bowman  of  Des  Moines, 
Iowa,  to  make  the  opening  prayer.  Thereupon  Mr.  Bonney 
made  an  eloquent  opening  address,  and  then  presented  to  the 
large  audience  Bev.  G.  C.  Knobel,  pastor  of  the  Centennial 
Evangelical  Church,  Chicago,  as  the  chairman  of  the  meeting, 
who  made  a  felicitous  address  of  response  and  welcome.  Bev. 
S.  P.  Spreng,  editor  of  the  Evangelical  Messenger.,  Cleveland, 
Ohio,  read  an  able  paper  on  the  history  of  the  denomination; 
Bishop  J.  J.  Esher  of  Chicago  read  a  profound  treatise  on  her 
doctrine,  constituting  a  complete  epitome  of  systematic  theol¬ 
ogy,  and  Bishop  S.  C.  Breyfogel  of  Beading,  Pa.,  read  a 
succinct  and  ringing  paper  on  the  polity  of  the  Evangelical 
Association. 

In  the  Denominational  Congress  which  followed,  the  bishops 
present  presided  by  turn,  and  addresses  and  papers  were  pre¬ 
sented  on  the  following  themes:  ‘‘  The  Belation  of  the  Evan¬ 
gelical  Association  to  the  Cause  of  Education,”  Pres.  H.  J.  Kigk- 
hoefer.  Northwestern  College,  Naperville,  Ill.;  ‘‘The  Need  of 
an  Educated  Ministry,”  Prof.  S.  L.  Umbach,  Union  Biblical 
Institute,  Naperville,  Ill.;  “  Our  Home  Mission  Work,”  Bishop 
W.  Horn,  Cleveland,  Ohio;  “  Our  Mission  Work  in  Europe,” 
Bev.  N.  Gaehr,  Cleveland,  Ohio;  “Our  Mission  Work  in 
Japan,”  Bishop  J.  J.  Esher,  Chicago;  “  The  Heroines  of  the 
Evangelical  Association,”  Mrs.  Kate  Klinefelter  Bowman,  Des 
Moines,  Iowa;  “The  Deaconess’ Movement  in  our  Church,” 
Mrs.  Jacobea  Gaehr,  Cleveland,  Ohio;  “  Mothers’  Work  in  the 
Church,”  Mrs.  H.  C.  Smith,  Naperville,  Ill.;  “Missionary  and 
Temperance  Work  for  the  Women  of  Our  Church,”  Mrs.  E.  M. 
Spreng,  Akron,  Ohio;  “  The  Evangelical  Association  and  Moral 
Beform,”  Bev.  J.  0.  Hornberger,  editor  Living  Epistle  and 
Sunday-school  literature,  Cleveland,  Ohio;  “The  Young 


950 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


People’s  Alliance  of  the  Evangelical  Association,”  Rev.  J.  A. 
Thomas,  editor  of  the  Evangelical  Magazine  and  Sunday-school 
literature,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  president  of  the  Alliance;  “Twen¬ 
tieth-Century  Responsibilities:  How  to  Meet  Them,”  Rev.  J.  B. 
Kanaga,  Marion,  Ohio;  “  Our  Young  People  and  the  Institu¬ 
tions  of  Our  Church,”  Rev.  Gr.  C.  Knobel,  Chicago;  “Denomi¬ 
national  Young  People’s  Societies,”  Revs.  W.  H.  Messerschmidt, 
Naperville,  Ill.,  and  George  Husser,  Chicago;  “The  Spiritual 
Element  in  the  Young  People’s  Alliance,”  Rev.  M.  L.  Wing, 
Berlin,  Ontario;  “The  Young  Men  of  Our  Country:  Their 
Perils  and  Possibilities,”  Rev.  S.  J.  Gammertsfelder,  assistant 
editor  Evangelical  Messenger^  Cleveland,  Ohio. 


CONGRESS  OF  MISSIONS. 

Missionaries  from  every  quarter  of  the  globe  assembled  in 
Columbus  Hall,  September  28th,  to  inaugurate  the  Congress 
of  Missions,  which  lasted  eight  days.  All  the  sessions  were 
well  attended,  and  great  interest  shown  in  the  proceedings. 
In  his  address  of  welcome  President  Bonney  said: 

The  work  of  the  missions  has  not  been  adequately  comprehended  by  the 
majority  of  inhabitants  of  this  present,  busy,  bustling,  work-a-day  world. 
\^ie  think  of  the  missionaries  only  in  a  vague,  indistinct  manner.  We  do 
not  study  them;  we  do  not  look  into  their  hard,  toilsome,  and  self-sacrific¬ 
ing  lives.  All  the  hardships,  all  the  troubles,  all  the  perils  and  dangers 
which  they  undergo  we  know  not  nor  do  we  care.  Our  churches  send  these 
little  bands  of  hardy  men  and  brave  women  into  the  jungles  and  impene¬ 
trable  forests  of  a  barbarous  and  uncivilized  country.  The  church  issues 
the  call,  and  how  nobly  do  these  men  and  women  respond!  They  are  vol¬ 
unteers,  not  conscripts.  For  the  love  of  humanity  they  go  forth  bravely, 
and  some,  indeed,  never  return;  and  on  the  deserts  of  Africa,  and  in  the 
valleys  of  India,  and  in  the  rice  fields  of  China,  there  are  graves,  lonely  and 
forlorn,  with  no  stone  to  mark  the  last  resting-place  of  these  loyal  Chris¬ 
tians  who  are  worthy  to  be  numbered  among  the  little  band  of  martyrs. 

Rev.  Walter  Manning  Barrows,  the  presiding  officer  of  the 
Congress,  also  delivered  an  address  of  welcome,  in  which  he 

said :  * 

It  is  true  that  Charles  Dickens  once  said  contemptuously:  “Of  what 
use  are  missionaries?  They  leave  the  countries  which  they  visit  far  worse 
than  they  found  them.”  Such  remarks,  however,  are  seldom  heard  in  our 
day.  Dickens  made  one  exception,  however,  to  his  general  statement,  and 
that  single  exception  was  that  great  and  glorious  missionary  whom  we  all 
reverence  and  admire,  David  Livingstone,  who  penetrated  the  jungles  of 


CONGRESS  OF  MISSIONS. 


951 


darkest  Africa.  Livingstone  was  a  great  and  noble  man,  of  wonderful 
attainments  and  perseverance;  a  man  whom  no  dangers  could  intimidate, 
no  hardships  defeat,  in  his  march  to  spread  the  belief  of  Christianity 
among  the  heathen  and  pagan  tribes  of  the  dark  continent.  But  David 
Livingstone  was  only  the  noble  representative  of  a  noble  band  of  martyrs. 
And  the  monument  erected  in  his  memory  is  a  monument  also  to  all  of  the 
unknown  heroes  who  have  died  in  the  cause  of  Christ  and  humanity. 

This  Congress  of  Religions  would  never  be  complete  if  provision  had 
not  been  made  for  a  congress  of  missionaries.  We  gather  here  to  discuss 
the  best  ways  to  spread  the  gospel.  Each  of  us  can  gain  many  points 
from  our  brothers’  experience.  But  the  world  will  never  be  Christianized 
by  a  church  divided  into  a  hundred  sects  and  creeds,  torn  into  fragments 
by  internal  dissensions,  exhausted  with  bitter  fights  between  one  another. 
The  church  must  be  a  common  unit  to  do  its  God-appointed  work.  It 
must  stand  together,  in  one  brotherhood,  in  one  cause  for  the  good  of  one 
humanity. 

Bev.  Alexander  McKay  Smith,  D.  D.,  of  Washington,  fol¬ 
lowed  with  a  paper  on  the  subject  of  “The  City  of  To-day;  Its 
Place,  Perils,  and  Possibilities.’’  He  described  the  city  of 
to-day  as  a  closely  laced  net-work  of  a  system  of  slavery. 
Within  its  boundaries  the  free,  yet  enslaved,  men  and  women 
toil  on  day  after  day,  night  after  night,  in  the  one  ceaseless 
grind  and  turmoil  to  eke  out  a  precarious  existence.  Compar¬ 
ing  the  European  cities  with  those  of  America,  he  said  it  was 
strange  that  the  former  should  be  so  much  better  governed  and 
better  managed  than  those  of  America.  The  reason  for  this, 
he  thought,  was  that  the  better  class  of  citizens  of  this  country 
paid  but  little  heed  to  their  municipal  government,  and  allowed 
the  balance  of  power  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  irresponsible 
foreigners  who  came  to  the  United  States  merely  to  secure  fat 
political  jobs. 

George  D.  Candlin,  the  well-known  Chinese  missionary, 
talked  about  missionary  work  in  the  celestial  empire : 

There  are  many  learned  men  in  China,  but  there  is  no  advancement. 
There  is  no  future  for  the  celestial  empire.  China  to-day  lives  solely 
in  the  past.  They  read  nothing  but  books  which  have  been  handed 
down  for  hundreds  of  years.  They  study  only  the  past,  and  look  not  into 
the  to-morrow.  There  is  no  future  for  the  Chinese  Empire  unless,  by 
the  aid  of  the  missionaries,  they  embrace  the  doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Without  these  doctrines  China  is  doomed  to  sink  beneath  the  dark  waters 
of  oblivion,  where  ttiey  will  be  hidden  forever  from  the  sight  of  humanity. 
They  can  only  be  saved  by  the  Light  of  the  World.  We  missionaries  try  to 
teach  them  to  turn  out  of  the  path  that  winds  through  the  valleys  of  yester¬ 
day,  to  arouse  them  from  their  lethargic  sleep  to  make^  good  use  of  ^  their 
latent  possibilities,  and  we  are  happy  for  a  future  glorious  with  crimson 
and  gold. 


952 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Rev.  John  McNeill,  the  celebrated  English  evangelist,  deliv¬ 
ered  a  stirring  address  on  “City  Missions,”  a  subject  which  was 
also  treated  by  Rev.  Dr.  Frank  M.  Bristol  of  Chicago,  at  a  subse¬ 
quent  session.  Dr.  Bristol  upbraided  those  so  zealous  for  con¬ 
verts  among  strange  people  with  forgetting  the  crying  needs 
for  evangelization  at  home.  He  urged  that  the  churches  should 
concentrate  their  efforts  upon  the  most  needy  districts  of  large 
cities.  He  said: 

It  is  useless  for  us  to  talk  about  saving  the  heathen  abroad  unless  we 
can  save  the  heathen  at  home.  If  you  can  not  save  Chicago,  you  can  not 
save  Calcutta;  unless  you  can  save  San  Francisco,  you  can  not  save 
Shanghai;  unless  you  can  save  Boston,  you  can  not  save  Bombay.  We  plant 
our  altars  among  the  silks  and  satins,  and  not  amidst  the  rags  of  Chicago. 
We  plant  them  among  homes  whose  tables  groan  with  every  luxury,  and 
we  do  not  plant  them  in  the  midst  of  homes  that  are  empty,  where  little 
children  are  pinched  with  want  and  hunger. 

Go  over  to  Halsted  Street,  or  visit  “  Little  Hell  ”  on  the  North  Side.  Look 
at  the  street  arabs — the  shoeblacks  and  newsboys  on  our  streets— the  city 
waifs,  who  sleep  below  dry -goods  boxes.  These  boys  are  growing  up  to  be 
voters  and,  in  a  few  years,  they  will  be  settling  political  questions,  not  only 
for  Chicago,  but  for  the  United  States.  God  help  us  and  open  our  eyes  to 
see  the  field  we  have  right  here  in  our  midst  in  Chicago.  Here  we  have 
40,000  Bohemians — more  than  are  in  the  City  of  Prague;  we  have  17,000 
Italians,  and  very  little  is  being  done  for  their  evangelization.  And  what 
shall  I  say  about  the  Indians?  If  we  have  taken  from  them  this  country  and 
driven  them  out  by  our  superior  intelligence,  we  owe  them  at  least  the 
gospel  of  J esus  Christ. 

Rev.  Dr.  Elliot  Griffis  of  Boston  contributed  a  valuable  paper 
on  “The  Citizen  Writes  of  Missionaries.”  Dr.  Griffis  said: 

When  a  missionary’s  life  or  property  is  endangered,  the  Government  is  as 
fully  bound  to  protect  him  as  in  the  case  of  the  merchant  or  traveler,  and, 
in  the  case  of  loss  or  destruction  of  property,  to  seek  to  obtain  redress.  As 
the  Government  knows  not  nor  inquires  into  the  religion  of  its  citizens,  so 
it  knows  not  nor  inquires  into  his  opinions  regarding  Christianity.  The 
Government  knows  only  citizens,  not  traders  or  missionaries.  If  American 
missionaries  are  imprisoned  and  their  property  confiscated,  and  little  or  no 
notice  taken  of  it  at  Washington,  when  a  whole  squadron  was  sent  to 
Naples  to  collect  money  for  Baltimore  insurance  companies,  then  some¬ 
thing  is  wrong,  and  the  policy  of  the  United  States  Government  has  fallen 
away  from  a  high  standard.  If  a  war  be  begun  with  Corea  and  400  natives 
are  slaughtered  by  Dahlgren  howitzers  and  Bridgeport  rifles,  because  cer¬ 
tain  American  marauders  in  the  schooner  “  General  Sherman  ”  have  been 
attacked,  while  the  Turks  are  allowed  to  burn  mission  premises  and  assault 
American  women,  then  we  can  not  help  thinking  there  is  either  inconsist¬ 
ency  or  weakness  at  Washington.  Does  the  Government  say  it  can  make 
absolutely  no  discrimination  between  its  citizens  abroad?  Then  let  us  have 
interpretations  and  manifestations  showing  that  it  makes  no  discrimina¬ 
tions  between  the  great  countries  like  Spain  and  the  Ottoman  Empire  and 
little  ones  like  Naples  and  Corea,  and  that  its  pleasure  is  equal,  whether  in 
acting  as  the  dun  or  as  the  protector. 


CONGRESS  OF  MISSIONS. 


953 


Thomas  Kane  of  Chicago  presented  a  paper,  in  which  he 
worked  out  a  plan  whereby  every  person  could  give  to  missions 
a  yearly  sum  proportionate  to  his  income;  also  a  table  for  pro¬ 
portionate  giving  by  the  church  to  the  various  home  and 
foreign  missions.  In  the  course  of  his  address,  Mr.  Kane  said: 

It  is  a  scientific  principle  that  all  missionary  work  should  be  carried  on 
on  the  same  basis  adopted  by  other  undertakings  where  there  is  a  division 
of  labor,  and  where  much  of  the  work  has  to  be  done  by  proxy.  Thus  the 
man  who  devotes  himself  to  earning  money,  and  conscientiously  gives  a  cer¬ 
tain  proportion  of  it  for  mission  work,  is  just  as  much  a  missionary  as  the 
man  who  gives  his  life  to  carrying  the  gospel  to  heathen  lands.  Propor¬ 
tionate  giving— or,  a  much  better  term,  proportionate  payment  from  an 
income — as  a  practical  recognition  of  our  stewardship  is  the  only  practical 
recognition  we  laymen  can  give.  If  we  adopt  it  as  a  rule  of  life,  you  can 
assure  us  that  we  are  practical  partners  with  you  in  your  life  work,  you 
doing  our  preaching  and  teaching  for  us,  and  we  doing  our  share  toward 
your  support.  You  can  assure  us  that  we  just  as  surely  help  to  build 
churches  in  destitute  places,  if,  in  this  way,  we  help  to  pay  for  the  build¬ 
ing,  as  if  we  personally  laid  the  bricks  and  drove  the  nails.  You  can  also 
assure  us  that,  if  we  do  this,  we  can  have,  and  do  have,  a  personal  interest 
in  the  salvation  of  every  soul  brought  to  Christ  through  the  efforts  of  mis¬ 
sionaries  in  every  land  where  we  contribute  to  their  support. 

Rev.  Joseph  Cook  of  Boston,  at  one  of  the  sessions, 
summed  up  the  results  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions  in  an 
able  manner. 

He  said  that  chief  among  the  salient  features  of  the  parlia¬ 
ment  was  the  memorable  fact  that  it  would  not  listen  to  a 
defense  of  polygamy.  Polygamy  was  a  crime  under  the  laws 
of  the  United  States,  and  it  was  not  the  purpose  of  the  managers 
of  the  parliament  that  any  championship  should  be  made  of 
a  system  which  the  law  of  the  land  condemns. 

He  charged  the  speaker  who  dealt  with  the  subject  with  bad 
faith,  as  he  had  promised  not  to  defend  but  rather  to  condemn 
polygamy  when  setting  forth  the  principles  of  Islam.  “  And 
yet  when  those  amazing  sentences  came  forth  in  defense  of 
polygamy,”  said  the  speaker,  “  that  audience,  which  was  fair 
above  all  things  and  ready  to  applaud  everything  good,  hissed 
and  cried  ‘  Shame!  ’  That  is  enough  to  show  that  in  America 
we  abhor  the  polygamy  which  is  an  acknowledged  feature  of 
the  Mohammedan  faith  and  worship.”  Mr.  Cook  went  on  to 
indorse  the  statements  of  Dr.  Pentecost  in  regard  to  the 
immoralities  of  Indian  religions,  and  said  the  other  features  of 


954 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


the  parliament  were  that  it  denounced  every  form  of  inter¬ 
national  injustice,  including  the  opium  traffic,  the  rum  traffic, 
and  the  Chinese  exclusion  law;  also  that  it  expressed  its  abhor¬ 
rence  of  caste,  and  called  for  the  Christianization  of  Christen¬ 
dom.  But  the  sublimest  moments  in  the  parliament  were  those 
when  the  representatives  of  Buddhism,  Confucianism,  Brah¬ 
manism,  and  Shintoism  all  joined  with  the  representatives  of 
Christianity  in  the  universal  prayer,  the  first  words  of  which, 
“  Our  Father,”  strike  at  all  caste  and  bring  all  men  to  a  com¬ 
mon  level. 

Another  notable  address  was  by  Kev.  Francis  E.  Clark,  who 
is  at  the  head  of  the  Christian  Endeavor  movement.  His  sub¬ 
ject  was  “  Besponsibility  of  Young  People  and  Their  Societies 

for  Missions.”  Dr.  Clark  said:  ; 

The  hopeful  sign  of  the  present  day  was  the  wonderful  quickening 
of  interest  on  the  part  of  young  people  in  the  work  of  foreign  missions. 
Mission  work  had  come  to  be  no  longer  a  novelty;  it  had  been  stripped 
of  much  of  the  romance  that  had  encircled  it,  and  it  was  found  to-day  to 
involve  not  so  much  a  life  of  adventurous  incident  as  of  prosaic  hardship. 
“Even  the  boys  and  girls,”  he  said,  “have  come  to  know  that  missionary 
work  in  foreign  lands  is  very  much  like  Christian  work  in  any  land,  so  far 
as  the  spirit  and  purpose  and  determination  and  grinding  attention  to 
details  are  concerned.”  He  called  attention  to  the  remarkable  students’ 
volunteer  movement  in  England  and  America  which  enrolls  in  its  lists 
6,000  young  people  who  are  ready  to  go  forth  as  missionaries  to  foreign 
lands,  and  expressed  the  confident  hope  that  during  the  coming  year  the 
Christian  Endeavor  Society  will  make  a  thank-offering  of  not  less  than 
a  quarter  of  a  millon  dollars  for  missionary  purposes. 

Bev.  J.  T.  Gracey  of  Bochester,  N.  Y.,  read  a  paper  on 
“  Native  Agencies  the  Chief  Hope  of  National  Evangelization.” 
He  strongly  advocated  the  organization  of  schools  in  foreign 
lands,  in  which  the  native  converts  will  be  schooled,  after  which 
they  shall  go  out  and  act  as  missionaries.  He  said  the  Ameri¬ 
can  missionary  was  the  only  interpreter  of  the  West  to  the 
East,  and  that  more  work  was  done  by  native  Christians  than 
by  the  missionaries  themselves.  In  India  alone  there  were 
enough  native  Christians  to  evangelize  the  entire  empire.  He 
prophesied  that  some  day  out  of  the  ranks  of  the  native  mis¬ 
sionaries  there  will  rise  a  man  who  will  topple  over  the  govern¬ 
ments  of  the  East  and  will  demolish  forever  the  old  pagan 
religions,  and  put  up  in  their  place  Christianity. 


CONGRESS  OF  MISSIONS. 


955 


On  October  2d  the  Woman’s  Congress  of  Missions  convened 
in  joint  session  with  the  General  Congress  of  Missions.  Mrs. 
Franklin  W.  Fisk,  president  of  the  Woman’s  Congress,  delivered 
an  opening  address,  and  devotional  exercises  were  conducted 
by  Mrs.  E.  B.  Capron,  formerly  a  missionary  in  India. 

Mrs.  Benjamin  Douglas  spoke  on  woman’s  missions,  explain¬ 
ing  that  they  were  simply  carrying  out  the  principle  embodied  in 
the  angel  song  ‘‘  Peace  on  Earth,  Good  Will  to  Men.”  Men’s 
highest  good  and  God’s  highest  glory  are  bound  together,  and 
for  this  double  purpose  they  are  united  in  the  work  of  woman’s 
missions.  Woman’s  work  in  the  mission  field  is  only  the  out¬ 
come  of  that  aggressive  Christianity,  without  which  there  would 
be  little  church  life  or  activity. 

George  W.  Washburn,  D.  D.,  president  of  Roberts  College, 
Constantinople,  also  delivered  an  able  address  on  the  true  aim 

of  missionary  work,  in  the  course  of  which  he  set  forth : 

Whatever  work  will  bring  the  missionary  and  the  Moslem  together,  and 
make  them  friends,  and  thus  help  them  to  understand  each  other,  is  not 
only  a  legitimate  but  an  essential  form  of  missionary  work  It  may  be,  at 
a  given  time  and  place,  better  missionary  work  to  import  plows  than  tracts; 
to  help  a  fisherman  mend  his  boat  than  to  repeat  to  him  the  catechism; 
to  dig  a  well  than  to  preach  a  sermon;  to  found  a  college  than  to  build  a 
church;  to  study  the  Koran  than  to  read  the  Bible,  if  these  things  open 
the  way  to  win  men’s  confidence  and  sympathy. 

The  first  question,  What  is  the  true  aim  of  missionary  work,  and  what 
kind  of  work  ought  a  missionary  to  do?  is  thus  answered:  The  true  aim  of 
the  missionary  work  is  to  make  Christ  known  to  the  world,  and  nothing  is 
foreign  to  this  work  which  reveals  His  spirit  or  His  characteristic  of  His 
kingdom.  We  may  add  that  nothing  is  essential  to  it  which  is  peculiar  to 
any  sect,  nation,  or  civilization.  When  sectarian  propaganda  is  the  chief 
object,  as  unhappily  it  sometimes  is,  it  is  the  devil’s  mission  and  not 
Christ’s.  The  true  and  now  generally  accepted  answer  to  the  question, 
what  a  missionary  ought  to  expect  to  accomplish,  is  the  golden  mean 
between  these  two  extremes.  He  is  not  simply  a  witness-bearer,  nor  does 
he  expect  personally  to  evangelize  a  nation.  His  mission  is  based  on  that 
theory  of  Christian  work  which  Edward  Everett  Hale  has  graphically 
set  forth  in  his  “Ten  Times  One  Is  Ten.” 

A  feature  of  the  opening  session  was  the  singing  of  the 
famous  Grace  Church  Choir  of  boys  under  the  leadership  of 
Professor  Rooney.  Dr.  George  F.  Pentecost  gave  an  interest¬ 
ing  talk  on  “The  Progress  of  Missions  in  India.”  He  claimed 
that  India  was  the  key  to  the  situation  in  the  mission  fields 
of  the  East,  the  reason  being  that  India  is  a  progressive 
country  quick  to  respond  to  new  ideas  and  ready  to  adopt 


956 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


whatever  is  best  from  other  countries.  On  the  other  hand, 
China,  he  said,  was  dense  and  utterly  indifferent  to  progress, 
and  it  was  harder,  therefore,  to  influence  her  in  the  matter  of 
the  Christian  religion.  The  speaker  briefly  reviewed  both  the 
discouragements  and  encouragements  to  Christian  missions  in 
India,  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  result  was  of  the 
most  promising  character  for  the  future  of  Christianity  in 
India.  He  said  that  Hinduism  was  being  steadily  under¬ 
mined  by  Christian  teaching,  while  Mohammedanism,  which  is 
one  of  the  strongest  religions  in  India,  is  not  making  any 
appreciable  progress.  The  native  religions,  he  said,  had  been 
riven  into  sects  by  the  impact  of  Christianity,  and  all  these 
sects  had  been  more  or  less  modified  and  their  doctrines  largely 
colored  by  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament.  He  concluded 
by  prophesying  that  sometime  in  the  near  future  there  would 
be  a  great  religious  upheaval  in  India,  which  would  break 
down  all  existing  religions  and  make  Christianity  triumphant 
over  all  that  land. 

Miss  Ellen  C.  Parsons  of  New  York,  in  an  able  address, 
traced  the  history  of  organized  missionary  work  from  the  16th 
century  up  to  the  dawn  of  the  19th  century.  Speaking  of 
woman’s  efforts  in  this  field,  she  said: 

What  was  it  that  shook  the  church,  roused  the  women  to  united,  sys¬ 
tematic,  concentrated  action?  That  moved  on  and  on,  a  compelling  force, 
until  we  have  now  in  this  country  the  spectacle  of  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  women,  representing  every  branch  of  the  Christian  Church,  banded 
together  in  chartered  societies  and  disbursing  from  $1,000,000  to  $1,500,000 
every  year?  Only  one  other  movement,  that  of  the  Woman’s  Christian  Tem¬ 
perance  Union,  compares  with  it  in  numbers  and  moral  power.  Whence 
came  that  powerful  voice  which  evoked  so  much  energy  and  action?  It  was 
not  patriotism — warning  of  the  menace  of  an  incoming  tide  of  immigrants — 
that  came  later.  It  was  not  national  remorse  demanding  reparation  to 
the  exile  Indian.  It  was  not  even  the  last  command  of  Jesus,  “  Disciple 
all  nations,”  like  a  clarion  call  to  the  conscience.  It  was  a  human  cry, 
appealing  expressly  to  woman’s  tenderness,  and  it  pierced  her  heart.  It 
sounded  out  from  that  black  heathenism,  ages  old,  lost,  vast,  awful — the 
heartbreak  of  motherhood,  the  stifled  cry  of  distorted  childhood.  This 
was  what  happy  women  heard  in  their  happy,  protected  homes.  “  Are  there 
any  female  men  among  you  to  come  and  teach  us?  ”  asked  a  group  of 
Chinese  women  twenty-nine  years  ago,  of  the  American  missionary.  Women, 
and  only  women,  could  meet  the  need;  something  less  strenuous  might  have 
caught  the  ear,  but  it  required  a  call  just  so  terrible,  importunate,  so  shut 
up  to  woman,  to  fasten  irresistibly  upon  her  heart. 


SUNDAY-REST  CONGRESS. 


957 


The  United  Congress  of  Missions  terminated  on  the  follow¬ 
ing  evening.  The  whole  session  was  marked  by  brilliant, 
earnest,  and  scholarly  papers.  All  differences  in  creed  were 
buried  in  the  purpose  of  the  congress— the  furtherance  of 
Christianity  and  the  uplifting  of  mankind. 

Before  adjournment  the  following  were  appointed  a  com¬ 
mittee  to  arrange  an  International  Missionary  Conference 
between  the  representatives  of  all  the  evangelical  churches 
looking  to  the  evangelization  of  the  world:  Dr.  John  Henry 
Barrows  of  Chicago,  Presbyterian;  Dr.  James  B.  Angell  of 
Michigan,  Congregational;  Archdeacon  McKay-Smith  of  Wash¬ 
ington,  Protestant  Episcopal;  Bishop  Cheney  of  Chicago, 
Reformed  Episcopal;  Dr.  Townsend  of  Boston,  Methodist 
Episcopal;  Dr.  A.  J.  Gordon  of  Boston,  Baptist;  Dr.  John 
Brown  of  Bedford,  England,  Independent;  Dr.  Oswald  of 
Chicago,  Evangelical  Lutheran;  the  Rev.  J.  Summerville  of 
Lewisburg,  Pa.,  Christian;  the  Rev.  David  Burrill  of  New  York, 
Reformed  Church  of  America. 

SUNDAY-REST  CONGRESS. 

A  large  number  of  men  and  women  who  have  made  a  spe¬ 
cial  study  of  the  weekly  rest-day  question  from  the  standpoint 
both  of  religion  and  social  economy,  assembled  in  congress  in 
the  Hall  of  Washington,  September  27th.  Among  those  pres¬ 
ent  were  Rev.  Dr.  Atterburv,  Dr.  John  H.  Hollister,  General 
Howard,  William  Allen  Butler  of  New  York;  Judge  Doolittle; 
Dr.  Brocket,  Italy;  Henri  de  Vilmorin  of  Paris,  and  Rabbi 
Felsenthal.  President  Bonney  made  a  suitable  address  of  wel¬ 
come  in  which  he  said: 

This  movement  is  essentially  one  for  the  abolition  of  a  vast  oppressive 
system  of  human  slavery.  The  laws  of  nature,  which  are  the  laws  of  God, 
command  a  weekly  rest-day  for  every  person.  Sunday  is  the  vital  condi¬ 
tion  of  true  civil  and  religious  liberty  everywhere.  A  man  who  has  not  his 
one  day  in  seven  is  denied  not  only  the  rest  which  he  requires,  but  is 
denied  the  precious  privileges  which  belong  to  civil  society  and  to  the  fam¬ 
ily.  My  blood  has  boiled  with  indignation  when  I  have  heard  men  say  in 
Central  Music  Hall,  in  this  city,  that  their  own  faces  were  unfamiliar  to 
their  families  because  they  left  home  for  work  so  early  in  the  morning  and 
returned  so  late  every  day  in  the  week.  You  will  _  find,  too,  that  where 
some  men  work  seven  days  in  the  week  others  are  idle  seven  days  of  the 
week.  It  is  a  practical  question  from  any  point  of  view. 


958 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Dr.  Atterbury  briefly  reviewed  the  history  of  the  Sunday- 
rest  movement  from  its  inception  in  Europe  to  the  present  - 
time.  Gen.  O.  O.  Howard  spoke  in  hearty  commendation  of 
the  movement,  and  letters  expressive  of  interest  and  good 
wishes  were  read  from  the  Netherlands  Sunday-Rest  Associa¬ 
tion,  the  Glasgow  Workingmen’s  Association,  Men’s  Lord’s- 
Day  Rest  Association,  and  from  Leon  Say,  the  distinguished 
French  statesman. 

Dr.  Samuel  B.  Lyon,  medical  superintendent  Bloomingdale 
Asylum,  New  York,  submitted  an  interesting  paper  on  the 
value  of  some  day  rest.  Dr.  Lyon  showed  the  vicious  effects 
of  unremitted  labor  on  body  and  mind,  quoting  many  high 
authorities  to  the  effect  that  such  continuous  toil  results  in 
lowering  the  vitality  of  the  body,  reduces  the  length  of  life, 
incapacitates  the  toiler  from  enjoyment,  and  in  many  cases 
drives  men  to  insanity. 

Ex-Senator  Doolittle  occupied  the  chair  at  one  session  and 
made  the  following  speech: 

In  taking  the  president’s  chair  for  a  single  session  of  this  International 
Congress  on  Sunday  Rest,  I  am  deeply  sensible  of  the  great  honor  conferred 
upon  me.  In  favoring  a  weekly  rest  of  one  day  in  seven  for  all  who  labor 
with  hand  or  brain,  I  am  sure  I  am  not  violating  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  or  any  State  in  this  Union,  all  of  which  expressly  for¬ 
bid  making  any  “  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibit¬ 
ing  the  free  exercise  thereof.” 

In  favoring  such  a  rest  I  am  only  recognizing  what  has  been  consecrated 
by  all  human  history,  and  by  all  religions,  from  the  earliest  times.  I  am 
only  favoring  obedience  to  those  natural  laws  which  God,  the  Almighty, 
has  stamped  upon  the  very  constitution  of  man,  and  of  human  society. 

Others  will  speak  of  the  physiological  and  pathological  value  of  Sunday 
rest — of  its  good  effects  upon  the  products  of  labor  in  quantity  and  quality, 
and  upon  wages;  of  its  effect  upon  the  character  and  habits  of  laboring 
people;  of  its  special  relation  to  women  in  factories,  stores,  and  domestic 
service,  and,  more  than  all,  of  the  inestimable  value  of  Sunday  rest  to  the 
home  and  family  life,  which,  after  all,  is  the  only  sure  foundation  for  God’s 
republic  on  this  earth.  When  you  hear  them,  I  have  no  doubt  you  will  be 
satisfied  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  secure  and  defend  one  day’s  rest 
in  seven  for  all  the  people. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  expressly  recognizes  Sunday  as  a 
day  of  rest  for  the  executive — as  a  non-legal  day  as  to  him.  It  says: 

If  any  bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the  President  within  ten  days,  Sundays 
excepted,  after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  it  shall  become  a  law. 

The  Sunday  laws  have  been  sustained  by  the  Supreme  Courts  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Illinois,  and  of  all  the  States 
except,  perhaps,  California — not  upon  religious  grounds,  not  to  enforce 
religion,  but  to  protect  those  who  would  worship  God  in  peace  in  the 


SUNDAY-REST  CONGRESS. 


959 


enjoyment  of  their  rights,  and  as  a  police  regulation  for  the  good  order  and 
peace  of  society,  and  for  the  great  benefit  of  one  common  day  of  rest  every 
week,  for  the  good  of  all  men. 

Dr.  Butler  submitted  a  valuable  paper  on  “  Sunday  Laws,” 
of  which  the  following  is  a  brief  summary: 

The  root  of  the  weekly  rest  as  an  institution  is  found,  not  so  much  in 
natural  law  as  in  moral  obligation.  Its  incorporation  into  the  general 
order  of  society  is  a  result  of  civilization,  aided  by  Christianity,  both  com¬ 
bining  to  give  to  its  support,  as  a  secondary  basis,  the  consent  of 
the  communities,  and  establishing  it  as  an  institution  favorable,  if  not 
indispensable,  to  the  physical,  moral,  and  social  needs  of  mankind.  It  is, 
therefore,  alike  the  province  and  duty  of  the  government  to  maintain  it 
for  the  public  use  and  enjoyment.  It  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  accept  and 
to  retain  the  existing  system  of  Sunday  legislation  without  relaxing  the 
strictness  of  its  prohibitions  and  without  infringing  on  the  freedom  of 
individual  conscience.  Sunday  laws  are  properly  maintained  as  civil  reg¬ 
ulations,  governing  men  as  members  of  society.  Obedience  to  such  laws  is 
properly  claimed  and  partially  enforced,  while,  as  a  vital  principle  which 
gives  strength  and  stability  to  the  world’s  day  of  rest,  at  once  the  pledge 
and  the  guaranty  of  its  perpetuity  and  its  beneficent  power,  is  the  faith  of 
humanity  that  it  is  a  gift  of  God. 

Kabbi  Felsenthal  of  Chicago  discussed  the  “Sabbath  in 
Judaism”  during  one  of  the  sessions.  He  began  with  a  brief 
outline  of  the  history  of  the  Sabbath,  showing  its  Jewish 
origin  and  the  manner  of  its  observance  among  the  Jews.  He 
showed  how  also  the  Sabbath  had  been  in  many  ways  a  bless¬ 
ing  to  the  Jews.  It  endowed  that  people,  he  said,  with  strength 
to  withstand  the  almost  unceasing  and  pitiless  attempts  to 
exterminate  the  Jewish  people  and  to  extinguish  the  Jewish 
religion,  and  had  kept  them  united  as  one  religious  denomina¬ 
tion,  despite  their  having  been  dispersed  over  so  many  parts  of 
the  world,  and  despite  their  having  no  ruling  hierarchy  and  no 
centralizing  authorities.  The  Sabbath  had  also  brought  bliss 
and  happiness  to  the  family  life  of  the  Jews,  and  to  its  observ¬ 
ance  was  due  the  conspicuous  fact  that  ignorance  had  never 
spread  among  the  Jews  as  among  other  nations  and  sects.  In 
closing,  the  speaker  said: 

Sabbath  is  a  grand  and  sacred  institution,  but  its  celebration  must  be 
left  to  the  individual.  American  liberty,  I  venture  to  say,  is  a  still  grander 
and  a  still  holier  institution  and  the  maintenance  of  it  is  intrusted  to  each 
and  every  American  citizen.  We  praise  the  weekly  Sabbath.  We  are  sure 
that  from  its  immense  blessings  will  spring  forth  blessings  for  the  mental 
and  for  the  moral  life  of  individuals,  of  families,  and  of  society  at  large.  But 
what  the  laws  and  statutes  enacted  or  to  be  enacted  by  the  legislative 
authorities  of  our  American  States  can  do  for  the  Sabbath  is  this  and  only 
this:  They  can  protect  and  ought  to  protect  every  congregation  assembled 


960 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


on  their  Sabbath  for  divine  worship  in  a  church,  or  a  chapel,  or  a  synagogue, 
or  a  mosque,  or  any  other  place,  against  being  disturbed  in  their  worship, 
and  they  can  guarantee,  and  ought  to  guarantee,  to  each  person  in  our 
land,  even  be  he  the  poorest,  one  day  of  perfect  rest  in  each  week  of  seven 
consecutive  days.  All  further  legislation  by  the  States  or  the  United 
States  is  unnecessary  and  would  be  'Un-American.  But  let  us — let  all  the 
friends  of  the  great  and  sacred  Sabbath  institution — trust  in  the  power  of 
public  opinion.  Relying  upon  that  great  power,  and  upon  the  divine  bless¬ 
ings  of  our  Heavenly  Father,  all  of  us  can  look  hopefully  toward  the  future, 
and  can  rest  assured  that  the  land  in  all  times  to  come  will  have  a  Sab¬ 
bath,  a  real,  genuine  Sabbath. 

Alice  L.  Woodbridge,  secretary  of  the  Working  Women’s 
Society,  New  York,  sent  an  interesting  article  on  “  Sunday 
Rest  in  Relation  to  Working  Women,”  in  which  she  said: 

Although  manufacturing  establishments  generally  .close  on  Sunday, 
this  does  not,  by  any  means,  signify  a  day  of  rest  for  employes.  Sunday  to 
them  means  simply  a  change  of  work.  There  has  been  a  very  considerable 
improvement  in  the  condition  of  affairs  within  the  last  few  years,  largely 
due  to  the  efforts  of  organized  labor. 

That  the  world  is  awakening  to  the  needs  of  co-operation  is  shown 
through  the  international  assembling  of  those  interested  in  the  cause  of 
Sunday  rest.  This  seems  an  excellent  opportunity  to  secure  the  co-opera¬ 
tion  of  all  organizations  interested  in  obtaining  a  Saturday  half-holiday, 
and  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  suggest  that  organized  efforts  to  secure  a 
change  of  pay  day  will  greatly  advance  this  movement.  It  is,  no  doubt,  far 
nobler  for  the  individual  to  learn  to  withstand  temptation,  but  under 
existing  conditions  we  are  insured  against  temptation  only  through  its 
removal,  and  a  Monday  pay  day  would  remove  much  of  the  temptation  to 
purchase  on  Saturday. 

Other  speakers  were  Miss  Jane  Addams  of  Hull  House;  Miss 
Florence  Kelley,  Mrs.  Charles  Henrotin,  Rev.  O.  Remier  of 
Paris,  and  John  Charlton,  M.  P.,  of  Canada. 

On  Sunday  afternoon,  October  1st,  a  mass  meeting  was  held 
in  the  Hall  of  Washington,  under  the  auspices  of  the  congress. 
The  speakers  were  President  Bonney,  Rev.  Dr.  Arthur  Little 
of  Boston;  Rev.  Dr.  Atterbury  of  New  York;  W.  J.  Onahan, 
L.  T.  O’Brien,  S.  W.  Elliott,  and  Rev.  O.  P.  Grifford  of  Chicago. 
The  meeting  was  largely  attended  and  the  addresses  were  cal¬ 
culated  to  aid  the  movement. 


YOUNG  MEN’S  CHRISTIAN  ASSOCIATION. 

On  Friday,  October  6th,  was  held  the  World’s  Congress  of 
the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association,  which  proved  very 
pleasant  and  profitable.  There  were  a  number  of  delegates 
present  from  Europe.  President  Bonney  opened  the  congress 


YOUNG  MEN^S  CHRISTIAN  ASSOCIATION. 


961 


with  a  brief  address  of  welcome,  and  Elbert  D.  Monroe  of  New 
York  officiated  as  chairman.  In  his  introductory  remarks,  Mr. 
Monroe  said  the  mission  of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Associ¬ 
ation  is  to  make  men  the  best  men  in  the  class-room,  at  the 
bench,  in  the  home,  and  at  the  ballot-box.  To  make  the  manly 
Christian  life  enticing  to  the  young  man  of  the  world. 

The  first  paper  was  read  by  Pres.  John  M.  Coulter  of 
Lake  Forest  University.  His  subject  was  “Intercollegiate 
Work,”  begun  but  sixteen  years  ago.  He  said: 

To-day,  about  450  colleges  and  30,000  students  in  America  alone  have 
sworn  allegiance  to  it,  and  its  present  momentum  is  so  great  that  no  one 
can  predict  its  future.  That  it  is  one  of  the  greatest  modern  movements 
connected  with  the  Christian  religion  can  not  be  doubted,  and  the  enthu¬ 
siasm  of  it  is  like  that  of  the  ancient  crusades,  but  its  spirit  is  the  spirit  of 
Christ.  Independent  thinking  is  the  educational  creed  of  to-day,  and  every 
improvement  in  college  method  looks  to  this  end.  The  result  is  already 
apparent  in  the  world’s  questions  about  religion.  The  spirit  of  the  college 
is  the  spirit  of  investigation.  Investigation  in  searching  for  truth  must 
question  everything  that  claims  to  be  the  truth,  and  must  decline  to  yield 
assent  to  human  authority.  The  material  possibilities  of  the  next  genera¬ 
tion  pale  into  insignificance  when  compared  with  the  thought  of  the  next 
generation  concerning  religion.  The  time  is  ripe  in  our  colleges  for  the 
presentation  of  some  simple  essential  truth,  unhampered  by  excrescences 
and  unqualified  in  its  demands  for  the  best  moral  development,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  colleges  will  demand  that  the  men  who  present  this  truth 
shall  live  it. 

The  student  generally  has  been  brought  to  think  the  Bible  is  a  book  to 
believe  rather  than  to  study.  Any  movement  which  will  break  down  this 
notion,  and  which  will  place  the  Bible  in  the  hands  of  the  student  as  any 
other  book,  to  be  searched  for  the  truth  it  may  co^itain,  will  effect  a 
mighty  revolution.  To  say  it  is  to  be  approached  with  a  different  spirit  is 
to  do  it  great  injustice.  The  Bible  asks  only  what  any  book  asks,  an 
unprejudiced  mind.  It  is  this  sort  of  study  that  will  capture  the  strong 
young  men  of  to-day,  and  its  proper  direction  will  demand  the  most  careful 
thought  of  this  association.  My  plea  is  for  the  injection  of  more  virility 
and  of  scientific  spirit  into  Bible  study.  Medieval  and  Oriental  mysticism 
may  satisfy  the  ignorant  or  the  emotional,  but  the  men  of  hard  sense,  who 
are  being  trained  to  keen  analysis  and  independent  judgment,  must  be  led 
by  evident  facts.  With  a  firm  belief  that  a  thoughtful  study  of  the  Bible 
will  lead  to  acceptance  of  Christianity,  and  will  stimulate  constantly  to 
the  practice  of  its  principles,  I  can  see  no  more  important  and  difficult 
part  of  the  work  in  colleges  than  Bible  study. 

E.  L.  Shuey  of  Dayton,  Ohio,  read  a  comprehensive  paper 
on  the  educational  department  of  association  work.  He  spoke 
of  the  great  results  already  accomplished  through  the  night- 
school  system  and  the  university  extension  work,  describing 
somewhat  in  detail  some  of  the  results  which  had  followed  the 
efforts  of  the  association  in  the  direction  of  manual  training. 


962 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


E.  L.  Wisbard  delivered  a  brief  address.  He  said  he  found 
the  young  men  of  the  student  bodies  of  Asia  willing  to  investi¬ 
gate  Christianity  and  to  study  the  Bible.  He  said  that  in 
Japan  there  were  2,000,000  ypung  men  in  the  higher  institu¬ 
tions  of  learning,  and  500,000  in  India.  These  young  men, 
with  the  growth  of  intelligence,  are  abandoning  the  faith  of 
the  ancient  religions.  Mr.  Wishard  said  it  was  the  mission 
of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association  to  stay  the  tide  of 
Western  materialism  which  is  sweeping  over  the  Orient  and  to 
give  to  the  young  men  in  the  place  of  the  old  faiths  they  are 
so  gen^?ally  deserting  the  eternal  truths  of  Christianity. 

Other  addresses  were  delivered  by  Luther  Gulich,  M.  D.,  of 
Springfield,  Mass.;  A.  A.  Stagg,  Lord  Kinnaird  of  London; 
C.  M.  Hobbs  of  the  Denver  &  Bio  Grande  Bailroad,  and 
Cephas  Brainerd  of  New  York. 


YOUNG  WOMEN’S  CHRISTIAN  ASSOCIATION. 

A  short  congress  was  held  by  the  Young  Women’s  Christian 
Association  on  Saturday,  October  7th.  Mrs.  J.  V.  Farwell,  Jr., 
presided  at  the  opening  session  and  the  devotional  exercises  in 
the  evening  were  conducted  by  Bishop  Cheney  of  Chicago. 

Miss  B.  F.  Morse  of  New  York  submitted  an  interesting  paper 
on  ‘‘A  Work  for  and  by  Young  Women.”  She  said: 

If  it  is  true,  as  has  been  said,  that  “  man  may  educate  the  world,  but 
woman  educates  man,”  let  it  be  also  remembered  that  woman  in  her  youth 
is  being  trained  for  the  office  of  educator,  and  is  forming  a  character  which 
will  either  bless  or  blight  the  future  home  in  which  she  will  reign  as  wife 
and  mother.  Two  years  ago  I  quoted  from  a  reliable  source  the  statement 
that  within  fifty  years  the  occupations  available  for  self-supporting  women 
had  multiplied  from  7  to  342.  Of  these  there  were  only  27  in  1860,  so  that 
in  twenty-one  years  315  avenues  in  business  and  professional  lines  had 
been  thrown  open  to  woman.  Naturally  it  is  young  women  who  for  the 
most  part  fill  these  positions,  the  average  age  of  the  business-woman 
in  our  large  cities  being  twenty-two  years. 

The  writer  then  referred  to  the  growing  independence  of 
young  women  and  their  increasing  ability  to  earn  their  own 
livelihood,  and  said  there  was  a  growing  demand  for  those 
social  and  Christian  infiuences  to  be  thrown  around  the  lives  of 
young  women  which  would  supply  the  training — moral,  Intel- 


PRESENTATION  OF  THE  BUDDHISTS. 


963 


.  lectual,  and  physical — which  would  fit  them  for  their  place  in 
the  world.  She  continued:  “  This  is  the  kind  of  work  which 
our  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association  is  doing.” 

Lord  Kinnaird  of  London  ^poke  of  The  Progress  of  the 
Young  Women’s  Christian  Association  in  Great  Britain.” 

The  closing  address  in  the  morning  was  made  by  J.  H. 
Elliott  of  the  Bible  Institute  of  Chicago  on  “  The  Opportuni¬ 
ties  for  Work  for  Young  Women.”  He  set  forth  the  dangers 
surrounding  young  girls  by  their  introduction  into  so-called 
good  society,  and  said  this  kind  of  influence  often  led  to  their 
ruin  and  degradation.  The  tendency  of  young  women  in  our 
modern  society,  so-called,  is  gossip  rather  than  godliness,  the 
dance  rather  than  denial  of  self.  A  good  many  of  our  young 
women,  he  declared,  show  a  preference  for  dudes  rather  than 
for  Daniels,  dress  rather  than  that  which  is  more  helpful. 

Miss  Effie  K.  Price  of  Chicago  read  a  paper  on  “The  Object 
and  Methods  of  the  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association,” 
which  treated  in  detail  the  work  done  by  the  association  in 
helping  woman  in  the  battle  she  has  been  waging  for  equality 
with  man. 

Mrs.  Joseph  Cook  of  Boston  submitted  an  interesting  essay 
on  “  Young  Women  as  Agents  in  the  Evangelization  of  the 
World.” 


PRESENTATION  OF  THE  BUDDHISTS. 

In  the  Hall  of  Columbus  on  the  evening  of  September  26th, 
the  presentation  of  the  Buddhists  was  made  in  the  presence  of 
a  large  audience.  Alfred  Williams  Momerie  of  London  pre¬ 
sided,  and  on  the  platform  were  several  high-priests  of  Bud¬ 
dhism  in  their  official  garments.  Y.  Naguchi  of  Japan  made 

the  address  of  welcome,  as  follows: 

The  Parliament  of  Religions  has  been  a  great  success,  and,  before  my 
farewell  to  this  city,  let  me  address  a  few  words  about  what  came  to  my 
mind  during  my  ramble  of  last  Sunday.  The  murmuring  waves  of  Lake 
Michigan  and  the  whistling  winds  of  J ackson  Park  reminded  me  of  events 
told  many  thousand  years  ago,  and  took  me  back  to  the  age  of  the  ancient 
Oriental  civilization,  especially  that  of  India.  It  divided  itself  into  two 
parts,  and  both  traveled  in  two  opposite  directions,  East  and  West.  That 


964 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


tide  whi(jh  ran  toward  the  West  has  been  the  source  of  the  material  civili¬ 
zation  of  the  Occidental  countries,  and  remained  there  some  time  until 
Columbus  carried  it  over  the  roaring  breakers  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean  to  this 
country,  00  years  ago;  while  that  stream  which  took  the  Eastern  course 
became  the  immaterial  civilization  and  was  tossing  among  the  wild  rocks 
of  China,  Corea,  and  Japan,  and  at  last  by  this  time,  having  been  blown  by 
the  calm  breeze  of  the  Pacific  Ocean,  has  entered  into  America. 

I  can  not  think  that  this  congress  of  the  various  faiths  of  the  world  has 
been  a  mere  show  of  different  races,  but  it  has  done  a  grand  work,  by  which 
the  different  faiths  of  the  globe  have  come  and  will  continue  to  embrace 
with  one  another  in  a  cordial  fraternity;  and  if  our  Oriental  thought  shall 
be  considered  to  give  an  additional  tint  to  the  material  civilization  of 
America  and  increase  her  natural  beauty  and  grace,  our  presentation  was 
not  a  needless  task  and  we  shall  be  greatly  satisfied. 

A  number  of  addresses  were  delivered,  notably  by  Shaku 
Soyen,  Kinza  Hinge  Hirai,  and  Zitsizen  Asbitsu.  Swami  Vive- 

kananda  made  the  closing  speech  of  the  session.  He  said: 

Mr.  President,  My  Brethren,  and  My  Kind  Guardians:  I  am  not  a 
Buddhist,  as  you  have  heard,  and  yet  I  am.  If  China,  or  Japan,  or  Ceylon 
follow  the  teachings  of  the  great  master,  India  worships  him  as  God  incar¬ 
nate  on  earth.  You  have  just  now  heard  that  I  am  going  to  criticise 
Buddhism,  but  by  that  I  wish  you  to  understand  only  this.  Far  be  it  from 
me  to  criticise  him  whom  I  worship  as  God  incarnate  on  earth.  But  our 
views  upon  Buddha  are  that  he  was  not  understood  properly  by  his  disci¬ 
ples.  The  relation  between  Hinduism  (by  Hinduism  I  mean  the  religion  of 
the  Vedas)  and  what  is  called  the  Buddhism  at  the  present  day  is  nearly 
the  same  as  between  Buddhism  and  Christianity.  Jesus  Christ  was  a  Jew 
and  Shakamuni  was  a  Hindu,  but  with  this  difference:  The  Jews  rejected 
Jesus  Christ,  nay,  crucified  Him,  and  the  Hindu  has  exalted  Shakamuni  to 
the  seat  of  divinity  and  worships  him. 

But  the  real  difference  that  we  Hindus  want  to  show  between  mod¬ 
ern  Buddhism  and  what  we  should  understand  as  the  teachings  of  Lord 
Buddha,  lies  principally  in  this.  Shakamuni  came  to  preach  nothing  new. 
He  also,  like  Jesus,  came  to  fulfill  and  not  to  destroy,  and,  reversing  the 
order  of  positions — making  the  Jew  come  down  to  the  New  Testament  and 
the  Christian  go  up  to  the  Old  Testament — and  as  the  Jew  did  not  under¬ 
stand  the  fulfillment  of  the  Old  Testament,  so  the  Buddhist  did  not  under¬ 
stand  the  fulfillment  of  the  truths  of  the  Hindu  religion.  Again  I  repeat, 
Shakamuni  came  not  to  destroy,  but  he  was  the  fulfillment,  the  logical 
conclusion,  the  logical  development  of  tne  religion  of  the  Hindus. 

The  religion  of  the  Hindus  is  divided  into  two  parts,  the  ceremonial 
and  the  spiritual.  The  spiritual  portion  is  especially  studied  by  the 
monks.  In  that  there  is  no  caste.  A  man  from  the  highest  caste  and  a 
man  from  the  lowest  may  become  a  monk  in  India,  and  the  two  castes 
become  equal.  In  religion  there  is  no  caste;  caste  is  simply  a  social  con¬ 
dition.  Shakamuni  himself  was  a  monk,  and  to  his  glory  he  had  the  large¬ 
heartedness  to  bring  out  the  truth  from  the  hidden  Vedas  and  throw 
it  broadcast  all  over  the  world.  He  was  the  first  being  in  the  world 
who  brought  missionarizing  into  practice — nay,  he  was  the  first  to  con¬ 
ceive  the  idea  of  proselyting. 

The  great  glory  of  the  master  lay  in  his  wonderful  sympathy  for  every¬ 
body,  especially  for  the  ignorant  and  poor.  Some  of  his  disciples  were 
Brahmans.  When  Buddha  was  teaching,  Sanskrit  was  no  more  the  spoken 
language  in  India.  It  was  then  only  in  the  books  of  the  learned.  Some 
of  Buddha’s  Brahman  disciples  wanted  to  translate  his  teachings  into  Sans¬ 
krit,  but  he  steadily  told  them,  “I  am  for  the  poor,  for  the  people;  let  me 


EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE  CONGRESS. 


965 


speak  in  the  tongue  of  the  people.”  And  so  to  this  day  the  great  bulk  of 
his  teachings  are  in  the  vernacular  of  that  day  in  India. 

Whatever  may  be  the  position  of  philosophy,  whatever  may  be  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  metaphysics,  so  long  as  there  is  such  a  thing  as  death  in  the  world, 
so  long  as  there  is  such  a  thing  as  weakness  in  the  human  heart,  so  long  as 
there  is  a  cry  going  out  of  the  heart  of  man  in  his  very  weakness,  there 
shall  be  a  faith  in  God. 

On  the  philosophic  side  the  disciples  of  the  great  master  dashed  them¬ 
selves  against  the  eternal  rocks  of  the  Vedas  and  could  not  crush  them, 
and  on  the  other  side  they  took  away  from  the  nation  that  eternal  God  to 
which  every  man  and  woman  clings  so  fondly.  And  the  result  was  that  it 
had  to  die  its  natural  death  in  India,  and  at  the  present  day  there  is  not 
one  man  or  woman  who  calls  himself  a  Buddhist  in  India,  the  mother-land 
of  its  birth. 

On  the  other  hand,  Brahmanism  lost  something — that  reforming  zeal, 
that  wonderful  sympathy  and  charity  for  everybody,  that  wonderful  leaven 
which  Buddhism  brought  into  the  masses,  and  which  rendered  Indian 
society  so  great  that  a  Greek  historian  who  writes  about  India  was  led  to 
say  that  no  Hindu  was  known  to  tell  an  untruth  and  no  Hindu  woman  was 
known  to  be  unchaste. 

Turning  to  the  group  of  Buddhists  on  the  platform,  the 
speaker  continued: 

We  can  not  live  without  you,  nor  you  without  us.  Then  believe  that 
separation  was  shown  to  us,  that  you  can  not  stand  without  the  brain  and 
philosophy  of  the  Brahman,  nor  we  without  your  heart.  This  separation 
between  the  Buddhist  and  the  Brahman  is  the  cause  of  the  downfall  of 
India.  That  is  why  India  is  populated  by  300,000,000  of  beggars,  and  that  is 
why  India  has  been  the  slave  of  conquerors  for  the  last  1,000  years.  Let 
us  then  join  the  wonderful  intellect  of  the  Brahman  with  the  heart,  the 
noble  soul,  the  wonderful  humanizing  power  of  the  great  master. 

A  poem,  composed  by  Soyen  Shaku,  which  was  written 
on  one  side  of  a  white  fan,  was  translated  during  the  meeting 
as  follows: 

There  are  several  races  of  men,  some  black,  some  red,  some  yellow, 
some  white. 

Yet  there  is  but  one  truth  which  reigns  supreme  in  the  West  and  East, 
in  the  South  and  North; 

Yet,  if  you  doubt  truth  being  one,  only  look  at  the  clear  moon  in  the 
high  heavens — 

There  is  no  place  in  the  world  where  her  pure  light  does  not  penetrate. 


EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE  CONGRESS. 

Great  preparations  were  made  for  this  congress,  which  was 
the  last  of  the  series,  and  aroused  a  great  deal  of  interest.  It 
began  on  Sunday,  October  8th,  in  the  Hall  of  Columbus,  and 
ended  on  Sunday  evening,  October  15th.  Three  sessions  were 
held  daily.  A  sentiment  of  unity  and  fraternity  was  the  key¬ 
note  of  the  entire  proceedings.  In  his  address  of  welcome. 


966 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


President  Bonney  referred  to  the  wonderful  Christian  activity 
which  marks  these  days,  the  watchword  of  the  Christian  church 
being  the  conquest  of  the  world.  He  said  that  while  at  the 
beginning  of  the  century  only  one  in  seventy-five  of  the  popu¬ 
lation  professed  themselves  Christians,  at  present  one  in  every 
five  bears  that  sacred  name.  The  Evangelical  Alliance  was,  he 
said,  an  agency  raised  up  by  Divine  Providence  to  promote  the 
peace  and  unity  of  mankind. 

W.  E.  Dodge,  president  of  the  Alliance,  said  the  object  of 
the  congress  was  to  gather  up  the  results  of  all  the  past  con¬ 
gresses  and  give  them  practical  expression  for  the  good  of  man¬ 
kind.  In  a  brief  address.  Rev.  Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows  said: 

The  long  series  of  congresses  so  soon  to  terminate  would  be  incomplete 
without  the  splendid  and  noble  work  represented  by  the  Evangelical  Alli¬ 
ance,  one  of  the  prophecies  of  a  reunited  Christendom.  Cordially  and 
gratefully  I  bid  you  welcome  to  this  hall,  made  illustrious  already  by  events 
of  world-wide  significance,  and  to  this  city  where  the  interest  in  this  series 
of  world’s  conventions  has  been  most  intense  and  pervading. 

We  are  often  told  that  Chicago  is  noted  for  its  big  things — its  big  ware¬ 
houses,  newspapers,  railroads,  expectations,  achievements.  But  when  I 
think  of  all  the  addresses  of  cordial  greeting  which  the  President  of  the 
World’s  Congress  Auxiliary  has  given  in  the  last  five  and  one-half  months, 
about  the  biggest  thing  in  Chicago  is  the  heart  of  the  man  which  has  been 
such  an  ample  storehouse  of  welcome  and  salutation  to  more  than  a  hun¬ 
dred  congresses. 

It  is  your  purpose  to  bring  Christian  truth  home  in  a  closer  and  more 
practical  way  to  all  classes  of  Christian  workers,  to  make  your  meeting  a 
school  of  applied  Christianity.  This  will  be  a  unique  and  splendid  feature 
of  your  congress,  and  I  have  no  doubt  from  the  noble  programme  which 
you  offer  us,  that  this  will  prove  among  the  most  important  conferences 
which  you  have  ever  held. 

Welcome,  then,  thrice  welcome,  and  may  the  infiuence  of  the  reports  of 
this  meeting,  as  they  go  out  into  many  lands,  contribute  to  the  benigner 
tendencies  at  work  among  men,  helping  greatly  what  Dr.  Schaff  pronounces 
the  two  most  important  achievements  now  presented  before  our  faith 
and  our  works — the  reunion  of  Christendom  and  the  conversion  of  the 
world. 

Mrs.  Potter  Palmer  also  delivered  a  graceful  address  of 
welcome,  saying  in  part: 

I  should  omit  one  evident  part  of  my  duty  if  I  did  not  use  my  moment 
of  time  in  calling  attention  to  the  remarkable  work  which  women  have 
organized  and  carried  on  in  useful  and  practical  directions.  With  the 
sanction  and  under  the  fostering  care  of  the  church,  they  first  organized 
and  found  an  outlet  for  their  desire  to  carry  comfort  and  healing  beyond 
the  thresholds  of  their  own  homes.  While  silent  in  the  churches  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  it  has  been  their  high  prerogative  to  aid  in  keeping 
alive  the  spirit  and  practice  of  religion  during  the  remaining  six  days  of 
the  week.  The  results  accomplished  have  borne  silent  witness  to  their 
ability,  self-denial,  and  devotion  to  the  cause  of  humanity. 


EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE  CONGRESS. 


967 


Among  the  topics  discussed  during  the  week  were  ‘‘  Religious 
Condition  of  Protestant  Christendom,”  “  Christian  Liberty,” 
“  Christian  Union  and  Co-operation,”  ‘‘Theological  Education,” 
and  kindred  subjects. 

Speaking  on  Christian  co-operation  in  church  extension.  Rev. 
W.  Hyde,  president  of  Bowdoin  College,  said  it  was  nothing 
more  or  less  than  a  proposition  that  Christian  people  shall  do 
their  Christian  work  in  a  Christian  way.  To  show  that  this 
scheme  of  co-operation  is  entirely  practicable,  he  related  the 
experience  of  the  interdenominational  conference  which  has 
been  established  in  the  State  of  Maine,  and  which  settles  all 
questions  in  reference  to  the  location  of  churches  in  different 
communities,  deciding  which  denomination  is  best  entitled  to 
the  field.  The  workings  of  the  commission  have  been  entirely 
satisfactory,  and  he  recommended  that  in  every  State  a  similar 
commission  should  be  organized.  While  believing  that  differ¬ 
ent  denominations  were  necessary  and  in  some  respects  led  to 
salutary  results,  the  speaker  pointed  out  that  such  differentia¬ 
tion  was  expensive,  and  could  only  be  afforded  in  large  cities. 
Continuing,  he  said: 

A  city  is  better  off  for  variety  in  its  churches  when  it  can  afford  it,  but 
the  attempt  to  get  up  variety  of  this  kind  in  a  country  town  is  ruinous. 
Have  we  any  right  to  spend  money  providing  country  towns  with  these 
ecclesiastical  luxuries  because  these  towns  can  not  support  them  them¬ 
selves?  Yet  that  is  what  we  have  been  doing  for  years,  and  in  consequence 
we  find  everywhere  in  these  communities  empty  churches,  half -paid  min¬ 
isters,  divided  forces,  wasted  strength,  and  scattered  resources.  Statistics 
show  us  many  things  in  this  connection.  There  are  eighteen  towns  in 
Maine,  with  an  average  population  of  244,  and  yet  these  eighteen  towns 
have  forty-nine  churches.  A  town  of  407  has  three  churches,  and  another 
of  143  has  two  churches.  It  is  the  same  in  many  other  parts  of  the 
country. 

In  view  of  these  facts  Christian  co-operation  in  church  extension  is  a 
duty  from  every  point  of  life.  We  owe  it  first  to  the  contrii  utors  who  sup¬ 
port  home  missions;  second,  to  our  devoted  missionaries;  third,  to  the 
people  we  seek  to  evangelize;  fourth,  to  Christ  and  the  truth  of  Christianity. 

Morley  Williams,  speaking  in  behalf  of  the  Baptist  denomina¬ 
tion,  said: 

I  admit  that  the  Baptists  have  not  made  the  contribution  to  church 
unity  that  they  ought  to  have  made.  The  trouble  was  that  they  had 
forgotten  the  due  co-ordination  of  the  truths  for  which  they  believe  them¬ 
selves  to  stand.  They  had  emphasized  too  much  the  lines  of  denomina¬ 
tional  demarkation,  such  as  the  close-communion  principle  and  baptism 
by  immersion,  rather  than  the  general  principles  of  Christianity.  There 


968 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS, 


should  be  greater  and  more  earnest  co-operation  among  the  denominations. 
Let  every  man  pursue  the  truth  as  God  gives  him  to  see  the  truth,  but  let 
him  never  forget  that  the  very  first  thing  he  has  to  do  is  to  make  men 
Christians. 

The  next  speaker  was  Rev.  Dr.  Clark,  secretary  of  the  Home 
Missionary  Society  of  the  Congregational  Church.  Dr.  Clark 
said  the  Congregationalists  were  disposed  to  be  very  tolerant 
of  every  form  of  evangelical  Christianity.  They  believed  in 
denominational  courtesy  and  in  the  wise  economy  of  mission¬ 
aries’  funds.  They  would  not  plant  churches  where  they  were 
not  wanted.  He  continued: 

Congregationalists  are  more  than  willing;  they  are  ready  and  eager  to 
co-operate  with  Christians  of  every  name  in  church  extension  or,  if  need 
be,  in  church  extinction.  Show  us  anywhere  in  the  wide  field  that  a  Con¬ 
gregational  Church  has  unjustly  crowded  upon  its  neighbors,  and  what¬ 
ever  can  be  done  to  withdraw  it  will  be  done.  Prove  to  us  in  a  fair  and 
mutual  conference  that  our  presence  in  any  community  is  a  cause  of  weak¬ 
ness  or  division,  and  that  our  retirement  will  strengthen  the  interests  that 
remain,  and  we  will  esteem  it  our  first  duty  to  retire. 

Rev.  Dr.  Elmendorf  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church ;  Rev.  Dr. 
Baritg  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  Rev.  Dr.  J.  M.  King  of 
New  York  also  discussed  this  topic.  Bishop  Fowler  of  the  Meth¬ 
odist  Church  closed  the  debate  by  assuring  the  congress  of  his 
deep  sympathy  in  the  success  of  all  work  undertaken  by  the 
evangelical  churches.  He  did  not  believe,  he  said,  in  the 
denominations  coming  too  close  together,  for  if  they  surrender 
too  much  to  each  other  they  would  be  apt  to  surrender  their 
sense  of  obligation  to  work  in  the  Master’s  cause.  In  a  gener¬ 
ous  rivalry  there  was  something  that  kept  them  on  their  mettle. 
So  he  believed  that  the  working  of  different  denominations  side 
by  side  and  still  independently  would  tend  to  the  advancement 
of  the  kingdom  of  Grod  and  the  upbuilding  of  His  name  among 
men. 

Speaking  on  the  religious  condition  of  Great  Britain  at  one 
of  the  sessions.  Lord  Kinnaird  said  parochial  mission  work,  as 
conducted  by  the  established  Church  of  England,  was  a  feature 
of  aggressive  Christianity  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic. 
He  also  alluded  in  commendatory  terms  to  the  work  of  the 
Bible  Society  and  the  Religious  Tract  Society,  which  he  char¬ 
acterized  as  great  mission  feeders.  Lord  Kinnaird  said  the 


BISHOP  C.  H.  FOWLER,  D.D.,  LL.D., 


Of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 


4"^ 


\ 


»  *  •• 


\/.  ’  '  * 

T^ 


/ 


'i 

T  V 

*< 


•  *■ 

^  :f  i 


i 


s: 


'A 


> 


} 


t 


•i  ■. 


'■}^.s:a 


✓ 


1 

\ 


1 

£ 

-^i 


r“:,. 


EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE  CONGRESS. 


969 


efforts  of  Mr.  Quinton  Hogg,  the  well-known  evangelist  and 
philanthropist,  who  established  the  London  Polytechnic,  proved 
that  the  so-called  working-classes  were  not  averse  to  receiving 
the  gospel  if  it  was  presented  to  them  in  the  right  way. 

Principal  Grant  of  Canada  also  described  the  religious  con¬ 
dition  of  that  country.  In  Canada,  he  said,  church-going 
.  habits  are  universal,  the  ministry  is  held  in  high  esteem, 
and  all  denominations  engage  actively  in  foreign  mis-  • 
sionary  work.  The  picture,  however,  has  another  side,  for 
although  public  men  as  a  whole  represent  the  best  elements 
of  society,  the  tone  of  political  life  is  not  high,  and  recent 
revelations  showed  corruption  among  the  people.  Canada  has 
produced  no  poetry  or  literature  of  first-class  rank,  although 
she  has  young  poets  of  promise.  He  closed  by  paying  a  tribute 
to  the  character  of  the  young  Canadian  students  in  the  univer¬ 
sities  who  come  from  homes  where  religion  is  a  living  power. 

In  an  address  on  the  religious  condition  of  Protestant  Italy, 
Rev.  W.  Matteo  Prochet  of  Rome  said  the  two  words  that 
described  the  present  condition  of  Italy  as  to  religion  were 
gross  superstition  and  growing  infidelity.  The  position  of  the 
Italians,  he  claimed,  was  unique  in  the  history  of  the  world.  On 
this  point,  he  said: 

Italy  is  the  only  land  where  a  man  can  not  be  a  good  patriot  and  at  the 
same  time  a  good  Roman  Catholic.  The  reason  of  it  is  obvious.  The  Pope 
does  not  recognize  the  kingdom,  and  would  break  the  Italian  unity  to  pieces 
if  it  were  possible.  The  Waldensian  Church,  which  is  the  oldest  native 
church  in  Italy,  is  leading  the  movement  in  evangelization  in  all  the  main 
cities.  They  have  forty  churches,  with  a  membership  of  18,000,  and  the 
other  churches  bring  up  the  Protestant  membership  to  25,000. 

Prof.  Richard  T.  Ely  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin  dis¬ 
cussed  “The  Church  and  the  Labor  Problem”;  the  Rev. 
Graham  Taylor,  D.  D.,  spoke  upon  the  needs  of  sociological 
training  of  the  minister,  and  Prof.  Henry  Drummond  showed 
the  relationship  between  Christianity  and  evolution  of  society. 
Other  addresses  on  sociological  lines  were  given  by  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Dickenson  of  Boston;  the  Rev.  George  A.  Gates^ 
president  of  Iowa  College;  the  Rev.  H.  L.  Waylan  of  Phil  ¬ 
adelphia,  and  the  Rev.  George  D.  Herron  of  Grinnell,  Iowa. 


970 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  Rev.  W.  S.  Rainsford,  D.  D.,  rector  of  St.  George’s 
Church,  New  York,  gave  his  views  of  the  way  to  reach  non- 
church-going  workingmen.  Prof.  JohnR.  Common  of  Indiana 
University  suggested  some  substitutes  for  the  saloon.  Prof. 
Henry  Drummond  described  work  which  he  has  organized 
under  the  name  of  “  The  Boys’  Brigade.”  The  Rev.  John  0. 
Collins  and  the  Rev.  H.  S.  Bliss  also  talked  of  boys’  clubs. 

Miss  Grace  H.  Dodge  of  New  York  discussed  the  “  Domestic 
Circles  and  Working-Girls’  Clubs.”  ‘‘  Social  Settlements  ” 
was  discussed  by  Miss  Jane  Addams  of  Hull  House  and  Mrs. 
Charles  Henrotin.  Miss  E.  A.  Buchanon  of  New  York  read  a 
paper  upon  “  Holiday  Houses.”  Mrs.  Lucy  S.  Bainbridge  of 
the  New  York  City  Mission  delivered  an  address  upon  “  Trained 
Nurses.”  ‘‘The  Work  of  Deaconesses”  was  discussed  by  Mrs. 
Lucy  Rider  Meyer  of  Chicago;  Sister  Dora  of  London,  and 
Margaret  Dreyer  of  the  German  Deaconess  Institute,  Chicago. 
Addresses  were  also  made  by  Miss  Lucy  Wheelock,  Miss  Stella 
Wood,  Miss  Bertha  Payne,  and  Mrs.  Alice  H.  Putman. 

Ex- Chief  of  Police  Maj.  Robert  W.  McClaughry  pointed  out 
the  way  in  which  the  churches  may  help  to  improve  criminal 
administration. 


PART  IV 


BIOGRAPHIES,  ARTICLES,  AND  OPINIONS. 


CHARLES  CARROLL  BONNEY, 

President  of  the  World's  Congress  Auxiliary* 

Charles  Carroll  Bonney,  president  of  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary  of 
the  World’s  Columbian  Exposition,  president  of  the  International  Law  and 
Order  League,  ex-president  of  the  Illinois  State  Bar  Association,  counselor 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  etc.,  has  long  been  prominently 
before  the  American  people  in  various  honorable  positions. 

The  following  facts  relating  to  his  career  as  teacher,  lawyer,  orator, 
author,  and  reformer  have  been  collected  and  condensed  from  numerous 
notices,  biographical  sketches,  and  other  publications:  He  is  a  native  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  was  born  at  Hamilton  in  1831,  was  named  for 
Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton,  the  last  surviving  signer  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  is  a  farmer's  son.  He  was  educated  in  public  schools, 
Hamilton  Academy,  and  chiefly  by  private  study,  with  many  advantages 
from  Madison  University,  though  engaged  in  teaching  instead  of  pursuing 
the  regular  course  of  instruction.  He  was  a  teacher  in  the  public  schools, 
or  the  Hamilton  Academy,  from  the  age  of  seventeen  till  he  moved  to 
Peoria,  Ill.,  at  the  age  of  nineteen.  He  there  taught  an  academic 
school  for  two  years;  was  public  lecturer  on  education  for  Peoria  County 
in  1852-53;  vice-president  of  a  State  Teachers’  Institute,  and  took  a  leading 
part  in  establishing  the  present  educational  system  of  Illinois,  conducting 
the  correspondence  which  resulted  in  the  first  State  convention  for  educa¬ 
tional  purposes,  and  organizing  numerous  educational  societies. 

Mr.  Bonney  commenced  reading  law  when  but  seventeen,  and  became  a 
writer  for  the  public  press  at  nineteen.  He  was  admitted  to  the  Illinois 
bar  in  1852,  and  to  that  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  1866,  was 
president  of  the  Illinois  State  Bar  Association,  and  vice-president  of  the 
American  Bar  Association  in  1882,  and  has  taken  a  leading  part  in  the 
proceedings  of  both  associations.  He  removed  from  Peoria  to  Chicago  in 
1860,  where  he  has  since  resided.  His  practice  has  embraced  all  depart¬ 
ments  of  law,  and  includes  reported  cases  in  Illinois,  Michigan,  Ohio, 

971 


972 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Nebraska,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  California,  and  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court.  Public  press  notices  of  many  States  describe  him  as  a 
profound  and  accomplished  lawyer,  one  of  the  most  eminent  and  distin- 
guished  members  of  the  Chicago  bar,  and  a  writer  on  legal  and  political 
subjects  of  wide  reputation. 

In  the  field  of  practical  reform,  Mr.  Bonney’s  efforts  have  been  impor¬ 
tant  and  largely  successful.  He  is  the  author  of  the  scheme  for  a  series  of 
World’s  Congresses  in  connection  with  the  World’s  Columbian  Exposition 
of  1893,  intended  to  set  forth,  on  what  has  been  declared  “a  scale  of 
unexampled  majesty,”  the  achievements  of  mankind  in  all  the  departments 
of  civilized  life,  and  to  promote  future  progress  by  the  fraternal  co-operation 
of  the  enlightened  minds  of  all  countries.  The  organization  and  direction 
of  this  enterprise  has  been  in  his  charge  from  the  beginning. 


REV.  DR.  JOHN  HENRY  BARROWS. 

The  most  prominent  figure  in  the  great  Parliament  of  Religions  was  the 
Rev.  Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows,  permanent  chairman,  who  perfected  the 
plan  of  holding  the  convocation.  Dr.  Barrows  is  pastor  of  the  First 
Presbyterian  Church  of  Chicago.  He  is  one  of  the  most  eloquent  pulpit 
orators  in  the  United  States.  He  was  born  in  Medina,  Mich.,  and  is  forty- 
six  years  old.  His  parents  were  of  New  England  stock.  He  was  educated 
at  Olivet  College,  graduating  in  1867.  After  leaving  college,  where  he 
showed  great  taste  for  literature,  history,  and  classics,  Mr.  Barrows  studied 
theology  at  Yale,  Union,  and  Andover.  Afterward  he  spent  two  and  a  half 
years  in  missionary  and  educational  w'ork  in  Kansas.  For  a  year  he  occu¬ 
pied  the  pulpit  of  the  First  Congregational  Church  of  Springfield,  Ill. 
Then  he  spent  another  year  in  foreign  lands,  supplying  the  American 
chapel  at  Paris  for  some  time,  where  he  made  many  friends.  On  his  return 
to  America,  Dr.  Barrows  became  the  pastor  of  the  Eliot  Congregational 
Church  at  Lawrence,  Mass.  Then  he  went  to  the  Maverick  Church  at 
East  Boston,  and  was  working  there  when  he  was  called  by  the  First 
Presbyterians  of  Chicago.  Dr.  Barrows’  ministry  in  Chicago  has  been  dis¬ 
tinguished  by  great  energy  in  all  good  works.  Over  one  thousand  members 
have  been  received  in  his  church  since  October,  1881.  As  a  lecturer  and 
author.  Dr.  Barrows  enjoys  an  enviable  reputation.  He  is  a  tall,  slender 
man,  with  a  genial  face  and  pleasant  manners.  His  work  during  the  Par¬ 
liament  of  Religions  has  placed  him  in  the  front  ranks  of  the  theologians 
of  the  world. 


DIONYSIOS  LATAS, 

Archbishop  of  Zante,  Greece. 

The  Archbishop  Dionysios  Latas  was  born  in  Zante  in  1836.  By  his 
pious  mother  he  was  brought  up  in  the  tenets  of  the  gospel,  hence  the 
desire  was  developed  in  him  to  visit  the  Holy  Land.  He  remained  three 


BIOGRAPHIES. 


973 


years  in  Bethlehem,  where  he  studied  the  Arabic  language,  and  was  adopted 
by  the  Metropolitan  of  the  Holy  City.  After  the  death  of  the  Metropolitan 
he  was  placed  in  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Holy  Cross  by  the  Patri¬ 
arch  of  Jerusalem,  where,  after  seven  years’  attendance,  he  graduated. 
The  Patriarch,  appreciating  his  talent,  appointed  him  first  “  deacon,”  and 
then  within  a  week  “presbyter”;  afterward  he  attended  the  theological 
department  of  the  University  of  Athens  for  three  years,  when,  his  rare  and 
unique  eloquence  in  pulpits  becoming  known,  he  was  sent  by  the  mayor  of 
Athens,  Loucas  Rail  is,  at  the  mayors  expense,  to  the  universities  of  West¬ 
ern  Europe.  He  attended  the  lectures  on  theology  and  philosophy  two 
years  in  the  French  University  of  Strasburg;  then  he  went  to  Germany  and 
studied  for  three  years  and  a  half  in  the  universities  of  Berlin,  Leipsic,  and 
Munich. 

Prom  Germany,  in  1869,  he  went  to  England  to  attend  the  practical  ser¬ 
mons  at  the  services  of  the  English  churches,  and  remained  there  about  a 
year.  From  England,  in  1870,  he  went  to  Rome,  where  he  listened  to,  and 
heard  the  views  of,  several  prominent  Catholic  clergymen,  concerning  the 
infallibility  of  the  Pope,  during  the  Catholic  Ecumenical  Congress.  In  1871 
he  returned  to  Greece,  where  he  again  preached  from  the  pulpits. 

On  account  of  the  deep  impression  his  great  eloquence  made  upon  the 
multitudes,  the  Greek  Government  appointed  him  Preacher  of  the  State. 
As  such  he  visited  and  preached  in  every  part  of  the  Kingdom  of  Greece  for 
fifteen  years.  At  the  same  time  he  wrote  and  edited  a  religious  paper — the 
Zion — by  which  he  greatly  benefited  the  people  of  the  Orient.  For  this  the 
king  honored  him  by  conferring  upon  him  the  Cross  of  the  Savior. 

The  eminent  American  Minister  to  Greece  from  1869  to  1873,  Charles  K. 
Tuckerman,  in  his  book  entitled  “  The  Greeks  of  To-day,”  says,  concerning 
this  eloquent  archbishop,  as  follows: 

Dionysios  Latas,  an  “  Archimandriti”  of  commanding  abilities,  is  now 
exciting  great  attention  by  his  eloquent  sermons  in  one  of  the  churches  in 
Athens.  With  the  benefit  of  foreign  education  and  a  knowledge  of  two  or 
three  languages,  his  mind  li^s  received  an  expansion  which  is  most  unusual 
in  the  class  to  which  he  belongs.  If  he  lives  and  pursues  his  career  with 
the  courage  which  is  absolutely  necessary  for  success,  Latas  will  undoubt¬ 
edly  do  more  for  the  advancement  of  religious  knowledge  and  religious 
faith  in  Greece  than  has  been  done  by  any  single  individual  since  the 
creation  of  the  kingdom. 

For  two  hours  at  a  time,  from  his  pulpit  in  “  St.  Irene  ”,  this  young 
jjreacher  holds  the  undivided  attention  of  a  closely  packed  and  standing 
crowd,  for  there  are  no  seats  in  a  Greek  church,  while  he  explains  and 
enforces  the  truths  of  scripture,  large  portions  of  which  he  repeats 
memorita.  He  uses  no  notes,  although  he  has  evidently  carefully  studied 
his  subject  beforehand,  and  he  often  rises  to  impassioned  eloquence  and 
fervor. 

My  only  opportunities  for  judging  of  the  capabilities  of  this  remark¬ 
able  priest  have  been  in  private  conversation  with  him,  and  these  have 
confirmed  the  idea  that  his  views,  though  broad,  are  sound,  and  that  the 
church  has  nothing  to  fear,  and  much  to  hope  for,  if  such  men  are  permit¬ 
ted  uninterruptedly  to  go  on  in  their  work  of  religious  enlightenment. 

In  1884,  at  the  request  of  his  fellow-citizens,  he  was  ordained  by  thg 


974 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Holy  Synod  and  Government  of  Greece  Archbishop  of  Zante,  where  he 
lives  as  such  at  the  present  day. 

It  is  very  well  known  that  during  the  present  year  there  occurred  in 
the  Island  of  Zante  1,200  earthquakes,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the 
director  of  telegraphs  in  Zante  and  the  eminent  seismologist,  Mr.  Foster. 
The  two  most  terrific  shocks  occurred  January  19th  and  April  5th.  Half  of 
the  island  was  destroyed.  Of  5,000  houses  in  the  city  of  Zante  there 
remained  undestroyed  only  forty-six.  Entire  villages  had  become  masses 
of  ruins.  Churches  of  all  kinds  to  the  number  of  132  were  wrecked, 
among  others  that  of  St.  Dionysios,  the  largest  on  the  island. 

The  Archbishop’s  famous  discourses  at  the  World’s  Congress  of  Relig¬ 
ions  and  at  the  World’s  Fair  were  so  enthusiastically  received,  that  expres¬ 
sions  of  warm  affection  were  heard  concerning  him  everywhere.  People 
from  all  parts  of  the  country  have  invited  him  to  visit  their  cities  before 
leaving  America. 


BUILDING  A  GREAT  RELIGION. 

REV.  PROF.  DAVID  SWING. 

THE  COVENANT  OF  THE  CENTRAL  INDEPENDENT  CHURCH. 

We,  desiring  to  promote  our  own  spiritual  welfare  and  to  take  some  part  in 
helping  others  to  lead  the  Christian  life,  do  form  ourselves  into  a  Christian  society 
to  be  known  as  the  Central  Church  of  Chicago.  We  found  our  Church  upon  the 
great  doctrines  of  the  New  Testament.  We  believe  in  the  divine  character  of 
Christ.  That  He  is  the  Savior  which  man  in  his  sinfulness  and  darkness  leeds, 
and  trust  all  those  following  this  Christ  are  entitled  to  the  name  of  Christians. 

Behold  I  make  all  things  new.—Bev.  xxi.,  5. 

Among  the  great  works  over  which  our  country  is  busy  must  be 
included  the  construction  of  a  great  religion.  America  must  be  happy  only 
in  ideas  and  institutions  as  great  as  itself.  That  quality  of  mind  which 
demands  a  harmony  in  architecture,  in  music,  and  in  colors  asks  for  a 
harmony  in  each  department  of  taste  and  thought. 

The  doctrine  of  human  slavery  was  not  in  fUll  accord  with  the  theory  of 
1776,  and  many  of  the  statesmen  who  were  busy  laying  the  foundations  of 
the  new  republic  wondered  long  and  with  pain  over  the  discord  which 
human  bondage  created.  All  things  that  must  exist  at  the  same  time  and 
must  live  together  in  one  house  must  be  in  some  way  harmonious. 

When  the  pioneers  built  a  log  house  they  did  not  long  for  a  marble  door¬ 
step;  the  step  must  also  be  a  log.  There  was  no  plated  knob  on  the  front 
door.  It  was  enough  if  the  leather  latchstring  was  out.  The  dress  of  the 
farmer  and  of  the  wife  and  children  was  in  full  sympathy  with  the  house, 
the  windows,  the  fire-place,  and  the  stairs.  A  hundred  objects  fell  into 
unity. 

When  what  was  called  progress  came  the  many  articles  of  daily  use 
moved  upward  side  by  side.  The  doorknob  advanced  only  along  with  the 
whole  house.  When  a  stone  doorstep  came  the  leather  latchstring  was 
dismissed  from  duty.  It  had  lived  an  honored  life,  for  Abraham  Lincoln 
and  Ulysses  Grant  had  pulled  it.  They  thus  lifted  the  great  wooden  latch 
that  on  a  winter  night  lay  between  them  and  a  blazing  hearth.  When  the 
house  began  to  undergo  changes,  dress  and  language  changed  for  the 
better,  and,  in  time,  the  verb  began  to  agree  with  the  nominative  case,  and 
adverbs  and  adjectives  became  more  orderly  in  their  conduct. 


V 


REV.  PROF.  DAVID  SWING, 
Vice-Chairman  General  Committee. 


975 


BUILDING  A  GREAT  RELIGION. 

Such  a  nation,  living  in  such  a  period,  can  not  make  changes  many  and 
great  without  making  changes  in  its  religion.  A  large  politics  and  a  small 
Christianity  can  not  journey  onward  together.  The  intellectual  life  of  the 
people  can  not  widen  and  deepen  in  all  the  departments  except  the  field  of 
theology  and  worship.  When  the  reasoning  power  comes  it  reasons  at  all 
hours  and  in  all  fields,  and  the  state  that  is  philosophic  in  politics  must 
soon  become  philosophic  in  piety.  It  at  last  becomes  impossible  to  ascribe 
to  a  God  laws  and  actions  which  reason  would  not  dare  ascribe  to 
humanity.  It  therefore  comes  to  pass  that  our  country,  while  it  is  at  work 
over  sciences,  and  arts,  and  laws,  and  inventions,  can  not  but  be  at  work 
over  its  popular  religion.  All  our  States  and  all  our  churches  are  attempt¬ 
ing  to  find  and  express  a  great  religion  for  a  great  people. 

It  is  not  in  bad  taste  to  claim  that  our  nation  possesses  an  unusual 
greatness.  It  is,  indeed,  marked  by  defects  which  humiliate  national 
pride,  but  all  the  great  thinkers  and  writers  in  the  philosofjhic  fields  con¬ 
fess  the  United  States  to  be  in  advance  of  all  the  nations  that  exist  or 
have  existed.  De  Tocqueville,  Count  Gasparin,  and  recent  foreign  writers 
have  pointed  out  the  great  particulars  in  which  our  people  are  more  fortu¬ 
nate  than  all  the  millions  of  other  lands. 

It  would  have  been  criminal  in  our  ancestors  not  to  found  a  great 
people;  for,  possessing  the  highest  political  education  then  known — that  of 
England  and  France  in  the  times  of  the  Burkes  and  the  La  Fayettes — it 
possessed  also  the  perfect  liberty  that  could  select  what  was  best.  Edmund 
Burke  was  great,  but  he  was  crippled  by  the  old  follies  of  his  England. 
All  the  European  thinkers  were  tied  to  the  past.  Our  statesmen,  having 
all  of  European  wisdom,  were  free,  and  could  make  a  great  truth  take  its 
place  in  the  constitution  and  the  laws.  Here,  therefore,  European  dreams 
and  platonic  dreams  turned  into  laws;  ancient  and  modern  idealism  took 
its  place  in  the  constitution  of  a  republic.  Our  fathers  were  free  in  a  wide 
field  to  select  all  the  ideas  that  had  been  evolved  by  the  students  of  the 
past  centuries  and  been  made  clear  by  time. 

Could  there  be  a  chemistry  which  might  analyze  the  body  and  soul  of 
this  nation,  it  would  find  some  traces  of  each  great  period  that  has  passed 
by.  Traces  of  the  mind  of  Socrates  and  Plato,  traces  of  Cicero  and  Taci¬ 
tus,  traces  of  the  maxims  of  Jesus,  and  at  last  large  quantities  and  deep 
colorings  stolen  from  all  the  later  dates  in  history. 

The  Greek  bishop  said  last  week,  when  he  stood  amid  the  rich  buildings 
near  our  city:  “I  seem  to  be  in  Olympia.  It  is  as  though  the  American 
soil  had  opened  and  had  sent  up  again  into  life  the  souls  of  my  ancestors, 
and  had  made  them  rebuild  in  a  new  land  all  the  snow-white  splendor  of 
the  Acropolis.”  But  as  the  Bishop  of  Zante  wears  the  name  of  an  island 
which  was  praised  in  the  poem  of  Virgil  and  which  has  worn  its  waving 
groves  for  twenty  centuries,  so  in  the  political  ideas  of  our  people  we  see 
more  of  Olympia  than  was  found  in  its  white  columns  and  more  of  old 
Zante  than  Virgil  saw  in  its  fields  and  leafy  forests.  All  those  states  and 
islands  of  the  Mediterranean  have  contributed  some  truth  and  some  law  to 
the  mass  of  wisdom  that  underlies  our  young  government.  Our  nation  is 
made  out  of  the  whole  past. 

Assuming  that  our  state  has  culled  from  the  past  the  many  elements 
of  its  power,  we  are  bound  to  conclude  that  the  same  country  that  is  mak¬ 
ing  a  great  state  can  not  but  be  working  on  the  construction  of  a  great 
religion.  The  mind  that  demands  a  great  politics  can  not  but  ask  for  a 
^reat  worship.  The  soul  loves  harmony.  If  our  ancestors  did  not  wish 
their  creeds  disturbed,  they  ought  not  to  have  disturbed  the  state,  or  the 
home,  or  the  literature,  or  the  schoolhouse. 

When,  tifty  years  ago,  our  mothers  or  sisters  began  to  plant  roses  in  front 
of  the  log  cabin  in  Ohio,  the  log  cabin  itself  became  doomed.  From  the 
rose  bush  the  taste  radiated  in  all  directions,  and  the  old  rail  fence  in  front 


016 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


of  the  house  had  to  give  place  to  something  that  could  be  painted  white,  and 
the  floor  made  of  slabs,  hewn  with  an  ax,  was  followed  by  ash  boards;  the 
ladder  which  led  to  the  second  floor  gave  place  to  stairs.  Thus,  at  last,  the 
l)looming  rose  remodeled  the  whole  farm,  the  dress  of  the  women,  and 
the  language  that  fell  from  the  daughter’s  lips.  Not  otherwise  one  touch 
of  greatness  asks  that  all  shall  become  great.  From  a  great  politics  our 
country  must  move  to  a  great  religion.  Upon  this  new  religion  it  is  now 
at  work.  Each  church  is  immersed  in  the  task,  each  thoughtful  mind  is 
elaborating  the  new  doctrines. 

That  the  better  new  might  come  it  was  necessary  that  the  vanity  of  the 
old  should  first  perish.  No  state  or  church  will  reform  itself  so  long  as  it 
assumes  itself  to  be  divine.  When  the  people  thought  the  king  could  do 
no  wrong  there  was  an  unbroken  procession  of  kings.  When  education 
had  destroyed  this  romance  it  was  easy  to  dethrone  a  monarch.  Thus 
time  has  taken  the  vanity  out  of  many  branches  of  the  Christian  church, 
and  now  they  are  asking  in  humility.  What  must  be  done  with  the  wants  of 
the  soul  and  with  the  temple  of  God?  What  must  we  do  with  our  Galvan¬ 
ism,  our  high  church,  our  Romanism,  our  definite  dogmas,  so  many  and  so 
proud?  Our  sectarian  vanity  has  perished.  Our  Galvanism,  our  Roman¬ 
ism  has  lost  its  old  magical  power.  Magic  has  flung  its  old  crown  down  at 
the  feet  of  science.  All  dominion  has  been  concentrated  in  principles. 
The  creed  of  a  church  must  be  composed  of  principles. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Western  lands  have  for  all  time  been  leading  the  most 
intellectual  lives,  have  been  greatest  in  art,  in  literature,  and  in  all  the 
forms  of  intellectual  action,  it  is  probable  that  they  possess  and  are  still  at 
work  at  a  religion  far  grander  than  those  of  the  old  East.  If  we  begin  at 
old  Athens  and  look  westward  we  see  a  mental  world  of  surprising  great¬ 
ness.  Roman  law  is  one  of  the  early  impressive  scenes.  It  is  attended  by 
the  simple  religion  of  Jesus.  By  slow  degrees  came  the  new  Italy.  Then 
came  Germany,  France,  England,  each  with  a  mind  which  surpassed  all  the 
East  in  breadth  and  utility.  Even  the  Greek  literature  is  small  and  weak 
in  comparison  with  the  written  thought  of  the  passing  century.  Having 
elaborated  a  great  politics,  a  great  philosophy,  a  great  science,  a  tremen¬ 
dous  human  life,  it  is  certain  that  our  age  is  steadily  at  work  upon  a  great 
religion.  Instead  of  Galvinism  or  Romanism  being  this  great  product,  it  is 
probable  that  those  churches  have  been  only  shops  in  which  the  age  has 
been  making  some  piece  that  is  to  be  fitted  into  its  future.  When  that 
future  shall  be  complete  these  old  shops  will  all  be  closed. 

The  Galvinistic  church  is  among  the  first  to  feel  the  transforming  touch 
of  the  new  age,  because  it  has  always  been  a  child  of  universal  learning. 
It  has  never  feared  any  books,  or  men,  or  schools.  It  has  permitted  its 
youth  to  seek  their  education  in  any  land,  and  the  minds  destined  for  its 
pulpit  have  been  permitted  to  sail  away  and  drink  in  learning  at  any  Ger¬ 
man  or  English  fountain.  As  that  creed  arose  in  the  universities  of  the 
16th  century,  it  made  all  colleges  its  friends,  and  felt  that  the  greater 
the  learning,  the  greater  the  Galvinism.  But  the  universities  themselves 
have  become  changed,  and  what  was  learning  in  the  16th  century  has 
become  gross  ignorance  in  the  nineteenth.  The  Presbyterian  students  are 
thus  among  the  first  not  to  fall,  but  to  rise.  That  church  is,  therefore,  now 
seen  as  working  hard  to  construct  a  great  religion  for  a  great  people. 

The  Roman  Gatholic  Ghurch  moves  forward  more  slowly.  That  form 
of  religion  has  always  quarantined  its  own  ship.  It  has  not  permitted  its 
people  to  go  ashore  nor  those  on  shore  to  come  on  board.  It  has  not  only 
intermarried,  but  it  has  interstudied  and  interthought.  Those  fitting  for 
the  priesthood  have  not  been  permitted  to  drink  at  any  and  all  fountains. 
They  have  been  reared  on  Roman  food.  All,  from  their  dress  to  their 
books,  from  what  the  eye  saw  to  what  the  ear  heard,  has  been  Roman.  As 
the  queen  of  the  beehive  is  made  wholly  by  her  food,  as  she  is  while  a-grub 


BUILDING  A  GREAT  RELIGION, 


977 


fed  only  queen’s  food,  so  the  Catholic  priest  is  reared  amid  only  the  phe 
nomena  of  his  church.  These  men  will  all  be  slow  to  rise  from  their  old 
level.  The  Calvinists  are  more  free  to  move,  and  will  have  a  new,  true,  and 
grand  religion,  while  the  Romanists  are  still  embracing  the  corpse  of  antiq¬ 
uity.  But  at  last  the  Roman  Church  will  also  rise  and  become  the  worthy 
faith  of  an  intellectual  and  spiritual  race.  It  will  fling  away  the  childish 
objects  and  ideas  it  borrowed  from  the  children  of  the  old  woods  and  the  old 
savages,  and  will  become  a  sanctuary  of  divine  principles. 

This  is  not  uttered  as  a  simple  prophecy.  Such  a  conclusion  follows 
from  the  fact  that  the  continent  is  at  work  at  a  better  politics,  and  a  better 
humanity  can  not  avoid  the  task  of  making  a  better  religion.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  recount  here  the  defects  of  both  Romanism  and  Protestant¬ 
ism.  They  are  many  and  are  well  known.  There  can  be  no  pleasure  in 
makiug  out  a  catalogue  of  vice  and  folly.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  the 
age  is  winnowing  the  chaff  from  the  wheat,  and  will  never  rest  until  our 
American  Christianity  shall  be  worthy  of  the  nation  which  contains  its 
shrines. 

The  Religious  Congress  may  not  teach  us  the  whole  truth  but  it  will 
accomplish  one  thing,  it  will  clothe  with  new  power  the  religious  sentiment 
and  make  millions  feel  that  man  is  indeed  a  religious  being,  that  he  is  trav¬ 
eling  toward  eternity  upon  the  great  stream  of  faith.  It  will  hasten  the 
decline  and  fall  of  sectarian  self-conceit,  and  will  make  the  Christian  min¬ 
ister  feel  that  he  is  only  one  of  a  vast  brotherhood.  The  proud  churchman 
of  Anglican  or  Roman  garb  and  color  finds  his  piety  equaled  by  the  wor¬ 
shipers  from  the  solitudes  of  the  Himalayas.  The  Christian,  indeed,  holds 
the  better  religion,  but  the  other  religions  contain  great  worth  and  can 
shape  the  soul  into  great  moral  beauty. 

Those  who  read  all  or  hear  all  of  these  words  now  being  uttered  here  in 
the  name  of  religion,  can  not  but  conclude  that  Christianity  excels  in  the 
breadth  of  its  teaching.  It  omits  nothing  of  duty,  of  culture,  or  hope. 
Some  branches  of  the  Christian  Church  have  weighted  themselves  with 
fable  and  with  the  childishness  common  to  barbarians,  but  the  Christian 
religion  in  its  purity  is  a  spiritual  philosophy  as  broad  as  the  wants  and 
happiness  of  man. 

The  pagan  creeds  omit  too  much.  Their  survey  of  man  is  not  as  broad 
as  that  taken  in  Christianity.  One  of  the  most  illustrious  of  the  Indian 
visitors  in  our  city  says  that  our  women  are  not  spiritual  enough;  not  relig¬ 
ious  enough;  that  they  love  frivolity  more  than  they  love  the  serious  truths 
and  duties  of  their  world.  He  sees  them  only  in  this  great  holiday  of  our 
city.  To  see  all  this  American  picture  of  women  he  would  have  to  add  a 
profound  seriousness  as  wide  as  the  nation — ^woman  educating  her  chil¬ 
dren — woman  sad  over  intemperance  and  all  the  ruinous  vices — woman 
busy  in  all  the  walks  of  philanthropy — woman  hungry  for  education  and 
usefulness.  When  seen  not  in  the  national  festivity,  but  in  the  wide 
expanse  of  common  life,  the  American  woman  surpasses  all  pagandom  in 
the  light  and  depth  of  serious  thought  and  in  the  number  of  hours  that 
contain  tears.  The  volume  of  her  levity  is  large,  her  toilet  as  gay  as  that 
of  birds,  but  greater  than  this  mass  of  gayety  is  the  volume  of  thought  and 
solicitude.  That  the  frivolity  of  both  men  and  women  is  excessive  is  too 
evident.  Man  is  such  an  avowed  gamester  as  to  be  ridiculous;  but  the 
average  of  seriousness  in  our  land  is  high. 

This  Hindu  philosopher  lives,  indeed,  an  impressive  life.  Going  up 
into  the  mountains  he  and  his  wife  spend  two  hours  a  day  in  silent 
worship  of  the  Deity.  They  thus  pass  half  of  each  year.  Their  cottage 
is  simple,  their  expenses  are  so  small  that  they  could  be  almost  paid  by 
poverty  itself.  The  glory  of  God  is  around  them.  They  live  in  His  light 
and  His  love.  A  beautiful  picture!  But  the  religion  of  Jesus,  mingling 
with  the  deep  thought  of  the  English  and  French  and  German  races,  asks 


978 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


man  to  forego  the  sweetness  of  such  solitude  and  live  the  most  of  his 
days  in  the  midst  of  the  people.  The  individual  dares  not  be  happy  up  in 
the  mountains  when  the  millions  are  poor  and  sad  in  the  valley.  The 
gifts  of  the  pagan  orator  demand  that  all  his  days  should  be  days  of  study 
and  of  useful  eloquence.  Our  Western  religion  seeks  the  distribution  and 
equalization  of  happiness.  The  contemplative  life  of  many  of  the  pagans 
is  a  charming  picture  in  the  history  of  the  soul,  but  the  common  people 
are  not  able  to  endure  yet  the  absence  of  any  of  their  noblest  men.  As  the 
mother  must  not  leave  her  children,  but  must  be  within  call  in  all  their 
early  years,  so  the  philosopher  that  thinks  and  prays  must  hold  the  mill¬ 
ions  by  the  hand. 

As  nations  in  troublous  times  ask  that  their  statesmen  shall  be  at  home 
and  within  easy  reach  of  the  Senate  or  the  throne,  as  in  the  dark  days  of 
this  nation’s  history  the  greatest  patriots  stood  at  their  places  by  day  and 
by  night,  so  in  our  world,  while  the  mind  is  so  dark  and  the  hearts  of  the 
people  so  heavy,  the  leaders  of  thought  and  action  must  live  by  the  streams 
of  the  multitude.  The  eloquence  of  religious  philosophy  must  sound  by 
day  and  by  night.  Like  the  Nile  in  the  desert,  the  eloquence  of  the 
Mozoomdars  ought  to  flow  all  the  year.  The  nightingale  may  sing  only 
three  months  in  the  twelve,  but  the  voice  of  religion  must  follow  the 
people  and  be  like  a  perennial  stream  in  their  desert.  We  may  easily  con¬ 
ceive  of  a  nation  that  would  be  glad  if  it  could  enjoy  the  presence  of  states¬ 
men  even  one  summer  in  four  years.  We  can  conceive  of  a  race  which 
would  be  glad  if  a  religious  truth  and  eloquence  could  smite  its  soul  once 
in  a  lifetime.  But  this  extreme  destitution  in  politics  and  religion  does  not 
affect  the  ideal  that  our  great  men  should  live  in  the  very  heart  of  the 
multitude. 

In  constructing  the  religion  of  a  great  people  our  nation  is  breaking  up 
the  monastic  life  and  is  asking  each  one  to  help  all.  No  religion  or  reform 
is  adequate  if  it  produces  only  a  little  coterie. 

An  Emerson  club  is  a  valuable  thing,  but  it  has  not  the  dimensions  of  a 
great  nation.  A  curious  science  and  art  may  weave  a  fabric  out  of  a  spider’s 
web  or  spun  glass,  but  what  a  poor,  small  art! — capable  of  making  a  veil 
for  a  princess,  but  not  capable  of  weaving  the  clothing  for  a  race.  Thus 
our  land  is  at  work  at  a  piety  that  shall  not  be  satisfled  with  little  groups 
of  the  elect,  but  only  with  the  regeneration  of  the  millions.  The  nation 
has  outgrown  the  old  religious  coterie.  It  must  leave  to  the  humbler 
leaders  of  fashion  all  magnifying  of  the  words  “set”  and  “circle,”  and 
must  seek  a  religion  which  would  love  to  wave  its  flag  over  a  hundred  mill¬ 
ions  of  souls. 

The  fall  of  a  Calvinism  is,  therefore,  only  proof  that  something  greater 
is  coming.  That  creed  was  too  exclusive  and  small.  It  was  not  an  Emer¬ 
son  club,  indeed,  but  it  was  a  Calvinistic  club.  It  was  an  intellectual 
coterie  traveling  along  for  profit  and  pleasure.  It  excluded  a  hundred 
sects.  It  dies  that  a  greater  Christianity  may  come.  In  its  death  the 
Presbyterians  do  not  fall;  they  rise.  They  move  forward  toward  principles 
of  clearer  truth,  of  wider  usefulness,  of  greater  beauty.  Their  creed  moves 
away  from  the  exceptional  Calvins  that  it  may  become  the  abiding  faith 
of  a  vast  throng.  In  that  church  this  loss  is  a  gain.  That  creed  exchanges 
its  old  enigmas  for  eternal  principles.  The  old  labyrinth  is  destroyed  and 
beautiful  homes  are  built  out  of  its  ruins.  Over  the  same  path  of  recon¬ 
struction  the  Catholics  must  soon  pass. 

The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  requested  the  English  clergy  to  take  no 
part  in  the  World’s  Congress  of  Religions.  He  must  have  had  no  light  that 
was  worthy  to  be  placed  upon  a  hill.  His  light  was  of  the  kind  that  might 
well  be  kept  under  a  bushel.  He  holds  some  teachings  regarding  apostolic 
succession  and  the  office  of  a  bishop.  But  Mozoomdar  and  his  great  con¬ 
freres,  Bishop  Keane,  Bishop  Ireland,  and  Cardinal  Gibbons,  could  come 


MARY  ATWATER  NEELY. 


THE  WISE  MEN  OF  THE  EAST. 


979 


because  they  could  bring  at  least  the  name  of  God  to  the  multitude,  and 
help  make  His  glory  shine  into  the  hearts  of  the  people.  On  last  Monday 
this  lake  shore,  where  the  wild  Indians  gave  their  war-whoop  within  living 
memory,  grew  almost  roseate  with  the  passing  chariot  of  the  Infinite;  and 
Catholic,  Protestant,  and  pagan  bowed  in  joy  while  their  hearts  were  whis¬ 
pering;  Holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  God  Almighty!  If  the  high  church  of 
England  did  not  wish  to  join  in  such  an  anthem  and  gloria  it  is  only  a  loss 
of  sacred  fame.  The  pagan  Mozoomdar  was  willing  to  follow  for  12,000 
miles,  over  land  and  sea,  the  name  of  God  alone.  He  knew  that  in  America, 
among  a  hundred  sects,  he  could  pass  every  hour  in  God’s  presence.  The 
old  Orient  came  to  help  inspire  the  West.  The  morning  of  piety  came  to 
pour  its  glow  and  colors  into  the  sunset  of  magnificence.  No  such  scene 
has  been  witnessed  since  the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Catholic  and  Protestant,  Pagan  and  Christian,  had  often  met  in  battle. 
They  had  often  met  in  a  black  passion,  which  only  blood  and  fagots  could 
appease.  To  meet  in  a  rich,  beautiful  brotherhood  was  a  scene  which  only 
this  late  day  of  love  and  thought  could  produce.  It  is  known  that  wild, 
new  soil  will  not  produce  the  richest  flowers  and  fruits.  Suns  and  summers 
must  penetrate  it  and  make  its  chemistry  all  new  for  the  perfume  of  the 
rose  and  the  blushes  of  the  peach.  But  the  heart  is  more  delicate  than  the 
dew-sprinkled  flowers,  and  it  had  to  wait  for  many  summers  to  pass  before 
it  could  ask  all  living  worshipers  to  meet  in  one  love  and  one  prayer. 

Out  of  all  these  inquiries  and  greetings  something  new  is  coming, 
namely,  a  great  religion.  The  old  will  not  be  rudely  slain.  Years  ago  a 
Scotch  preacher  said:  “Nature  does  not  beat  off  dead  leaves  with  iron 
rods.  She  makes  new  buds  displace  them.”  This  displacement  is  coming 
gently  by  day  and  by  night. 

After  the  battle  of  Austerlitz,  a  British  statesman  is  reported  to  have 
said,  with  a  broken  heart:  “  Put  away  the  map  of  Europe.”  Napoleon  was 
erasing  all  the  dear  old  lines,  and  was  making  all  states  mingle  in  one 
gigantic  despotism.  Not  with  broken  hearts,  but  with  joy,  may  we  cry  out: 
“Put  away  the  map  of  the  Christian  Church.”  A  greater  than  Napoleon — 
an  omnipotent  thought  is  coming.  Soon  the  petty  districts  will  find  their 
boundaries  erased  and  themselves  to  be  the  members  of  a  wide  and  sweep¬ 
ing  religion,  under  whose  flag  men  will  live  as  Christ  lived,  with  all  rights 
sacred,  all  men  as  brothers,  with  life  divine,  and  with  death  not  a  defeat 
but  a  triumph. 


THE  WISE  MEN  OF  THE  EAST. 

MARY  ATWATER  NEELY. 

The  light  and  the  nobility  of  ideas  displayed  in  the  Congress  of 
Religions  in  Chicago  by  Brahmans,  Mohammedans,  and  other  Oriental 
philosophers,  has  been  a  surprise  to  the  whole  Occidental  world.  No  doubt 
it  has  been  eagerly  clutched  at  as  a  triumph  by  opposers  of  the  claims  of 
Christianity,  and  it  has  also  somewhat  nonplussed  Christians. 

As  to  invidious  allusions  to  Christian  missions,  we  may  dismiss  them 
with  but  two  remarks.  We  all  know  that  there  are  missionaries  and 
missionaries. 

The  first  of  moderns  to  enter  the  Oriental  field  for  proselytes  were 
Jesuits,  and  the  history  of  that  order  and  its  intrigues  for  power  is  the 
property  of  the  world. 

Why  should  we  be  surprised  at  great  and  noble  ideas  of  God  and  man 
among  those  who  profess  to  be  learned  in  the  Eastern  books  of  the  earlier 
ages? 


980 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


The  Bible — however  we  have  read  into  it  our  narrowest  prejudices — the 
Bible  does  not  represent  all  who  were  not  Jews  or  Christians  as  without 
light. 

The  proofs  of  this  proposition  are  numerous.  Noah,  the  just  man  who 
walked  with  God,  had,  when  God  made  a  covenant  with  all  flesh  making 
the  rainbow  his  signature,  two  other  sons  besides  Shem,  the  founder  of 
the  Jewish  race — a  race  that  was  to  have  a  certain  lineage  and  certain 
treasures  to  keep  for  mankind.  Each  of  Shem’s  descendants,  Arphaxad, 
Eber,  Peleg,  Ren,  had  besides  the  elect  in  line  “  sons  and  daughters.” 

Doubtless  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God  was  scattered  among  all 
nations,  “  by  whom  the  earth  was  divided  after  the  flood.”  “  The  God  of 
Abraham  and  the  God  of  Nahor  ”  are  spoken  of  as  one.  Multitudes  on  the 
continent  of  Asia  claim  Abraham  as  their  father,  and  are  very  proud  of  their 
ancestry.  Many  were  the  worshipers  of  God  in  ancient  times  outside  of 
the  Jewish  establishment.  The  Pentateuch  abounds  in  examples. 

God  appeared  in  a  dream  to  Abimelech,  who  claims  to  be  a  man  of 
“  integrity,”  and  his  to  be  “  a  righteous  nation.”  Melchizadek  was  a  priest 
of  the  Most  High  God,  whom  Paul  sets  above  Abraham. 

The  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  twice  to  Hagar,  comforting  her  with 
the  prophecy  of  the  greatness  of  her  posteril^y,  and  opening  her  eyes  to  a 
life-giving  fountain;  and  she  is  the  author  of  the  oft-quoted  words:  “Thou 
God  seest  me.”  It  is  expressly  declared,  “God  was  with  Ishmael.”  God 
spoke  directly  to  Laban,  and  he  is  the  author  of  that  beautiful  saying,  now 
a  motto  of  the  Christian  Endeavor:  “The  Lord  watch  between  thee  and 
me  when  we  are  absent  from  one  another.” 

Jethro,  Moses’  father-in-law,  has  given  us  in  brief  phrase,  one  of  the 
finest  descriptions  of  good  rules  extant.  “Choose,”  said  he  to  Moses, 
“able  men,  such  as  fear  God,  men  of  truth,  hating  covetousness.” 

Balaam,  though  he  had  not  the  backbone  to  be  content  without  flatteries 
and  rewards  from  a  king,  yet  had  direct  communication  with  God,  and  the 
direct  inspiration  of  prophecy  from  God.  Though  he  declined  to  live  the 
life  of  the  righteous  in  the  matter  of  self-denial,  he  is  the  author  of  that 
sentiment  destined  to  be  the  text  of  unnumbered  funeral  sermons.  “Let 
me  die  the  death  of  the  righteous,  and  let  my  last  end  be  like  his;  ”  and 
of  that  other  beautiful  exclamation,  chosen  ages  after  as  the  first  tele¬ 
graphic  message:  “What  hath  God  wrought! ” 

Job,  an  Oriental  prince  who  lived  when  Time  was  young,  as  all  the 
internal  evidence  proves,  worshiped  God  in  the  style  that  He  required  in  the 
childhood  of  the  race.  In  the  Book  of  Job  are  to  be  found  some  of  the 
sublimest  conceptions  of  the  Almighty  ever  conceived  by  mortal  man.  Yet 
there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  Job  belonged  to  any  ecclesiastical 
body  or  that  in  his  lifetime  any  such  body  ever  existed.  And,  finally,  the 
Wise  Men,  or  Magi,  of  the  East,  saw  the  Star  of  Bethlehem,  and  came  to 
worship  “  the  Desire  of  all  nations.” 

The  Bible  gives  abundant  evidence  that  the  knowledge  of  God  was  gen¬ 
eral  in  the  world.  The  mighty  David,  Solomon  in  all  his  glory,  Joseph,  the 
Prime  Minister  of  the  Pharaohs,  and  Daniel,  who  ruled  Babylon  when  that 
city  ruled  the  world,  made  known  the  true  God  in  most  striking  and 
remarkable  ways.  The  Queen  of  Sheba  blessed  God,  and  carried  his  name 
and  fame  into  her  distant  country. 

Paul,  in  his  masterly  address  on  Mars  Hill,  quotes  a  Grecian  poet  as  say¬ 
ing:  “We  are  God’s  offspring,”  and  again,  to  the  devotees  of  Jupiter  and 
Mercury,  he  says:  “  The  living  God  left  not  himself  without  a  witness  in 
that  He  did  good,  and  gave  them  rain  from  heaven,  and  fruitful  seasons, 
filling  their  heart  with  food  and  gladness.”  Peter  says:  “  I  perceive  that 
God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  that  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth 
God  and  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  of  Him.” 

Paul  again  says:  “  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead  are  clearly  seen  by 


THE  WISE  MEN  OF  THE  EAST. 


981 


the  things  that  are  made,*’  leaving  people  “  without  excuse,”  and  he  speaks 
of  the  nations  as  having  once  known  God. 

History  informs  us  the  gospel  w^as  preached  in  India  with  no  little 
power  and  success  before  the  close  of  the  2d  century  of  the  Christian 
Era;  and  that  was  700  years  before  the  rise  of  the  modern  philoso¬ 
phies  of  religions  in  that  country.  “In  Malabar  the  Christians,  by 
an  ancient  charter,  enjoyed  the  rights  of  nobility  and — a  respected  caste — 
they  supplied  the  bodyguard  of  kings;  they  were  ground  to  pieces  under 
the  millstone  of  the  Inquisition  by  the  Portuguese,”  some  three  hundred 
years  ago. 

Yes,  the  nations  have  had  light. 

Yet,  nevertheless  was  the  awful  picture  sketchec  ny  Paul  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Romans  true,  and  it  is  true  to-day.  A  priest  testifies:  “  Bud¬ 
dhism  is  the  best  of  religions,  but  its  priests  are  the  most  degraded  of  its 
class.” 

Lord,  what  is  man,  whose  thought  at  times. 

Up  to  thy  seven-fold  brightness  climbs. 

While  still  his  grosser  instinct  clings 
To  earth,  like  other  creeping  things! 

So  rich  in  words,  in  acts  so  mean ; 

So  high,  so  low;  chance- swung  between 

The  foulness  of* the  penal  pit 

And  truth’s  clear  sky,  millennium-lit ! 

Sir  Edwin  Arnold  may  read  into  the  legends  of  Buddhism  Christian 
phrases  and  Christian  conceptions,  but,  the  fact  remains  indisputable,  it 
has  never  lifted  the  masses  out  of  the  terror  and  the  vices  of  degrading 
superstition.  Nor  do  many  of  its  votaries  dream  of  such  a  consummation 
as  “  one  devoutly  to  be  wished.” 

Sir  William  Hunter  says:  “Hinduism  is  a  deliberate  system  of  compro¬ 
mise— the  cultured  faith  of  the  Brahmans  with  the  ruder  rites  of  more 
backward  races.  For  the  highest  minds  it  has  a  monotheism  pure  and 
philosophical.  To  the  materialistic  multitude  it  offers  the  infinite  phases 
of  divine  power  as  objects  of  adoration  with  calm  indifference  as  to 
whether  they  are  worshiped  as  symbols  of  the  unseen  Godhead  or  as  bits 
of  wood  and  stone.”  ' 

The  ancient  Veda  gives  no  countenance  to  widow-burning,  infant-mar¬ 
riage,  and  the  many  popular  inhuman  rites,  and  the  appeal  to  it  as  the 
highest  authority  has  lately  been  made  with  good  results  in  assuaging  the 
tide  of  woes  caused  by  these  evils. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  source,  no  doubt  God’s  own  light  shines 
in  some  of  those  ancient  pages. 

People  wonder  at  the  exalted  ideas  and  the  vigor  of  Mohammedanism. 
But  it  never  pretended  to  be  a  new  religion.  Protesting  Christ  to  be  a 
true  prophet — though  in  a  measure  superseded  by  Mohammed — retaining 
the  Bible  ideas  of  the  unity  of  God  and  the  equality  of  men  in  His  sight, 
no  wonder  it  came  to  the  downtrodden  people  of  the  low  castes  in  Asia  as 
a  revelation  from  on  high. 

Truth  is  truth,  however  or  by  whosoever  spoken,  and  great  truths  like 
these  are  emphatically  purifying  and  uplifting.  Per  contra,  error  is,  in  its 
very  nature,  corrupting  and  degrading.  A  mixture  of  both  produces  mixed 
results.  Whether  Mohammedanism  be  an  improvement  on  Christianity  let 
facts  testify  and  the  whole  world  be  jury. 

Bright,  and  pure,  and  sparkling  are  the  waters  of  the  Juinna,  as  they 
descend  from  the  lofty  Himalayas,  but,  on  they  sweep  through  the  cholera- 
infested  throngs  of  Hurdwar,  creeping,  slowly  creeping,  ever  downward 
through  the  rotting,  decaying  vegetation  of  the  tiger-and- fever-haunted 
jungles. 

All  nations  have  been  gathered  together  in  this  peerless  Exposition.  In 
the  searching  for  the  causes  of  the  progress  of  Christian  nations  which  is 


982 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


sure  to  follow,  God  grant  some  noble  souls  may  find  the  secret,  not  merely 
of  the  transmission  of  water  for  the  health  of  the  body,  but  also  of  that 
truth  of  God  which  springs  up  into  everlasting  life. 

Christianity — all  religions — must  be*  judged,  not  by  a  few  isolated 
speeches,  but  by  its  fruits  among  the  masses,  and  that  by  centuries. 

So,  in  reviewing  the  whole  matter,  were  we  learned  enough,  we  might 
say  with  Whittier; 

I  gather  up  the  scattered  rays 
Of  wisdom  in  the  early  days, 

Faint  gleams  and  broken,  like  the  light 
Of  meteors  in  the  Northern  night; 

I  listen  to  the  sibyl’s  chant. 

The  voice  of  priest  and  hierophant; 

I  know  what  Indian  Kreeshna  saith, 

And  what  of  life  and  what  of  death 
The  demon  taught  to  Socrates; 

And  what  beneath  his  garden  trees. 

Slow  pacing  with  a  dreamlike  tread. 

The  solemn-thoughted  Plato  said. 

Nor  lack  I  tokens  great  or  small, 

Of  God’s  clear  light  in  each  and  all, 

While  holding  with  more  dear  regard 
The  scroll  of  Hebrew  seer  and  bard. 

The  starry  pages  promise-lit 
With  Christ’s  evangel  over-writ. 

Thy  miracle  of  life  and  death, 

O  holy  one  of  Nazareth! 


A  LIMITLESS  SWEEP  OF  THOUGHT. 

MADELEINE  VINTON  DAHLGEEN. 

The  Parliament  of  Religions,  held  at  the  Art  Institute,  Columbus  Hall, 
whose  spirit  and  purpose  was  the  study  of  all  beliefs,  presented  a  spectacle 
of  unequaled  moral  grandeur. 

The  poetic  fancy  can  not  soar  beyond  the  reality  of  the  scene  where,  to 
the  visible  eye,  all  nations  assisted  amid  the  invisible  hosts  of  martyrs  to 
the  inexorable  cruelty  of  the  tyranny  of  past  ages,  who,  now  crowned  with 
beatific  light  and  waving  triumphal  palms,  must  have  responded  with  a 
jubilant  “  amen  ”  to  the  “  universal  prayer  ”  that  ushered  in  this  millennial 
dawn. 

Nor  will  the  glory  of  this  new  era  fade  away  without  result.  Out  of  the 
entanglement  of  seemingly  perplexing  tenets,  the  first  point  made  manifest 
was  that  all  religions  discover  fundamental  truths,  so  that  however  obscured 
are  the  expressions  of  faith,  they  all  rest  upon  elemental  principles. 

It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  popular  mind  will  at  once  clearly 
define  the  outcome  of  a  convention  where  there  was  no  discussion,  but  only 
an  exposition  of  belief;  but  thinkers,  and  especially  the  thought  leaders, 
will  doubtless  be  able  to  reach  conclusions  and  formulate  results  that 
must  react  on  the  masses. 

Certainly  the  range  of  subjects  and  their  treatment  was  a  magnificent 
intellectual  exhibit  of  the  soul's  aspirations,  wherein  nothing  would  seem 
to  have  been  overlooked  appertaining  to  the  divine  science. 

The  points  of  contact  between  the  codes  of  Islam  and  Christianity  were 

Presented.  The  teachings  were  declared  of  Confucianism,  Zoroastrianism, 
rahmanism,  that  lead  to  the  pantheistic  obliteration  of  the  divine  person¬ 
ality  and  their  ultimate  “  Nirvana,  or  cessation  of  conscious  individuality. 
The  rational  demonstration  of  the  being  of  God,  and  the  idealism  of  the 
supernatural  through  grace,  were  taught  by  the  Roman  Catholics. 

Pine  addresses  on  the  attributes  of  God  and  the  unification  of  the 
human  brotherhood  were  given  by  the  various  Protestant  creeds. 


SONG  OF  PROPHECY, 


983 


In  fact,  there  was  a  common  aim  among  those  who  hold  Christ  as  the 
Redeemer  and  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible. 

Then,  the  venerable  doctrines  of  the  Children  of  Israel,  “  sons  of  a  com¬ 
mon  Heavenly  Father,”  were  complemented  as  it  were  by  the  metaphysical 
speculations  of  the  jin-de-siecle  literature,  and  these  in  turn  were  con¬ 
trasted  by  the  actual  life  of  facts. 

What  a  limitless  sweep  of  thought! 

Out  of  all  this  is  to  be  discerned  a  certain  conclusion,  viz.,  that  the 
vague  assurances  of  the  ethnic  religions,  where  we  are  confronted  with 
annihilation,  can  not  be  compared  with  the  unity  of  Catholic  dogma. 

It  will  be  seen  that,  although  the  ethnic  faiths  claim  to  represent  over 
four  hundred  millions,  yet,  when  we  come  to  examine  closely  these  vast 
numbers,  they  are  only  an  aggregation  formed  by  the  accumulation  of  ages, 
and  their  faith  is  without  any  redemptive  quality,  while  the  unity  of  the 
Catholic  faith  is  a  real  oneness  of  dogma. 

The  full  defense  of  Christianity,  it  was  shown,  could  only  proceed 
through  the  unity  of  these  dogmas,  because  through  their  expression  the 
incarnation  and  the  supernatural  find  their  elucidation. 

The  light  thus  given  is  certain,  and  we  draw  near  to  God  through  Christ 
by  means  of  channels  He  Himself  has  directed. 

The  result,  therefore,  is,  that  the  best  defense  of  Christianity  rests  along 
Catholic  lines,  because  they  alone  represent  essential  unity. 


SONG  OF  PROPHECY. 


Composed  by  John  W.  Hutchinson  (of  the  Hutchinson  family)  August,  1867, 
while  in  his  recluse— a  log  cabin  at  Hutchinson,  Minn.,  and  sung  at  his  meetings 
held  during  the  “Woman's  Suffrage  Campaign”  through  Kansas,  is  dedicated  to 
the  “  World’s  Fair  Congresses,”  and  sung  by  him  during  that  period  when  promi¬ 
nence  was  given  to  the  “  Fatherhood  of  God  and  Brotherhood  of  Man,”  empha¬ 
sizing  this  principle  as  a  true  method  of  restoring  the  unity  of  all  good  for  the 
whole  race  of  man.  This  motto  was  the  keynote  of  the  “  Congress  of  Beligions.” 
By  request  Mr.  Hutchinson  sang  the  song  at  the  ringing  of  the  “Columbia  Lib¬ 
erty  Bell  ”  in  honor  of  “  Manhattan  Day”  and  the  anniversary  of  the  discovery  of 
America. 

“  King  out  the  old.  Ring  in  the  new.  Ring  out  the  false,  Ring  in  the  true.” 

Every  one  of  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  contributions  voiced  the 
inscription:  “  Peace  on  earth,  and  good  will  to  man.”  As  Whittier  said:  “Blessed 
the  ear,  that  yet  shall  hear,  the  jubilant  bell,  that  rings  the  knell  of  war,  and 
slavery,  forever.”  And  the  twenty  million  patrons  of  the  World’s  Fair  may  well 
echo  this  sentiment,  and  join  in  the  grand  chorus  of  the  song,  on  Saturday, 
October  28th,  “and  round  the  world  there  soon  shall  be  a  glorious  brotherhood.” 

We’ll  raise  the^song  of  triumph  when  we  see  the  hosts  advance, 

Our  banners  streaming  high,  and  its  mottoes  shall  entrance. 

As  the  golden  words  they  read,  they  will  quickly  join  our  van. 

And  vote  for  the  cause  of  freedom,  and  the  Brotherhood  of  Man. 

Chorus. — The  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  Brotherhood  of  Man, 

The  cause  of  true  religion  is  spreading  through  the  land. 

Oh,  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  Brotherhood  of  Man, 
We’ll  talk  and  sing  while  on  the  wing,  and  ring  it  through 
the  land. 

Columbia’s  sons  must  lead  the  way,  raise  high  the  lofty  standard 
Of  equal  rights  they  now  maintain,  though  once  to  slavery  pandered 
Our  country  shall  this  banner  bear,  “  Free  Suffrage  ”  is  our  motto; 

For  liberty  they’ll  work,  you  see,  and  vote  the  way  they  ought  to. 


1 


984  THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

•  ^ 

Chorus. — For,  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  Brotherhood  of  Man; 

The  cause  of  Arbitration  is  speeding  through  the  land. 

The  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  Brotherhood  of  Man,  '  - 

This  message  that  the  angels  bring,  we’ll  sing  it  through  the  ,  V  ’ 

land.  ■  '■> 

Let  discord  and  contention  cease,  that  fill  our  hearts  with  sorrow ;  .  ; 

A  ray  of  hope  dispels  the  gloom,  there’s  sunshine  on  the  morrow.  " 

The  truth  for  man  proclaimed  by  Christ  far  centuries  ago. 

Its  resurrection  cheers  us  now,  and  oh,  our  hearts  o’erfiow. 

Chorus — With  gratitude  to  God  for  the  Brotherhood  of  Man,  !• 

We  all  revere  the  higher  law,  do  a  good  turn  when  you  can.  ■ 

The  Fatherhood  of  God,  we  obey  His  high  command,  '  ; 

This  message  that  the  angels  bring,  we’ll  sing  it  through  the 
land. 

Now  peace  on  earth,  the  hosts  above  proclaim  the  nations  free, 

And  all  of  every  kin  enjoy  this  boon  of  liberty. 

We  claim  no  creed  for  class  or  clan,  but  cherish  all  the  good; 

So  round  the  world  there  soon  will  be  a  glorious  brotherhood  ■  ' 

List,  ye  sorrow-stricken  people,  to  the  voice  of  truth  to-day; 

On  the  world  the  sun  is  rising,  error’s  clouds  shall  flee  away. 

True  hearts  watching  for  the  dawning,  earnest  seers  their  joys  foretold;  ,/ 

Look,  ah,  look,  the  field  of  promise  white  with  harvest,  rich  as  gold.  ; 

Ever  hopeful,  never  doubting,  always  working  for  the  right,  J 

Loving,  waiting,  watching,  longing  for  the  millennial  day  of  light.  i 

Chorus.— The  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  Brotherhood  of  Man;  i 

Proclaim  it  through  the  Nations,  this  glorious  Christian  plan. 

The  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  Brotherhood  of  Man, 

Come  join  with  us  this  chorus  now,  and  waft  it  through  the 
land. 


World’s  Columbian  Exposition,  Executive  Department. 

Chicago,  November  7, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Esq.,  232  Fifth  Avenue,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  your  request  of  31st  ult.  I  will  repeat  what  I  recently 
stated  to  Rev.  Dr.  Barrows — that  I  regard  the  Parliament  of  Religions 
held  in  Chicago  in  1893  as  not  only  the  most  important  feature  of  the 
congresses  held  in  connection  with  the  Columbian  Exposition,  but  if  the 
Exposition  had  secured  no  other  result  than  this  congress  the  large 
sacrifice  involved  in  producing  it  would  be  justified.  The  far-reaching 
importance  and  value  to  a  fraternity  among  religionists  that  has  been 
promoted  by  this  parliament  can  not  be  over-estimated.  All  honor  to 
Dr.  Barrows  and  his  associates  who  have  brought  about  such  a  remarkable 
convention.  Truly  yours, 

Ferdinand  W.  Peck, 

Vice-President. 


^President’s  Office,  Northwestern  University. 

Evanston,  III.,  November  11, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  232  Fifth  Avenue,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  note,  dated  November  2d,  asking  for  my 
opinion  on  the  Parliament  of  Religions,  I  send  you  the  following; 


I 


OPINIONS. 


985 


The  effect  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions  will  be  to  establish  Christian 
people  more  firmly  than  before  in  their  faith,  while  it  will,  at  the  same 
time,  render  them  more  charitable  than  before  in  their  judgment  of  the 
religious  faith  of  other  peoples.  It  never  would  have  occurred  to  any  but  a 
Christian  people,  having  absolute  confidence  in  the  foundations  of  their 
faith,  to  have  convened  a  Parliament  of  Religions;  and  the  thought  so 
happily  conceived  and  so  well  carried  out  will  be  productive  of  great  good 
in  the  years  that  are  to  come. 

Yours  very  truly, 

Henry  Wade  Rogers. 


State  op  Illinois,  Executive  Office. 

Springfield,  November  9, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir;  For  the  first  time  since  man  began  to  gaze  with  awe  at  the 
mysteries  around  him  have  the  representatives  of  the  different  religions 
met  and  extended  to  each  other  a  friendly  hand  and  given  each  other  a 
respectful  hearing.  This  is  one  of  the  highest  achievements  of  human 
civilization,  and  as  this  Parliament  of  Religions  dealt  with  a  subject  that 
vitally  affects  the  happiness  of  mankind,  it  will  give  to  the  world  more 
toleration  and  more  co-operation,  more  liberal  building  up  and  less  fanat¬ 
ical  tearing  down  It  has  proclaimed  a  new  gospel  of  peace  on  earth 
and  happiness  among  men. 

John  P.  Altgeld. 


The  Catholic  University  op  America. 

Washington,  D.  C.,  October  29, 1893. 

F.  Tennyson  Neely,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir:  The  Parliament  of  Religions  is,  thus  far,  the  only  phase 
of  humane  and  intellectual  development  that  makes  possible  the  hope  of  a 
millennium.  Chas.  Warren  Stoddard. 


Chicago,  November  1, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Esq.,  232  Fifth  Avenue,  City. 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  yours  of  October  31st,  I  beg  to  say  that  the 
interest  taken  by  the  public,  those  living  in  Chicago  as  well  as  visitors  to 
our  city,  as  expressed  by  their  attendance  at  the  sessions  day  and  night  of 
the  Parliament  of  Religions,  evidenced  the  fact  that  the  establishment  of 
congresses  in  connection  with  the  World’s  Columbian  Exposition  must 
result  in  great  good  and  in  setting  an  example  to  those  who  will  have  to 
do  with  future  expositions,  and  proving  to  them  that  the  advance  in  relig¬ 
ion  and  science  can  better  be  understood  in  listening  to  learned  people, 
such  as  we  had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  during  the  six  months  just  ended, 
than  by  a  cold  exhibit  between  walls.  These  congresses  can  not  help  but 
have  an  infiuence  for  good  in  the  future. 

Yours  truly, 

W.  J.  Chalmers, 


My  full  appreciation  of  work  well  done  extend  to  those  who  have  had  a 
part  in  the  Parliament  of  Religions  just  dissolved.  They  dealt  with  human 
interests  touching  the  soul  of  the  world,  and  a  carefully  prepared  record  of 
the  proceedings  will  stand  among  and  be  one  of  the  few  great  universal 
studies  of  the  present  and  the  future. 

Chicago,  1893. 


Alexander  H.  Eevell. 


98G 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Chicago,  November  1, 1893. 

Mr.  F.  T.  Neely.,  Chicago,  III. 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  request  for  my  opinion  as  to  the  result  and 
influence  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions,  will  say,  it  has  brought  together 
people  of  many  creeds  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  permitting  them  to  come 
in  personal  contact  with  one  another,  giving  the  world  at  large  the  benefit 
of  their  different  ideas  and  arguments.  It  has  shown  us  where  we  are 
strong,  and  also  where  we  are  weak.  If  these  parliaments  could  be  held 
every  few  years  it  would,  no  doubt,  be  a  great  benefit  to  mankind. 

Yours  truly, 

Chas.  T.  Yerkes. 


Chicago,  November  1, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Esq.,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir:  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  too  early  yet  to  form  a  just  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  result  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions  so  recently  held  in 
this  city,  or  of  its  influence.  An  undertaking  such  as  this  was,  having  in 
view  so  comprehensive  a  gathering  of  the  representatives  of  all  the  dif¬ 
ferent  fields  of  religious  thought,  it  would  seem,  must  certainly  broaden 
the  views  of  all  who  participated,  or  to  whom  an  opportunity  is  given  to 
study  the  records  of  the  meetings. 

Very  truly  yours, 

J.  J.  P.  Odell. 


Chicago,  November  1, 1893. 
Mr.  F.  T.  Neely,  232-234  Fifth  Avenue,  City. 

Dear  Sir:  I  consider  that  a  full  report  of  the  Parliament  of  Relig¬ 
ions  will  be  a  fitting  conclusion  to  one  of  the  grandest  achievements  of 
this  century.  Yours  truly, 

G.  H.  Wheeler. 


Chicago,  November  10, 1893. 

The  Chicago  Congresses  of  the  past  six  months  indicate  that  democracy 
suffers  from  intellectual  homesickness.  I  know  no  book  more  comforting 
than  the  little  pamphlet  published  here  last  April  and  bearing  this  motto: 
“  Not  Things,  but  Men.”  Its  official  title  is  “  The  General  Programme  of 
the  World’s  Congresses  of  1893.”  What  a  thirst  for  knowledge  it  contains, 
what  a  respect  for  all  that  constitutes  the  spiritual  and  moral  treasure- 
house  of  humanity,  and  what  a  sign  of  the  invincible  vitality  of  Christian¬ 
ity,  even  in  face  of  the  triumphs  of  science,  is  that  Religious  Parliament 
held  in  the  very  capital  of  the  positivist,  industrial  universe.  The  results 
of  that  parliament  were  inadequate.  It  did  not  reach,  it  could  not  reach, 
a  practical  and  satisfactory  conclusion,  but  it  will  remain  the  surpassing 
excellence  of  that  Exposition.  In  the  words  of  the  poet,  it  is  the  hand  of  a 
clock  pointing  from  the  spire  of  a  huge  cathedral  toward  heaven.  Seated 
in  the  amphitheater  of  that  parliament  hall,  and  seeing  a  multitude  of 
attentive  faces  about  me — amiable  faces  of  tradesmen  and  laborers — -I  felt 
the  certainty  revive,  which  told  me  that  in  spite  of  the  moral  and  mental 
transformation  the  human  heart  is  undergoing,  it  need  not  fear  for  its  most 
precious  or  most  mournful  gems.  I  felt  that  certainty  revive  again  during 
my  last  visit  to  the  palaces  of  the  White  City.  I  long  to  see  it  again  as  I 
left  it,  in  its  dreamy  whiteness,  enshrouded  by  its  weird,  gray  mist,  and 
behind  it  the  sun. 


Paul  Bourget. 


OPINIONS. 


987 


Mobile,  Ala.,  November  8, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely ^  Esq.,  Publisher,  Chicago,  III. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  favor  of  the  1st  inst.  in  reference  to  the  Parliament 
of  Religions  is  before  me.  My  duties  as  National  Commissioner  prevented 
my  attending  the  parliament  in  person.  All  that  I  know  of  it  is  derived 
from  the  reports  made  by  the  daily  newspapers  of  Chicago  at  the  time. 
Perusing  those  convinced  me  that  the  parliament  was  the  most  remarkable 
outcome  of  the  great  Exposition.  It  is  invaluable  as  presenting  a  body  of 
statements  of  religious  beliefs  and  creeds  made  by  those  who  believe  them. 
It  is,  also,  a  monumental  demonstration  that  there  have  been  immense 
strides  made  in  the  direction  of  religious  tolerance  in  all  parts  of  the 
world,  and  this  demonstration  could  not  have  been  made  in  any  other  way 
than  by  the  parliament.  I  hope  the  proceedings  of  the  parliar  ent  will  be 
made  part  of  the  official  history  of  the  Columbian  Exposition. 

Very  truly, 

Frederick  G.  Bromberg, 

Comraissioner  for  Alabama,  World's  Columbian  Exposition. 


Chicago,  November  2, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Esq.,  Publisher,  232  Fifth  Avenue,  City. 

Dear  Sir:  Replying  to  yours  31st,  in  giving  every  aid  possible,  both  as  a 
Director  of  the  Exposition  and  as  a  private  citizen  to  the  end  that  every 
sect  and  belief  might  be  fully  represented  in  the  Parliament  of  Religions, 
I  did  so  with  the  conviction  that  in  religion,  as  in  every  walk  in  life,  not 
only  advancement  but  more  advancement  was  being  made  toward  one 
universal  belief,  and  that  great  good  would  not  only  accrue  toward  that 
end  through  this  parliament  but  an  impetus  would  result  which  otherwise 
it  would  take  years  to  accomplish..  This  I  believe  to  be  the  fact  and  that 
we  are  nearer  by  years  to  that  one  universal  religion,  namely,  love  of  God 
and  fellowman.  Yours  very  truly, 

James  W.  Ellsworth. 


Chicago,  November  3, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Esq.,  Publisher,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  favor  of  October  31st,  requesting  a  line  in 
relation  to  the  Parliament  of  Religions,  I  take  pleasure  in  saying:  When 
the  wonderful  beauty  of  the  Court  of  Honor  shall  have  faded  from  memory, 
and  the  World’s  Columbian  Exposition  itself  shall  have  been  forgotten,  the 
Parliament  of  Religions  will,  in  my  opinion,  stand  out  as  one  of  the  great 
events  in  the  history  of  civilization. 

Yours  truly, 

P.  S.  Winston. 


South  Bend,  Ind.,  November  8, 1893. 

Mr.  F.  T.  Neely,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir:  I  believe  that  the  Parliament  of  Religions  will  result  in 
bringing  religious  denominations  closer  together.  There  will  be  less  quar¬ 
reling  over  denominational  lines,  and,  I  hope,  more  effort  made  by  those 
who  profess  religion  to  manifest  it  in  their  daily  lives. 

Sincerely  yours, 

Clem  Studebaker, 


988 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Philadelphia,  November  7, 1893. 

Mr.  F.  T.  Neely,  Publisher,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir:  I  regard  the  Parliament  of  Peligions  as  the  grandest  object 
lesson  which  the  world  has  ever  had  of  the  possibilities  of  a  sincere  frater¬ 
nity  between  those  who  are  laboring,  though  in  different  directions  and  by 
different  methods,  for  the  moral  and  spiritual  upbuilding  of  mankind. 

Future  generations  will,  I  doubt  not,  date  from  this  event  the  epoch  of 
genuine  religious  liberty.  The  participants  in  the  parliament,  having 
drawn  near  to  each  other  without  any  sinister  proselytizing  motives,  have 
thus  made  a  truce  which  marks  the  beginning  of  the  end  of  religious,  or, 
rather,  irreligious  strife.  The  religions  are  henceforth  pledged  to  that 
larger  fellowship  whose  standard  is  religion  itself. 

Henry  Berkowitz. 


New  Haven,  Conn.,  November  14, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Publisher. 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  request  I  enclose  my  opinion  of  the 
World’s  Parliament  of  Religions. 

The  World’s  Parliament  of  Religions  was  a  practical  recognition  of  the 
truth,  “  That  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation  he  that 
feareth  Him  and  worketh  righteousness  is  acceptable  to  Him”  (Acts  x., 
34),  and  it  demonstrated  with  great  clearness  Christ’s  words,  “  I  am  the 
way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life.”  (Jno.  xiv.,  6.) 

Edward  D.  Curtis, 

Professor  in  the  Yale  Divinity  School. 


124  East  Ninety-Second  Street,  New  York,  November  9, 1893. 
Mr.  F.  T.  Neely. 

Dear  Sir:  In  answer  to  your  request  for  a  line  from  me  regarding  the 
late  Parliament  of  Religions  I  would  say,  the  J ew  has  ever  stood,  even 
in  ages  of  hatred  and  ignorance,  as  the  apostle  and  herald  of  brotherhood, 
and  has  toiled  and  suffered  for  that  day  when  the  confessors  of  every 
religion  will  melt  the  sword  of  combat  and  selfishness  in  the  flame  of 
human  love.  The  Jew,  therefore,  sees  in  the  Parliament  of  Religions  a 
potent  factor  toward  the  fulfillment  of  his  centuried  hope,  the  realization 
of  his  glorious  ideal.  Wishing  you  abundant  success,  I  am 

Yours  respectfully, 

Rudolph  Grossman. 


Cranford,  N.  J.,  Wednesday,  October  8, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir:  Below  I  send  you  a  line  on  the  Parliament  of  Religions 
in  response  to  your  request.  The  Parliament  of  Religions  strengthens  one’s 
faith  in  the  brotherhood  of  man.  But  without  your  report  of  the  proceed¬ 
ings  its  influence  must  have  been  woefully  limited.  No  thinking  man  should 
be  uninformed  of  the  opinions  of  so  important  a  representative  body,  and 
on  this  great  subject  the  man  who  does  not  think  must  be  incapable  of 
thought.  Truly  yours, 

William  Drysdale. 


New  York  City. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  book  will  be  an  important  addition  to  the  literature 
of  the  19th  century.  Thos.  W.  Knox. 


OPINIONS. 


989 


Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  November  6, 1893. 

Mr.  F.  T.  Neely. 

Two  features  of  this  magnificent  Exposition  pre-eminently  type  the 
progress  of  the  century — the  electrical  display  and  this  glorious  Congress 
of  Religions.  Unity  is  the  text  of  both.  Electricity  brings  earth’s  ends 
into  mental  unity;  the  congress  points  earth’s  spiritual  unity  in  human 
brotherhood  and  divine  Fatherhood.  Rabbi  Alex.  H.  Geismar. 


Fort  Atkinson,  Wis.,  November  6,  1893. 
Mr.  F.  T.  Neely,  234  Fifth  Avenue,  Chicago,  III. 

Dear  Sir:  It  seems  to  me  that  there  can  be  but  one  opinion  regarding 
the  publishing  of  the  discussions  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions.  It  will 
enlighten  the  world  in  regard  to  the  faith  of  the  different  nationalities. 

Yours  truly, 

D.  W.  Curtis. 

New  York,  November  3,  1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir:  In  compliance  with  your  request,  I  beg  to  say  that  the 
Parliament  of  Religions,  conceived,  nurtured,  and  ripened  into  glory  on 
American  soil,  is  the  grandest  achievement  in  the  history  of  cultural  and 
intellectual  progress,  and  has  marked  a  luminous  epoch  in  the  philosophy 
and  liberal  education  of  mankind.  Only  democratic  enthusiasm  and  heroic 
vitality,  allied  with  an  innate  reverence  for  the  ideal  and  agsthetic,  could 
give  birth  to  such  a  triumph  of  19th-century  genius  and  so  conclusively 
demonstrate  to  all  the  world  that  our  country  is  at  the  head  of  the  great 
pilgrimage  to  the  goal  of  truth,  marching  with  the  uplifting  hopes,  the 
sustaining  love,  and  indomitable  spirit  which  span  mankind  with  the  rain¬ 
bow  of  kinship  and  brotherhood. 

The  record  of  proceedings  printed  by  your  enterprising  publishing 
house  may,  indeed,  lay  claim  to  an  honorary  work  in  the  vast  library  of 
noble  endeavor,  in  whose  dust-covered  retreat  live  Jew,  Christian,  and  all 
believing  minds  intent  in  the  search  for  light,  enlightenment,  and  fra¬ 
ternity.  The  parliament  sowed  these  seeds,  let  us  culture  them.  Wishing 
you  much  success,  and  hoping  to  hear  from  you  soon,  I  am,  dear  sir, 

Faithfully  yours. 

Dr.  Alexander  Kohut,  Rabbi. 


Chicago,  November  10,  1893. 

Dear  Mr.  Neely:  I  think  that  it  was  appropriate  in  Chicago,  at  the 
time  of  the  Parliament  of  Religions,  to  quote  the  celebrated  Latin  verse  of 
the  grand  poet  Lucretius: 

Quantum  religio  potent  suadere  malorum  !  (How  many  evils  could  religion 
advise!) 

We  have  all  learned  how  intolerance  has  been  for  centuries  the  rule  of 
mankind  and  how  mighty  nations,  illustrious  princes,  were  all  brought  into 
what  we  might  call  a  wild  temper  as  soon  as  a  faith  somewhat  different 
from  theirs  was  taken  up  or  kept  up  by  other  people.  And  what  a  striking 
spectacle  was  that  of  free  America  calling  the  representatives  of  all  the 
religious  world,  a  vast  congregation,  in  which  everybody  was  invited  to 
present,  in  the  way  he  liked,  the  description  of  his  own  faith,  to  explain 
the  sacred  lines  which  held  him  to  the  creed  of  his  fathers.  If  ever  the 
friends  of  “  peace  on  earth,”  which  has  been  so  often  promised  to  “  men  of 
good  will,”  have  been  entitled  to  conceive  the  broadest  hopes  of  a  better 
future  for  the  ever-suffering  children  of  Adam,  it  was  certainly  by  enter¬ 
ing  the  majestic  hall,  where  the  priests  and  laymen  of  the  world  were 
gathered. 


990 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


What  an  admirable  conception  of  religion  to  understand  at  last  that  it 
is  the  charm  which  unites  the  man  to  God,  and  which  has  to  unite  us  to 
the  Almighty,  without  any  interference  of  any  mortal  being  in  this  sacred 
communion ! 

If  we  are  entitled  to  claim  a  perfect  equality  of  political  and  civil  rights, 
are  we  not  ten  times  better  entitled  to  claim  the  religious  equality? 
Religion  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  terrestrian  ambitious,  nothing  with 
the  gorgeous  displays  of  gold,  silver,  and  diamonds,  nothing  with 
the  pride,  nothing  with  the  tyrannical  commands  of  classes  of  men  pre¬ 
tending  to  rule  over  other  men.  I  do  not  like  to  see  so  many  perishable 
things  between  me  and  my  God.  Let  me  pray  Him  alone,  under  the 
skies,  where  millions  of  stars  proclaim  His  unparalleled  power!  Let  me 
think  of  those  unknown  worlds,  of  which  we  begin  to  guess  the  movings 
and  the  rules!  And  now  I  ask  you,  men  of  narrow  faith,  Do  you  earnestly 
believe  that,  in  those  quadrillions  of  billions  of  stars  which  dash  through 
the  ether  quicker  than  the  electricity,  your  little  sects,  your  miserable 
anthropomorphistic  conception  of  Divinity,  your  selfish  hope  of  favors  to 
you  and  hatred  to  your  brethren,  do  you  believe  that  all  those  pitiful, 
daily  thoughts  are  taken  into  any  consideration? 

Do  you  suppose  mankind  has  the  monopoly  of  life  in  this  wonderful 
cosmos,  of  which  we  can  not  see  the  limit  even  in  our  boldest  dreams, 
with  the  most  powerful  imagination? 

If  all  those  stars  drive  with  them  innumerable  planets,  as  our  sun 
drives  the  earth,  Venus,  Mars,  Jupiter,  Uranus,  Saturn,  Nejjtune,  and  still 
others  which  our  telescope  will  discover  one  day  or  another,  what  is  relig¬ 
ion  on  those  celestial  bodies? 

Have  you  ever  thought  of  this,  and  dare  you,  after  having  put  your  head 
into  your  hands,  after  having  cried  for  help,  after  having,  through  days 
without  knowledge  and  nights  without  sleep,  computed  thousands  of  thou¬ 
sands  of  doubts,  dare  you  say  one  thing  but  this:  There  is  a  power  beyond 
us?  There  is  a  God  who  conceived  and  created  all  that  surrounds  us,  and 
ourselves,  too!  This  is  my  faith!  This  must  be  the  faith  of  all  the  beings 
through  all  the  infinite  space!  And  now,  children  of  the  earth,  go  in  peace 
and  try  to  do  good,  because,  if  there  are  terrible  doubts  for  the  sincere 
man  about  the  way  in  which  God  is  to  be  understood  and  worshiped, 
there  is  no  doubt  about  the  eternal  morality.  The  principles  of  morality 
are  deeply  impressed  in  our  souls.  Nearly  all  the  religions  agree  in  their 
main  lines,  and  here  is  a  marvelous  field  in  which  the  most  different  faiths 
can  find  a  common  plan  to  unite  themselves.  Let  us  look  for  what  unites, 
not  for  what  divides  us.  This  has  been  the  spirit  of  the  Parliament  of 
Religions.  May  it  be  ever  praised  for  this! 

Raphael  George  Levy, 

Professor  at  the  University  of  Political  Science^  Paris. 


Des  Moines,  Iowa,  November  10,  1893. 

F.  T.  Neely.,  Esq.,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir:  I  regard  the  Parliament  of  Religions  as  the  greatest  adjunct 
to  the  Columbian  Exposition.  What  the  Exposition  has  accomplished  in 
the  material  elevation  of  mankind  the  Congress  of  Religions  has  attained 
for  the  spiritual  development  of  men.  It  will  have  done  more  to  liberalize 
and  advance  the  world  in  this  respect  than  all  other  causes  since  the  reign 
of  ignorance  and  superstition  during  the  dark  ages.  Your  work,  designed 
to  perpetuate  the  mighty  lessons  of  that  parliament,  will  not  only  be 
timely  but  the  grand  climax  of  that  historic  event  and  period. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Joseph  Eiboeck, 

National  Commissioner  for  Iowa. 


OPINIONS. 


991 


Massachusetts  State  Board  op  Trade. 

Lowell,  Mass.,  November  9, 1893. 

Mr.  F.  T.  Neely,  Chicago,  III. 

Dear  Sir:  I  am  pleased  that  your  house  is  to  have  the  publication  of 
the  work,  and  believe  that  the  Parliament  of  Religions  has  implanted  upon 
the  minds  and  hearts  of  men  broader  and  higher  views  of  Christianity,  and 
the  lessons  of  love,  faith,  and  charity,  taught  at  that  wonderful  gather¬ 
ing,  must  also  exert  a  powerful  influence  in  elevating  the  standard  of 
honor,  integrity,  and  tolerance  to  such  an  extent,  that  even  the  channels  of 
trade,  manufactures,  and  commerce  will  receive  fresh  impetus  from  this 
new  jjresentation  of  the  great  abiding  truth  of  the  brotherhood  of  man. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Chas.  E.  Adams. 


Hartford,  Conn.,  November  10, 1893. 
Mr.  F.  T.  Neely,  23i  Fifth  Avenue,  Chicago,  III. 

Dear  Sir:  I  was  not  able  to  be  present  to  hear  the  addresses  delivered 
at  the  Parliament  of  Religions,  but  from  extracts  of  speeches  which  I  have 
read  in  the  daily  journals  and  from  comments  of  individuals,  there  can  be 
no  question  but  that  the  influence  of  those  meetings  and  addresses  will 
tend  to  create  a  more  kindly  feeling  in  each  denomination  toward  the  others; 
and  that  it  will  create  a  leaven  which,  in  its  influence,  will  spread  far 
beyond  the  limits  of  that  convention;  if  those  present  have  been  able  to 
learn,  and  admit,  that  there  is  some  good  in  all,  and  that  in  reality  there  is 
not  such  a  wide  difference  in  the  essentials  as  has  been  heretofore  thought, 
it  may  possibly  (in  the  near  future,  if  not  sooner)  lead  to  some  formula  upon 
which  all  earnest  seekers  for  the  truth  can  unite  with  confidence,  and  one 
which  will  remove  the  numerous  doctrinal  stumbling-blocks  which  appear  to 
those  who  attempt  to  reconcile  the  various  creeds  of  the  present.  Let  us 
hope  with  faith.  Very  truly, 

L.  Brainard. 


Fort  Smith,  Ark.,  November  10, 1893. 


F.  T.  Neely,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir:  The  Parliament  of  Religions  is  much  like  the  system  of 
awards  given  at  the  Columbian  Exposition.  Each  has  given  the  points  of 
excellence  claimed  for  it.  A  compilation  of  the  claims  should  be  in  every 
library.  Christianity  has  nothing  to  fear  from  the  contrast. 

Very  truly  yours, 

J.  H.  Clendening, 

National  Commissioner  for  Arkansas. 


Tempe,  Ariz.,  November  7, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Chicago,  III. 

Dear  Sir:  Answering  yours  of  the  2d,  the  Parliament  of  Religions  can 
be  regarded  but  as  a  grand  step  toward  unification  of  the  human'  race, 
upon  a  lasting  plane,  higher  than  can  be  afforded  by  commerce  or  the  arts. 

Yours  truly, 

W.  L.  Van  Horn. 


The  fact  that  orthodoxy  has  allowed  people  of  conflictory  faiths  to 
express  themselves  in  the  same  city  without  attempting  to  cut  off  their 
heads,  or  burn  them  alive,  speaks  volumes  for  the  progress  of  liberalizing 
thought. 


Ella  Wheeler  Wilcox. 


992 


THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Chicago,  November  12, 1893. 

While  the  late  World’s  Parliament  of  Religions  was  an  event  without 
precedent,  it  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  it  would  not  have  been  possible  at 
any  previous  time.  The  world’s  expositions  have  afforded  convenient 
opportunities  for  illustrating  the  recent  rapid  progress  of  mankind  in  that 
knowledge  of  things  scientific  and  practical  which  finds  easy  acceptance 
among  all  peoples,  and  have  thus  broadened  and  deepened  the  conviction 
that  it  may  also  be  well  to  exchange  thoughts  upon  things  of  yet  higher 
concern.  The  parliament  was  the  natural  and  fitting  conclusion  of  a 
remarkable  series  of  congresses  embracing  the  whole  field  of  human 
interests.  It  was  happily  devised  and  wisely  carried  through.  That  it 
developed  a  very  encouraging  liberality  among  the  representatives  of  many 
faiths  is  beyond  question;  but  it  is  no  less  certain  that  it  was  composed  of 
the  more  liberal  of  them  and  is  not  to  be  understood  as  showing  the  real 
status  of  the  religious  world.  The  millennium  is  coming,  but  has  not  yet 
arrived.  Such  parliaments  will  hasten  its  coming  and  are  to  be  provided 
for  as  among  the  most  important  and  blessed  accompaniments  of  all  future 
universal  expositions. 

John  W.  Hoyt. 


New  York  Commercial  Advertiser. 

New  York,  October  30, 1893. 

F.  T.  Neely,  Esq. 

My  Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  24th  inst.  is  received.  I  may  say  to  you,  as 
an  individual,  that,  looking  at  the  matter  of  religion  purely  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  world,  it  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  its  weakest  point 
has  always  been  its  easy  cleavage,  resulting  in  endless  disagreement.  If 
there  were  but  one  religion  preached  in  the  world,  and  by  as  many  and  as 
able  and  sincere  men  as  now  preach  all  shades  of  religion,  it  does  not  seem 
to  me  that  there  could  long  remain  any  considerable  proportion  of  the  race 
standing  in  denial  toward  it,  nor  that  it  would  keep  the  asperity  that  now 
antagonizes  the  outside  world,  as  well  as  the  different  branches  of  religious 
profession  toward  each  other.  I  have  not  witnessed  any  part  of  this  par¬ 
liament,  but  it  strikes  me  that  the  movement  contains  more  of  “the 
promise  and  potency  ”  of  unification  of  belief  as  well  as  of  purpose  than 
any  religious  movement  since  the  possession,  by  our  form  of  faith,  of  the 
old  Roman  Empire.  In  any  event,  it  seems  to  me,  its  effect  must  be  to 
increase  the  respect,  as  well  as  the  knowledge,  of  every  form  of  belief  for 
every  other,  and  thereby  to  make  plainer  the  primal  truth  that  man  must 
be  forever  man,  pure  and  simple,  first,  and  a  professor  of  religious  belief 
afterward.  Yours  cordially, 

G.  M.  McConnel. 


Atlanta,  Ga. 

If,  as  we  believe,  Christianity  is  divine  and  other  faiths  are  not  so 
largely  so,  she  had  nothing  to  fear  and  very  little  to  lose  by  this  conference, 
while  they  had  much  to  learn  of  her.  The  inspired  inscription  upon  the 
White  City’s  magnificent  peristyle  is  written  at  the  head  of  each  page  of 
the  parliament’s  proceedings:  “Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth 
shall  make  you  free.”  America  knows  far  more  of  truth  and  promises  a 
larger  measure  of  freedom  because  of  the  World’s  Parliament  of  Religions. 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

Harlan  P.  Beach. 


INDEX. 


THE  PAELIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 


Address,  Opening  (C.  C.  Bonney) 

Address  of  Welcome  (Dr.  J.  H.  Barrows) . 

Africa,  In  Behalf  of  (Bishop  Arnett) . 

American  Civilization  and  Christianity  (Prof.  Thos.  O’Gorman) 
America,  What  Christianity  Has  Wrought  for  (Dr.  D.  J.  Burrell) 
America,  World’s  Religious  Debt  to  (Celia  Parker  Woolley) 

Anglican  Church  and  Church  of  First  Ages  (Rev.  Thomas  Richey) 

Arbitration  Instead  of  War  (Shaku  Soyen) . 

Archimandrite  of  Syria, 

Armenia,  Greeting  from  Old  (Prof.  Minaz  Tcheraz)  _  -  _ 

Armenia,  Spirit  and  Mission  of  Church  of  (Ohanner  Chatschumyna) 
Armenian  Church,  The  (Prof.  Minaz  Tcheraz)  -  -  -  . 

Armenians,  Thanks  from 

Asia,  World’s  Religious  Debt  to  (P.  C.  Mozoomdar)  -  -  - 

Athens,  Metropolite  of  -  --  --  --  -- 

Australasia,  Words  from  (Archbishop  Redwood)  .  _  - 

A  White  Life  for  Two  (Frances  E.  Willard)  .... 
Baptists  in  History  (Rev.  George  C.  Lorimer)  -  .  _  . 

Bible  Lands  (Dr.  George  E.  Post) . 

Bible  Orthodoxy,  Persistence  of  (Rev.  Luther  F.  Townsend) 

Bible,  What  It  Has  Wrought  (Rev.  Joseph  Cook) 

Brahmo-Somaj,  Spiritual  Ideas  of  the  (B.  B.  Nagarkar) 

Brotherhood  of  Man  (Dr.  W.  C.  Roberts) . 

Buddha  (Continued) 

Buddha  (Rev.  Zitsuza  Ashitzu) . 

Buddha,  The  World’s  Debt  to  (H.Dharmapala)  -  -  -  - 

Buddhism  and  Christianity  (H.  Dharmapala)  .  .  -  . 

Buddhism  (Banrieu  Yatsubuchi) . 

Buddhism,  History  of  in  Japan  (Horin  Toki)  -  .  -  - 

Buddhism,  What  It  Has  Done  for  Japan  (Horin  Toki) 

Buddhism,  Would  Win  Converts  to  (Zenshiro  Noguchi) 

Canada  as  a  Link  in  the  Empire  (Principal  Grant)  -  .  - 

Cardinal  Gibbons’  Message  (Bishop  Keane)  ----- 
Catholic  Church  and  Marriage  Bond  (Prof.  Martin  J.  Wade) 
Catholic  Church  and  Negro  Race  (Rev.  J.  R.  Slattery) 

Catholic  Church  and  the  Bible  (Mgr.  Seton)  -  -  -  « 

Cause  and  Etfect  as  Taught  by  Buddha  (Shaku  Soyen) 

Ceylon,  Good  Wishes  of  (H.  Dharmapala)  ----- 
Children,  Religious  Training  of  (Brother  Azarias)  -  -  - 

China,  America’s  Duty  to  (W.  A.  P.  Martin)  .  -  -  _ 

Christ,  Savior  of  World  (Rev.  B.  Fay  Mills)  -  _  _  - 

Christ,  The  Historic  (Rev.  T.  W.  Dudley)  -  -  -  _  - 

993 


PAGE 

37 
40 
70 
669 
675 
787 
703 
797 
567 
62 
641 
785 
507 
596 
621 
58 
747 
832 
450 
728 
572 
743 
148 
445 
537 
406 
803 
323 
■  222 
779 
156 
65 
.  185 
339 
•  602 
.  305 
.  378 
■  60 
.  355 

-  664 
•  464 

-  367 


994 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

Christ  the  Reason  of  the  Universe  (Rev.  James  W.  Lee)  -  -  -  390 

Christ  the  Unifier  of  Mankind  (Dr.  Geo.  Dana  Boardman)  -  -  841 

Christian  and  Hindu  Thought,  Contact  of  (Rev.  R.  A.  Hume)  -  -  792 

Christian  Evangelism  (Rev.  James  Brand)  ------  463 

Christian  Scripture,  Inspiration  of  (Rev.  Frank  Sewell)  -  -  -  319 

Christian  Unity,  Brotherhood  of  (Theodore  P.  Seward)  -  _  .  509 

Christianity  an  Historical  Religion  (George  Park  Fisher)  -  .  -  380 

Christianity  and  the  Negro  (Bishop  Arnett) . 605 

Christianity  and  the  Social  Question  (Prof.  F.  G.  Peabody)  -  -  526 

Christianity  as  a  Social  Force  (Prof.  Richard  T.  Ely)  -  -  -  .  550 

Christianity  as  Interpreted  by  Literature  (Rev.  Theodore  T.  Hunger)  300 
Christianity  as  Seen  by  a  Voyager  (Rev.  Francis  E.  Clark)  -  -  756 

Christianity,  Attitude  to  Other  Religions  (Prof.  W.  C.  Wilkinson)  -  759 
Christianity,  Its  Message  to  Other  Religions  (Rev.  James  S.  Devine)  766 
Churches  and  City  Problems  (Prof.  A.  W.  Small)  -  -  -  -  587 

Churches,  Government  Census  of  (Rev.  H.  K.  Carroll)  -  -  -  690 

Civilization,  Jewish  Contributions  to  (D.  G.  Lyon;  -  -  -  -  373 

Comparative  Theology,  Study  of  (C.  P.  Tiele) . 245 

Confucianism,  Genesis  and  Development  of  (Dr.  Ernst  Faber)  -  -  267 

Confucianism,  Prize  Essay  on  (Rung  Hsien  Ho)  -  -  -  -  -  252 

Confucianism  (Pung  Kwang  Yu) . 149 

Constantinople,  a  Representative  of  (Herant  M.  Kiretchjian)  -  -  497 

Co-operation,  Divine  Basis  of  (Mrs.  Lydia  H.  Dickinson)  -  -  -  197 

Crime  and  the  Remedy  (Rev.  Olympia  Brown)  -----  575 

Divine  Being,  Argument  for  the  (W.  T.  Harris) . 116 

Duty  of  God  to  Man  (Mrs.  Laura  Ormiston  Chant)  ....  250 
Erroneous  Ideas,  Protest  against  (Archbishop  of  Zante)  -  -  -  652 

Ethical  Ideas,  Essential  Oneness  of  (Rev.  Ida  C.  Hultin)  -  -  -  474 

Ethics  of  Christian  Science  579 

Evidence  of  a  Supreme  Being  (Rev.  Dr.  Momerie)  -  -  -  -  84 

Evolution,  Christianity  and  (Prof.  Henry  Drummond)  .  .  .  828 

Existence  and  Attributes  of  God  72 

Faiths,  The  Good  in  All  (Dr.  P.  W.  M.  Hugenholtz)  -  -  -  -  812 

Final  Words — 

Dr.  Alfred  W.  Momerie  847 

Rev.  P.  C.  Mozoomdar . 848 

Prince  Serge  Wolkonsky . 850 

Hon.  Pung  Quang  Yu . 851 

KinzaM.  Hirai . 851 

H.  Dharmapala . ------  852 

Right  Rev.  Mr.  Shabita . 852 

Dr.  George  T.  Candlin  -  --  --  --  --  853 

Swami  Vivekananda  853 

Vichand  Gandhi  -  --  --  --  --  -  854 

Dr.  Emil  Hirsch  -  -  855 

Prince  Momolu  Masaquoi  -  --  --  --  -  855 

Dr.  Frank  M.  Bristol  -  --  --  --  --  856 

Mrs.  Charles  Henrotin  -  --  --  --  --  857 

Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones  . . 857 

Bishop  Arnett  .  859 

Mrs.  Julia  Ward  Howe  -  --  --  --  --  859 

Rev.  Augusta  Chapin . 859 

Bishop  Keane  -  --  --  --  --  --  861 

Dr.  John  Henry  Barrows . 862 

Pres.  C.  C.  Bonney  -----  ..  -  -  -  863 

Foreign  Missionary  Methods  -------  -  607 

France,  Greeting  from  (Prof.  G.  Bonet-Maury) . 57 

France,  Religious  Thought  in  (Prof.  G.  Bonet-Maury)  .  -  .  772 


INDEX,  995 

PAGE 

Free  Baptist  Church  History  (Prof.  J.  A.  Howe) . 736 

General  Committee  of  Eeligious  Congresses  -  -  ...  23 

Germany,  Religious  State  of  (Count  Bernstorff)  -----  456 
Good  Will  and  Peace  among  Men  (Shibati  Reirchi)  -  -  -  .  161 

Gratitude,  Expression  of  (Dr.  John  H.  Barrows) . 811 

Greece,  Thanks  from  (Right  Rev.  Dionysios  Latas)  -  -  -  -  60 

Greek  Church  Characteristics  (Rev.  P.  Phiambolis)  -  -  -  -  643 

Greek  Philosophy  and  Christian  Religion  (Prof  Max  Muller)  -  -  413 

Hebrew  Scriptures,  What  They  Have  Done  (Alexander  Kohut)  «  308 
Higinbotham,  H.  N.,  Address  ..----.-47 

Hindus  and  Chastity  (Vichand  Gandhi) . 701 

Hindus,  Religious  Belief  of  (Manilal  Ni  Dvivedi)  .  -  -  -  105 

Hinduism  as  a  Religion  (Swami  Vivekananda) . 438 

Holy  Places,  Restoration  of---------  508 

Human  Brotherhood  (Dr.  K.  Kohler) . 145 

Human  Progress,  Spiritual  Forces  in  (Dr.  Edward  Everett  Hale)  -  207 
Idealism  the  New  Religion  (Dr.  Adolf  Brodbeck)  -  .  -  _  122 

Immortality  (Rev.  Phillip  Moxon)  --------  169 

Incarnation  Idea  in  History  and  in  Jesus  Christ  (Rt.  Rev.  John  J.  Keane)  396 
Incarnation  of  God  in  Christ  (Rev.  Julien  K.  Smyth)  -  -  -  -  401 

India,  Ancient  Religion  of  (Rev.  Maurice  Phillips)  -  -  .  -  100 

India  and  China,  Words  from  (P.  C.  Mozoomdar)  -  -  -  -  51 

India,  Missionary  Work  in  (Narasima  Chaira) . 610 

Infinite  Being,  The  (Rev.  S.  J.  Niccolls)  ------  73 

Intent,  The  Religious  (Rev.  E.  T.  Rexford)  -  •  -  -  -  -  -  202 

Interdenominational  Comity  (Rev.  D.  L.  Whitman)  -  -  -  -  720 

International  Arbitration  (Thomas  J.  Semmes)  -----  628 

International  Justice  and  Amity  (Rev.  S.  L.  Baldwin)  .  -  -  645 

Introduction  -  --  --  --  --  --  -7 

Islam,  Social  Conditions  and  (Mohammed  Webb)  .  -  .  -  544 

Islam,  The  Spirit  of  (Mohammed  Webbl . -  460 

Jains,  Ethics  and  History  of  (Vichand  A.  Gandhi)  .  _  -  -  732 

Japan,  Christianity  in  (Harnichi  Kozaki)  489 

Japan,  Future  of  Religion  in  (Nobuta  Kishimoto)  ...  -  794 

J apan,  Real  Position  of  toward  Christianity  (Kinza  M.  Hirai)  -  -  157 

Judaism,  Orthodox  or  Historical  (H.  Peirara  Mendes)  -  -  -  -  211 

Judaism,  Outlook  for  (Miss  Josephine  Lazarus) . 324 

Judaism  (Rabbi  Joseph  Silverman)  -------  636 

Koran  and  Its  Doctrines  (Rev.  Geo.  E.  Post)  -----  613 

Koran,  Some  Teachings  of  (J.  Sanna  AbouNaddara)  -  -  -  -  653 

Man  from  a  Catholic  Point  of  View  (Very  Rev.  William  Byrne)  -  141 

Man’s  Place  in  Nature  (Prof.  A.  B.  Bruce) . 415 

Model  Man,  The  (Bishop  Arnett) . 155 

Mohammedanism,  Contacts  with  Christianity  (George  Washburne)  -  235 
Monks,  Most  Ancient  Order  of  (Sw’ami  Vivekananda)  -  -  -  -  64 

Moses,  Greatness  and  Influence  of  (Rabbi  Gottheil)  -  -  -  -  297 

Music,  Emotion,  and  Morals  (Rev.  H.  R.  Haweis)  _  -  -  -  422 

Native  Religious  Ideas,  Concessions  to  (Rev.  T.  E.  Slater)  -  -  -  164 

Nature  of  Man,  The  -  .  - . I33 

New  England  Puritan  (Rev.  Alex.  McKenzie)  -----  48 

Officers  of  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary  ------  16 

Official  Welcome  (Archbishop  Feehan)  ------  44 

Opening  of  the  Parliament . -_--33 

Origin  of  Parliament  of  Religions  -------  22 

Orthodox  Greek  Church  (Archbishop  of  Zante)  -  -  -  -  -  139 

Parable,  A  (Sw'ami  Vivekananda)  -------  258 

Parsee,  Converted  Woman  (Miss  Jeanni  Serabji)  -  -  -  -  67 

Parsees,  Religious  System  of  ( Jinan ji  Jamshodji  Modi)  -  -  -  173 


996 


INDEX. 


Parliament,  Closing  Scenes  of  -  . 

Parliament,  Possible  Results  of  (Julia  Ward  Howe)  -  .  -  . 
Parliament,  The  World’s  (Mrs.  L.  Ormiston  Chant)  -  -  .  - 

Pekin,  Religion  in  (Isaac  T.  Headland)  - . 

Philosophy  and  the  Science  of  Religion  (J.  P.  Lamdis) 

Preface  - 

Protestant  Missions,  Results  of  in  Turkey  (Rev.  Mardiros  Ignados)  - 
Pung  Quang  Yu,  Hon.  - 

Rational  Demonstration  of  the  Being  of  God  (Very  Rev.  Augustine 

F.  Hewitt)  .  -  .  - . 

Reconciliation,  Vital  not  Vicarious  (Rev.  Theodore  Wright) 
Redemption  of  Man  through  Christ  (Rev.  T.  J.  Kennedy)  -  -  - 

Reform,  Individual  Effort  at  (Prof.  C.  R.  Henderson)  -  -  -  - 

Religion,  Ancient  Egyptian  (J.  A.  S.  Grant)  .  .  _  .  _ 

Religion  and  American  Negro  (Mrs.  P.  B.  Williams)  -  .  .  - 

Religion  and  the  Erring  (Rev.  Anna  G.  Spencer) 

Religion  and  Labor  (Rev.  James  M.  Cleary)  -  _  .  _  - 

Religion  and  Love  of  Mankind  (Ex-Gov.  Hoyt)  .  .  .  -  _ 

Religion  and  Music  (W.  L.  Tomlins) . 

Religion  and  Music  (Prof.  Waldo  S.  Pratt)  ------ 

Religion  and  Social  Problems 

Religion  and  Wealth  (Rev.  Washington  Gladden)  .  .  .  - 

Religion,  Certainties  of  (Rev.  Joseph  Cook) . 

Religion  Connected  with  Art  and  Science . 

Religion  Essentially  Characteristic  of  Humanity  (Rev.  Lyman 

Abbott) . 

Religion,  Great  Teachers  of- . 

Religion,  Influence  of  on  Women  (Rev.  Annis  F.  Eastman) 

Religion  in  Hawaiian  Lands  (Rev.  E.  P.  Baker) . 

Religion  in  Social  and  Married  Life . 

Religion,  Necessity  of . 

Religion  of  North  American  Indians  (Alice  C.  Fletcher)  .  .  _ 

Religion  of  Science  (Sir  William  Dawson) . 

Religion,  Relation  between  and  Conduct  (Prof.  C.  H.  Toy) 

Religion,  Relation  of  Science  to  (Dr.  Paul  Carus)  .  .  .  _ 

Religion,  Supreme  End  and  Office  of  (Walter  Elliot)  -  -  -  - 

Religion,  Synthetic  (Kinza  Riuge  M.  Hirai)  ------ 

Religion,  Systems  of  -  . . 

Religion,  The  Essentials  of  (Rev.  A.  W.  Momerie)  -  -  -  _ 

Religion,  Working  Forces  in---- . 

Religions  and  the  Social  Question  (Rabbi  H.  Berkowitz) 

Religions,  Importance  of  Serious  Study  of  All  (Mrs.  Eliza  R. 

Goodspeed)  . 

Religions  of  the  World  (Mgr.  C.  D.  D’Harlez) . 

Religions,  Present  Outlook  of  (Rev,  George  T.  Pentecost)  - 
Religions,  Sympathy  of  (Thomas  Wentworth  Higginson) 

Religions,  What  the  Dead  Have  Bequeathed  to  the  Living  (C.  S. 

Sunderland) . 

Religious  Distinguished  from  a  Moral  Life  (Sylvester  S.  Scovell) 
Religious  Feeling,  Social  Office  of  (Prince  Serge  Wolkonsky) 
Religious  Mission  of  English-Speaking  Nations  (Rev.  H.  H.  Jessup)  - 
Religious  Unification,  Only  Possible  Method  of  (Dr.  W.  R.  Alger) 
Religious  Union  of  the  Human  Race  (Rev.  John  Gmeiner) 

Religious  Unity  and  Missions  (Rev.  Geo.  T.  Candlin)  -  -  -  - 

Response  to  Addresses  (Cardinal  Gibbons) . 

Reunion  of  Christendom  (Prof.  Phillip  Schaff)  -  -  .  -  - 

Revelation,  Need  of  a  Wider  Conception  of  (J.  Estlin  Carpenter) 
Roman  Catholic  Church;  Its  Relations  to  Poor  (Charles  F.  Donnelly) 


PAGE 

846 

764 

811 

494 

432 

11 

776 

52 

75 

471 

498 

558 

261 

631 

512 

564 

618 

813 

477 

507 

568 

218 

410 

191 

364 

345 

574 

330 

184 

584 

418 

483 

'450 

167 

798 

227 
625 
452 
665 

275 

286 

682 

364 

228 
427 
268 
638 
826 
781 
706 

45 

711 

386 

519 


INDEX,  997 

VAGE 

Russia,  Legend  of  (Prince  Wolkonsky) . 52 

Sacred  Books  of  the  World  (Milton  S.  Terry) . 312 

Salvation,  The  World’s  (Rev.  John  Duke  M’Fadden)  -  -  .  -  824 

Science  of  Religions,  Service  of  (Marwin-Marie  Snell)  -  -  -  259 

Scriptures,  Sacred  of  the  World . '  -  -  292 

Scriptures,  Truthfulness  of  Holy  (Charles  A.  Briggs)  -  -  .  -  292 

Second  Message  from  Bombay  (B.  B.  Nagarkar)  -----  67 

Shinto  Bishop  of  Japan . -  54 

Siam,  Buddhism  of  (Prince  Chandradit  Chodharharn)  -  -  -  271 

Social  Reform  in  India  (B.  B.  Nagarkar)  -  - . 330 

Somerset,  Lady  Henry . 410 

Soul  and  Its  Future  Life  (Rev.  Samuel  N.  Warren)  .  .  .  -  170 

Speakers  and  Essayists  at  the  Parliament — 

Abbott,  Rev.  Lyman . 191 

Alger,  Dr.  W.  R. . 826 

Arnett,  Bishop  70, 155, 605,  859 

Ashitzu,  Rev.  Zitsuza  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  537 

Azarias,  Brother  -  -  _  -  -  .  .  .  355 

Baker,  Rev.  E.  P. . 574 

Baldwin,  Rev.  S.  L. . 645 

Barrows,  Dr.  John  Henry  -----  40, 811,  862 

Bergen,  Dr.  Carl  von . 61 

Berko witz.  Rabbi  H. . 665 

Bernstorff,  Count .  55, 456 

Blackwell,  Rev.  Antoinette  Brown . 660 

Boardman,  Rev.  George  Dana  ------  764,  841 

Bonet-Maury,  Prof.  G.  --------  57,  772 

Bonney,  President  C.  C. .  37,  863 

Brand,  Rev.  James . -  -  463 

Briggs,  Dr.  Charles  A.  -  - . 292 

Bristol,  Dr.  Frank  M. . -  .  _  856 

Brodbeck,  Dr.  Adolf . 122 

Brown,  Rev.  Olympia . 575 

Bruce,  Prof.  A.  B.  -  -  . . 415 

Burrell,  Dr.  D.  J.  -  --  --  --  --  -  675 

Byrne,  Rev.  William . ]41 

Candlin,  Rev.  George  T.  .  . .  608,  706,  853 

Carpenter,  J.  Estlin . 386 

Carroll,  Rev.  H.  K.  . . 690 

Cams,  Dr.  Paul  450 

Chair  a,  Narasima . 610 

Chakravarrti,  Prof.  C.  N. . 62 

Chant,  Mrs.  Laura  Ormiston  - .  250,  811 

Chapin,  Rev.  Augusta  43,  859 

Chatschumyna,  Ohanner  641 

Chodharharn,  Prince  Chandradit . 271 

Clark,  Rev.  Francis  E.  -  --  --  --  --  756 

Cleary,  Rev.  James  M.  -  - . 564 

Cook,  Rev.  Joseph,  -  _  218,  572 

Dawson,  Sir  William  413 

D’Harlez,  Mgr.  C.  D.  286 

Devine,  Rev.  James  S. . 766 

Dharmapala,  H.  60,  406,  803,  607,  852 

Dickinson,  Mrs.  Lydia  H.  --------  197 

Donnelly,  Charles  F.  549 

Douglass,  Frederick  702 

Drummond,  Prof.  Henry . .  -  .  .  828 

Dudley,  Rev.  T.  W. .  307 


098  IJSDEX. 

PAGE 

Dvivecli,  Manilal  Ni-  -  -  -  -  -x  -  -  -  .  105 

Eastman,  Rev.  Annis  F. . 345 

Elliot,  Rev.  Walter . 167 

EI3 Prof.  Richard  T.  550 

Faber,  Dr.  Ernst . .  -  -  .  267 

Feehan,  Archbishop . ----44 

Field,  Dr.  Henry  M. . 452 

Fisher,  George  Park  -  .  .  - . 380 

Fletcher,  Alice  C. . 684 

Gandhi,  Vichand .  61,  701,  732,  854 

Goodspeed,  Prof.  C.  S. . 228 

Gottheil,  Rabbi . 297 

Grant,  J.  A.  S. . 261 

Grant,  Principal  -  -  - . 65 

Gibbons,  Cardinal . 45, 185 

Gladden,  Rev.  Washington . 568 

Gmeiner,  Rev.  John . 781 

Hale,*  Dr.  Edward  Everett  207 

Harris,  W.T. . 116 

Haweis,  Rev.  H.  R. . 422 

Haworth,  Rev.  Dr. . 615 

Headland,  Isaac  T. . 494 

Henderson,  Prof.  C.  R.  --------  -  558 

Henrotin,  Mrs.  Charles  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  857 

Hewitt,  Very  Rev.  Augustus  F,  75 

Higinbotham,  H.  N. . 47 

Higginson,  Col.  Thomas  Wentworth .  364,  510 

Hirai,  Kinza  M.  157,  798 

Hirsch,  Dr.  Emil  .  816,  855 

Howe,  Mrs.  Julia  Ward  764,  859 

Howe,  Prof.  J.  A.  -  736 

Hoyt,  Ex-Governor  618 

Hugenholtz,  Dr.  F.  W.  M.  -  - . 812 

Hultin,  Rev.  Ida  C.  -  -  -  - . -  474 

Hume,  Rev.  R.  A. . -  -  612,  792 

Ignados,  Rev.  A.  Marderos  .......  497,  776 

Jessup,  Rev.  H.  H. . 638 

Jibara,  Very  Rev.  Christophore . 699 

Jones,  Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  - . -  567, 857 

Keane,  Bishop  -  -  - .  185,  191,  838,  861 

Kennedy,  Rev.  T.  J.  .........  498 

Kiretchjian,  Herant  M. .  497,  806 

Kishimoto,  Nobuta  -  -  794 

Kohler,  Dr.  K.  -  -  ...  .  -  .  ,  .  .  145 

Kohut,  Alexander . 308 

Kozaki,  Harnichi . 489 

Kung  Hsien  Ho  -  252 

Lamdis,  J.  P. . 432 

Latas,  Right  Rev.  Dyonisios .  50, 139,  652 

Lazarus,  Miss  Josephine  * . 324 

Lee,  Rev.  James  W.  -  -  390 

Lewis,  Dr.  A.  H. . 350 

Lorimer,  Rev.  George  C. . -  832 

Lyon,  D.  G.  -  - . _  .  .  .  373 

McFadden,  Rev.  John  Duke .  -  824 

McKenzie,  Rev.  Alex.  . . 

Martin,  W.  A.  P.  654 

Masaquois,  Prince  Momolu . -  855 


lyDEX.  rm 

PAGE 

Mendeb,  H.  Peirara  -  -  211 

Mercer,  Rev.  L.  P.  ---------  -  821 

Mills,  Rev.  B.  Pay  -  164 

Modi,  Jinanjo  Jamshodji  --------  -  173 

Momerie,  Dr.  Alfred  W.  ------  68,  84,  625,  847 

Moxon,  Rev.  Phillip  -  --  --  --  --  -  16!) 

Mozoomdar,  P.  C.  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  51,  134. 596,  848 

Monger,  Rev.  Theodore  T.  --------  300 

Murdock,  Mrs.  Marion  ---------  369 

Naddara,  J.  Sauna  Abou  -  - . -  -  653 

Nagarkar,  B.  B.  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  67,  743 

NiccollSj  Rev.  S.  J.  -  -  .  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  73 

Noguchi,  Zenshiro  ----------  156 

O'Gorman,  Prof.  Thos.  -  - . -  -  669 

Peabody,  Prof.  P  G.  -  - . -  -  526 

Pentecost,  Rev.  George  T.  --------  682 

Phiambolis,  Rev.  P.  - . -  ■  643 

Phillips,  Bev.  Maurice  ---------  100 

Post,  Dr.  Geo.  E.  -  -  - .  450, 613 

Powell,  A.  M.  -----------  622 

Pratt,  Prof.  Waldo  S.  -------  ^  -  477 

Pung  Quang  Yu  --------  52,  149,  851 

Redwood,  Archbishop  ---------  ,58 

Rexford,  Rev.  E.  T.  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  202 

Richey,  Rev.  Thomas  -  -  -  - . 703 

Roberts,  Dr.  W.  C. . 148 

Schaff,  Prof.  Phillip  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  711 

Scovell,  Sylvester  S.  427 

Semmes,  Thos.  J.  -  - . -  -  628 

Serabji,  Miss  Jeanni . -  -  67,  535 

Seton,  Mgr,  -----------  305 

Seward,  Theodore  P.  ---------  509 

Sewell,  Rev.  Prank  ----------  319 

Shabita,  Right  Rev.  Mr.  ---------  852 

Silverman,  Rabbi  Joseijh  -  --  --  --  -  636 

Slater,  Rev.  T.  E.  ---------  -  164 

Slattery,  Rev.  J.  R.  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  602 

Smmll,  Prof.  A.  W.  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  587 

Smyth,  Rev.  Julien  K.  -  --  --  --  --  401 

Snell,  Marwin-Marie  ---------  259 

Somerset,  Lady  Henry  ---------  410 

Soyen,  Shaku  -  .  378, 797 

Spencer,  Rev.  Anna  G.  --------  -  512 

Stanton,  Elizabeth  Cady  ---------  753 

Sunderland,  Mrs.  Eliza  R. . 275 

Szold,  Miss  Henrietta  -  --  --  --  --  554 

Tcheraz,  Prof.  Minas . -  62.  452,  785 

Terry,  Milton  S.  -  ---------  312 

Tiele,  C.  P.  -  -  .  .  . . 245 

Toki,  Horin . -  -  222,  779 

Tomlins,  W.  L.  813 

Townsend,  Rev.  Luther  P.  -  - . 728 

Toy,  Prof.  C.  H.  -  - . -  483 

Vivekananda,  Swami .  64,  258,  438,  853 

Wade,  Prof.  Martin  J.  --------  -  339 

Warren,  Rev.  Samuel  N.  --------  -  170 

Washburne,  George  -  -  -  . . 235 

Webb,  Mohammed .  460,  544 


1000 


INDEX. 


Whitman,  Rev.  D.  L. . -  -  720 

Wilkinson,  Prof,  W.  C.  -  -  -  - . 759 

Willard,  Frances  E.  74.7 

Williams,  Mrs.  F.  B. . 631 

Wise,  Dr.  Isaac  - . 96 

Wolkonsky,  Prince  Serge .  52,  268,  649,  850 

Woolley.  Mrs.  Celia  Parker  737 

Wright,  Theodore  F. . 471 

Vatsubuchi,  Banrieu . ,303 

Spirit  and  Matter  (Prof.  C.  N.  Chakrayarrti) . 62 

Stones  for  Bread  . . 506 

Swedenborg- and  Harmony  of  Religion  (Rev.  L.  P.  Mercer)  -  -  821 

Sweden  for  Christ  (Dr.  Carl  von  Bergen)  ------  61 

Sympathy  and  Fraternity,  Grounds  of  (A.  M.  Powell)  -  -  -  622 

Sympathy  from  England  (Rev.  Alfred  W.  Momerie)  -  -  -  -  68 

Syria,  A  Voice  from  (Christophore  Jibara)  --....  699 

Test  of  Works  Applied  (Col.  Thomas  Wentworth  Higginson)  -  -  510 

Theology  of  Judaism  (Dr.  Isaac  Wise)  -------  96 

Toleration;  Plea  for  (Dr.  Henry  M.  Field)  450 

Toleration  (Prof.  Minaz  Tcheraz)  -  -  -  -  -  -  -412 

Ultimate  Religion,  The  (Bishop  John  J.  Keane)  -  -  -  -  -  838 

Universal  Brotherhood  (Prince  Wolkonsky)  .  .  .  .  .  649 

Universal  Religions,  Elements  of  (Dr.  Emil  G.  Hirsch)  ...  816 
Voice  from  New  India  (P.  C.  Mozoomdar)  134 

Weekly  Rest  Day,  Divine  Element  in  (Rev.  Dr.  A.  H.  Lewis)  -  -  350 

Woman  and  the  Pulpit  (Rev.  Antoinette  Brown  Blackwell)  -  -  660 

Woman,  A  New  Testament  (Mrs.  Marion  Murdock)  ....  369 

Woman,  What  Judaism  Has  Done  for  (Miss  Henrietta  Szold)  -  -  554 

Women  of  India  (Jeanni  Serabji)  . 535 

Women,  On  Behalf  of  (Rev.  Augusta  G.  Chapin)  -  -  -  -  46 

Word  from  Bombay  (Vichand  A.  Gandhi)  ....--  61 

Words  on  Toleration  (Count  Bernstorff)  ......  ,55 

World's  Congresses  of  1893  .........  15 

Worship  of  God  in  Man  (Elizabeth  Stanton)  .....  753 

Young  Men  of  the  Orient,  a  Voice  from  (Herant  M.  Kiretchjian)  -  8(X) 


DENOMINATIONAL  AND  OTHER  CONGRESSES. 

Advent  Christian  Church  9,30 

African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  -  '  -  -  -  -  -  -  935 

Catholic  Church  Presentation  - . -  -  904 

Chicago  Tract  Society  9.39 

Christian  Endeavor  965 

Columbian  Catholic  Congress  ........  890 

Congresses  of  the  Lutheran  Church  .......  872 

Congress  of  Disciples  of  Christ  ........  917 

Congress  of  Evolutionists  .........  940 

Congress  of  Jewish  Women  .........  870 

Congress  of  Missions  950 

Congress  of  Theosophists  .........  926 

Congregational  Church  Congress  899 

Congress  of  Wales  -  883 

Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  940 

Ethical  Congress . 945 

Evangelical  Alliance  ..........  965 


INDEX. 


1001 


PAGE 

Evangelical  Association  . 94(j 

Free  Religious  Association  933 

Friends  Congress . 933 

Friends  Church  (Orthodox)  .  -  .  _  .  .  .  _  _  933 

German  Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America  -----  937 

Jewish  Church  Congress  -  --  --  --  --  8G7 

King’s  Daughters  and  Sons  ---------  93G 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church  --------  937 

New  Jerusalem  Church  Congress  -  --  --  --  -  919 

Presbyterian  Church  -  --  --  --  --  -  932 

Presentation  of  Buddhists  -  --  --  --  --  903 

Presentation  of  Christian  Scientists  -------  933 

Reformed  Church  of  the  United  States  ------  938 

Reformed  (Dutch)  Church  -  905 

Reformed  Episcopal  Church  ----  -  931 

Seventh-Day  Baptist  Congress  -------  921 

Sunday-Rest  Congress  -  --  --  --  --  -  957 

Sunday-School  Presentation  --------  -  905 

Swedish  Evangelical  Mission  Covenant  ------  939 

United  Brethren  Church  -  --  --  --  --  931 

Unitarian  Church  Congress  ---------  928 

Universalis!  Congress  ----------  915 

Woman’s  Missions  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  905 

Young  Men's  Christian  Association  -------  9GC 

Young  Women’s  Christian  Association . 902 


BIOGRAPHIES,  ARTICLES,  AND  OPINIONS. 

A  Limitless  Sweep  of  Thought  (Madeleine  Vinton  Dahlgren)  -  -  982 

Barrows.  Dr.  John  Henry . 972 

Bonney,  Charles  Carroll  971 

Building  a  Great  Religion  (Prof.  David  Swing)  -  -  .  .  .  974 

Latas.  Very  Rev.  Dionysios  ---------  972 

Opinions . ------  -  984 

Song  of  Prophecy  (John  W.  Hutchinson) . 983 

The  Wise  Men  of  the  East  (Mary  Atwater  Neely)  .  .  .  .  979 


V 


.  ’A 

|•*'k-•4•W^  .  •  •  ,  .  -■ 


■ 


>  '''»■*?,  ’' o'>» 

/■  '•■  .  ■*  r»'. 


«  » 


^  «  I^>v‘  •4'  •. ■  •  ■ . •  :j?;: '  . 


.'y 

*^-.i  —  ■ 


\  .t'- 

J^. 


£^'- 

rrr 

Ir: 


%■ 

I'-??* 


Ei 


rtu^ 


^y,-  -  ■ 


^;i!v  '■;  ■■■ 

A^;.*:.-  -  ;  '  ,  ■  :  ,  ■  ,  4  y  •i-V-v^AwS 


V  .  ■  <  . 


v:  *»':'■> 


•i''^  ■  ■ 


V-:  r'-W 

-  'K'^- 

.1.*^  T  .  ■  ‘  .  -  i'j  _•-. 


‘  ..  ^-At 

•vjeota^  .Ci. 


-1.'^  - 


;4' 


N»' 


-.  .  ;  ...  .r'-{- 

.■:  V  •  •-  <.  '’->>••■ 


•  '.  ,f 

'■  Vi 


-^1 


-■1  -^y-' 
-  ^y.  *  , 


••  V’  X 

•>S^  J^. 
T.., 


m 


,'y 


-V--  .  M 


s'  ff  '  P 

■f  »  ?  ‘  ! 


-‘'  f, 

-  i  *  ^ 


S 


^  "  ■  ■  •  ;  .  -■ . 

.  .  -  •■  '■  ■  •  ^  ■*'•*  '^  •  *'  /  •  -  i.  «  •  -  '■"  I 

‘  **  i  .•  f"*  ^  ^  ’,  V  *•.'  :•  *  .'♦*'*  •’*■#■  ''■  ft? 

,  :■ ..  ,  •  v/: .‘  ■:  -  ..  '"viSi 


W-5-'  ■  V-- 

i  V.  ‘ 


If ,  ^ -  A  ’  V 

>.  ’  l'  ■>  .  . 


>y> 


-•■  ;  > 


.'W 


ry<-<:  ■--'  t 

*  ;'- 


^  .  C  V-'  " 


iT^  >  '  ’ .  ■ 

tv'  : 


”Vi; '  '-■  fl'  ' 

"v  •  -  ' 


■-  V  -  .  •^. 

,.  ■■  .V  -Vv- 


'-  «-  ■  ^  ^  ‘  **  >  ff* . H  -r V* 

^  ..  .  .^  -  -•  ,»j» ?r.j  ‘r-v^vi 


i*/'-  '- 


*.  y.. 


? Av-H  - 


.,  ..... 

■:  ’'VA  ^ 


'  i 


'■iv 


-  <•.:  -  -  - 
y  ^  ki- 


•  .  V.'Jt  ■  J  '.,' 

''-4 


‘  t  ‘  / . 


■r  - 


r 


^  ' 


;f  i.- 


>>  .  5^.-.* 


i- 

-  •  ^''  .  V  i 
*•  * '  ‘‘  '  ‘r  ^ 


■  ■■  V  ■ 

-•■  r 


.-f^;  .A"  '  . 

Sf- ;.' ■  . «, 


'  ‘r  ^ 


.‘v  :r  •  ■  -  -•  -f  ^  ■.; 


<  /  t.  ' 


^  ’i  'T, 


■  .V,' 


-.-'rt. 


-;t:-fr'^- 


*’  .'.,  t-A  .*£• 


'  -.c  \ 


r  >  'k 


,-:>  ...  .  ..'  -;.  •,  ♦  ■  -  tv  .y--  '  \  I  -v;"-  ■  •'•  -^i.'J^..  . 

r  A  - . ;  -.r, ,:%'•■•-  y  y  V- 

u.-..  f '  v.i.<,-.  l-«r.‘',;..;'  -  .  >.*  k  V  ■■..'■  ••  '  i.-*  Z  '■'  •  .'tv.*  -'r'  s-  ^  .‘-i 

, :  .„■  ■; .  -:■  >  v.;.o ■  , . 

-  *..vA»r-  —  ^  v^  ■  .  .  •  '  "  '-:  \i  -  *  ^  •.«  '  -.  .•  j? 


-  •• 


‘.S' 

y. . 


I -j^,..' '''*'< •'•  "V 

V'..  '■  '^•ngw,,'.  , 


yJ  ' 

.^K  ■*.  ,  *’  ' 


•  v  >■,  € 
r^.  '  '  '  ;. 


K  ';,.  /  ^  ' 

-T.. 


\vfe 


'■  ■  .- v.'-Vs..- .  -i  ■  ••' 

'  .'i*  -  ..  ^ 

'1.  .  •  •  '^  ^ '■  V--- 

:  ■■■*'■”  ■.  '  '  v  •  - 

‘1  ,  ■  ^  .  >  /- ,  ' 


.■t.‘4 

'un 


■:^- 


\<''»  -• 
"  .  41.  j  . 


>■ 


■':  ttf.-  ■  <  ■•  -■'  ■•-■  ■>'''«  ■  - 

"  /--  ■  ..•  a  ''*‘-  ,  *  T\'/'  '  ^‘Vv‘ 


■’  '  *i-  *  •  '  .  ■  ■••  •^-  ■  .  9''*-  '-  '  ■  .^'V 

•'^^’.’\-l  .  '  y*  .  v'^V  ''v-w 

-  -  .»•  .  •»  -  V  V  •  r  //  .  •s,  ..  y  - . 


-  ....c.-'  .V 

•  f  •*  .  ..?  *  ^ 


.  •  •  .-',  .,  -I 

■f-  .-.  '. 

■  ,r^' JK- 


•/-  t: 


•■ -r^'-  jjV  >’wi> 


•■ .  >. ..■ ' '  >.  t-  ■^•.• 

_.,  .  .  _  ., _ vy^iVv  .  '''v,'. -w"-''  ■'■•4  ■■' 

'  V-  '■'••-■ 


•'^  1  ...‘ 


<i: 

C 

.,C 

:  .€!-/<■  <i':^ 

c 

c 

E"'  C.Ci^ 

c: 

c 

c 

^'cc'^E 

@1 

M 

r  c 

m 

'T 

i;iL 

<: 

c 

7ti~-  - 

'•J 

